challenge-17/submissions/grozdovk/solution-template.go (3)

8-21: Consider using a more flexible input method.

fmt.Scanln stops reading at the first whitespace, so multi-word inputs like "A man a plan a canal Panama" would only process "A". For comprehensive palindrome testing, consider using bufio.Scanner or fmt.Scan with a full line read.

Example refactor:

+import (
+	"bufio"
 	"fmt"
+	"os"
 	"strings"
+)

 func main() {
 	// Get input from the user
 	var input string
 	fmt.Print("Enter a string to check if it's a palindrome: ")
-	fmt.Scanln(&input)
+	scanner := bufio.NewScanner(os.Stdin)
+	if scanner.Scan() {
+		input = scanner.Text()
+	}

---

26-27: Remove the TODO comment.

The function is fully implemented, so the TODO comment should be removed.

-	// TODO: Implement this function
-	// 1. Clean the string (remove spaces, punctuation, and convert to lowercase)

---

28-42: Implementation is correct.

The palindrome logic correctly handles case insensitivity and filters non-alphanumeric characters. The two-step approach (clean then reverse-and-compare) works well.

Optional: You could optimize by using a two-pointer comparison instead of creating a reversed copy:

// After getting cleanedString and runes:
for i, j := 0, len(runes)-1; i < j; i, j = i+1, j-1 {
    if runes[i] != runes[j] {
        return false
    }
}
return true

This avoids allocating memory for the reversed string.

challenge-27/submissions/grozdovk/solution-template.go (6)

12-34: Pair implementation looks good.

The generic Pair struct and its methods are correctly implemented. Remember to remove the TODO comments on lines 20 and 29 since the implementation is complete.

---

40-97: Stack implementation is correct.

All Stack methods (Push, Pop, Peek, Size, IsEmpty) are properly implemented with appropriate error handling for empty stack operations.

Minor formatting inconsistencies on lines 65, 79, and 96: add spaces around the == operator for consistency with Go conventions (e.g., len(s.elements) == 0). Also, remove the TODO comments since the implementation is complete.

---

103-158: Queue implementation is functionally correct.

All Queue methods work as expected with proper error handling for empty queue operations.

Optional improvements:

• Add spaces around == operators (lines 128, 141, 157) for consistency
• Remove TODO comments since implementation is complete
• Consider that Dequeue at line 132 using q.elements[1:] can lead to memory retention in long-running scenarios, as the underlying array keeps references to dequeued elements. For production code, periodically copying to a fresh slice when the queue is smaller than the capacity would help, but for a learning exercise this is fine.

---

164-211: Set implementation and operations are correct.

The Set data structure and all its methods work properly. Union, Intersection, and Difference operations are implemented correctly.

Optional improvements:

• Consider using map[T]struct{} instead of map[T]any (line 167) to save memory, as you only need the keys
• In Elements() (line 206), preallocate the slice with capacity: make([]T, 0, len(s.elements)) for better performance
• Add spaces around comparison operators for consistency with Go style
• Remove TODO comments

---

213-254: Set operations are correctly implemented.

Union, Intersection, and Difference operations correctly handle the set algebra. The logic for each operation is sound.

Remember to remove the TODO comments on lines 215, 230, and 244.

---

260-325: Generic utility functions are well implemented.

All utility functions (Filter, Map, Reduce, Contains, FindIndex, RemoveDuplicates) correctly implement their expected behaviors. The use of generics makes these reusable across different types.

Minor items:

• Remove TODO comments (lines 262, 274, 284, 293, 304, 315)
• Add spaces around comparison operators for consistency

packages/gorm/challenge-1-crud-operations/submissions/grozdovk/solution.go (1)

38-84: CRUD helpers are correct; consider simplifying existence checks using RowsAffected

The CRUD functions are logically correct and propagate errors cleanly. CreateUser, GetUserByID, and GetAllUsers are already minimal and fine.

For UpdateUser and DeleteUser, you’re doing a First followed by Save/Delete. That enforces a “must exist” contract but costs an extra query and still has a small time‑of‑check/time‑of‑use gap. If you don’t strictly need a separate pre‑check, you could instead rely on RowsAffected to detect missing rows after a single operation, e.g.:

• For updates: run a single Update/Updates and return gorm.ErrRecordNotFound (or similar) when RowsAffected == 0.
• For deletes: run a single Delete and treat RowsAffected == 0 as “user not found”.

This would reduce DB round‑trips while keeping clear not‑found semantics, at the cost of slightly different GORM behavior (e.g., Updates vs Save regarding zero‑values), so worth aligning with the challenge requirements before changing.

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro