fix(option1): Add test for prematurely passing exercise
Fixes the bug referenced in #160, but does not address the larger feature work referenced by the issue.
fix(test1): Swap assertion parameter order
`Expected` should come before `actual`, other wise it leads to confusing compiler messages, e.g.
```
note: expected type `()`
found type `{integer}`
```
There may be other tests that need updating, but this is as far as I am through the Rustlings course right now :)
`Expected` should come before `actual`, other wise it leads to confusing compiler messages, e.g.
```
note: expected type `()`
found type `{integer}`
```
feat(iterators2): adds iterators2 exercise including config
Hi there!
I really enjoyed doing the rustlings exercises so I thought that I would try to add an exercise!
This one just covers a couple of basic iterator operations. Getting people used to the `map` and `collect` functions.
However, it does feel kinda similar to the next exercise. So I may also revisit some of the tests in iterators3 if we think that is necessary.
chore: Fix a couple broken book links
While I was fixing these, I figured maybe it's good to just use a consistent URL for book links: https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/
Is there a plan for what to do with this old 1.4.0 example that doesn't exist in the current version of the book? Perhaps at least include a disclaimer when recommending that folks check it out?
34e31232df/exercises/threads/README.md (L1)
chore: Clean up some formatting in exercises
I noticed some formatting that isn't consistent with the `rustfmt` style and tried my best to run it on the files in the exercises directory (which does fail for files that can't compile!), which just caught some minor whitespace things here and there.
Note: also can't just apply `rustfmt` blindly because of the blank lines that lead to the hint comments
Fixes the irrefutable let pattern warning in `structs1.rs`
PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rustlings/pull/163 accidentally introduced an error using some versions of the Rust compiler where the compiler would (rightly!) complain about an irrefutable let pattern. I have no idea why this did not occur in all versions of the compiler, but here is a way around it.
fix(installation): Fix rustlings installation check
fixes#147
I did some quick testing with the `-x` check:
```sh
if [ -x "$(notrustlings)" ]
then
echo "notrustlings does not exist"
else
echo "notrustlings appears to exist!"
notrustlings
fi
```
which produced:
```
./test.sh: line 12: notrustlings: command not found
notrustlings appears to exist!
./test.sh: line 17: notrustlings: command not found
```
(consistent with comments in issue)
Using `if ! [ -x "$(command -v <command>)" ]` appears to be the standard way to perform this type of check.
chore: Minor text updates
- Make the default rustlings executable text consistent with the README and install script by adding `--force`.
- Remove a missed highlighting character from Issue #133.
