Add basic code generation challenge

[waynehamadi]

Background

Changes

PR Quality Checklist

• I have run the following commands against my code to ensure it passes our linters:

  black .
  isort .
  mypy .
  autoflake --remove-all-unused-imports --recursive --ignore-init-module-imports --ignore-pass-after-docstring --in-place agbenchmark

[ai-maintainer]

AI-Maintainer Review for PR - Add basic code generation challenge

Title and Description ❌

The title and description need more detail

The title "Add basic code generation challenge" gives a general idea of what the PR is about, but it could be more specific. The description is empty, which leaves a lot of questions about the purpose and context of the changes. Please provide more detail in both the title and description, including the motivation behind the changes, any relevant context or prior discussions, and how the changes align with the project's overall direction.

Scope of Changes ✅

The changes are narrowly focused

The changes in this PR are narrowly focused on adding a new code generation challenge. The changes include the addition of a copy_artifacts_into_workspace function in the setup_challenge method, the creation of new files in the challenges/code/d4/artifacts_out directory, and the addition of a test.py file in the challenges/code/d4/hidden_files directory. There are no unrelated or "extra" changes in the diff.

Testing ❌

Testing details are missing

The description does not provide any information about how the changes were tested. Please include details about the testing approach, the test cases used, the expected outcomes of the tests, and any test frameworks or tools employed.

Docstrings ❌

Docstrings are missing for some functions and methods

The following functions and methods need docstrings to describe their behavior, arguments, and return values:

1. setup_challenge method in challenge.py module.
2. two_sum function in code.py module.
3. test_two_sum function in test.py module.

Suggested Changes

1. Please provide a more detailed title and description for the PR.
2. Include information about how the changes were tested in the PR description.
3. Add docstrings to the setup_challenge method, two_sum function, and test_two_sum function.

Thank you for your contribution!

Reviewed with AI Maintainer

[SilenNaihin]

I think it would be good to be more descriptive here. A heuristic for what answer is: a quick sentence you can read to understand what the response should be without needing to read anything else

[SilenNaihin]

can you add a mark here for "generate" and create another mark called "iterate" & add it to pyproject.toml? this way the code category stays solid but these markers can be used globally (also for other challenges such as writing)

[SilenNaihin]

this seems to me to be maybe a novice level challenge? maybe not basic but this is a nitpick if you think its basic thats fine

[SilenNaihin]

can you write what these hidden_files are in the read me? doesnt have to be structured but for my own understanding what the difference between these and artifacts_out

[ai-maintainer]

AI-Maintainer Review for PR - Add basic code generation challenge

Title and Description 👍

The title is clear and concise

The title of the pull request, "Add basic code generation challenge," provides a clear and concise overview of the purpose of the changes. However, the description of the pull request is missing. It would be beneficial to have a description that provides more context and explains the rationale behind adding the code generation challenge. This would help reviewers and future contributors understand the motivation behind the changes.

Scope of Changes 👍

The changes are narrowly focused

The changes in this pull request are narrowly focused on adding a basic code generation challenge. The diff only includes modifications related to this specific challenge, such as adding new files, modifying existing code, and updating documentation related to the challenge. There are no unrelated or "extra" changes present in the diff.

Testing ⚠️

Testing details are missing

The description of the pull request does not explicitly describe how the author tested the changes. It only includes a PR Quality Checklist that mentions running various commands against the code to ensure it passes linters. While running linters is a good practice, it would be beneficial for the author to provide more information about the testing process. This could include details on any additional tests performed, such as unit tests, integration tests, or manual testing.

Docstrings ⚠️

Docstrings are missing for some functions

The following functions, classes, or methods do not have docstrings:

• setup_challenge in agbenchmark/challenge.py (line 46)
• test_method in agbenchmark/challenge.py (line 52)
• two_sum in agbenchmark/challenges/code/d4/artifacts_out/code.py (line 1)
• test_two_sum in agbenchmark/challenges/code/d4/hidden_files/test.py (line 5)

These functions, classes, or methods should have docstrings added to describe their behavior, arguments, and return values.

Suggested Changes

• Please add a detailed description to the pull request explaining the rationale behind the changes and how you tested them.
• Add docstrings to the setup_challenge, test_method, two_sum, and test_two_sum functions to describe their behavior, arguments, and return values.

Reviewed with AI Maintainer