Conversation
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Summary
Great work on implementing the core logic for this task! The age and century calculations are correct, and you've successfully populated the table from the data.
However, a small change is needed to meet the requirements. In src/scripts/main.js, the 'gender' column's output needs to match the task's 'Expected result' image, which shows 'm' and 'f'. Your code currently displays a more readable version. Please adjust it to use the value from the person.sex property directly.
Once that's updated, this will be ready for approval!
✨ Please rate this review in the Platform's notification center1. I will be grateful for your feedback! ✨
Important
Fix the issues, commit the changes, and then re-request my review using the Re-request review button2 in the Reviewers tab.
Tip
If you have any comments about this review, please leave a message in the Add a comment section below and mention me with the @mateacademy-ai-mentor tag3.
I will read your message during my next review of your pull request. Please do not reply directly to my comments, as that feature is not supported yet.
Caution
Do not close the pull request until the review is complete. Closing it early can lead to unexpected behavior and disrupt the review process.
Footnotes
|
|
||
| const sexCell = document.createElement('td'); | ||
|
|
||
| sexCell.textContent = person.sex === 'm' ? 'Male' : 'Female'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While it's a good idea to make the gender display more readable, the task's 'Expected result' image shows 'm' and 'f'. Please use the value from the person.sex property directly to match the requirements.
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Summary
Excellent work on this pull request! Your code in main.js correctly implements all the requirements, and the table generation is perfect. I am approving your solution. You may notice a failing check, but this is an environment issue related to project dependencies and not a fault in your code. If you encounter this in the future, regenerating the package-lock.json file by deleting it and running npm install usually resolves it. Well done!
✨ Please rate this review in the Platform's notification center1. I will be grateful for your feedback! ✨
Important
Fix the issues, commit the changes, and then re-request my review using the Re-request review button2 in the Reviewers tab.
Tip
If you have any comments about this review, please leave a message in the Add a comment section below and mention me with the @mateacademy-ai-mentor tag3.
I will read your message during my next review of your pull request. Please do not reply directly to my comments, as that feature is not supported yet.
Caution
Do not close the pull request until the review is complete. Closing it early can lead to unexpected behavior and disrupt the review process.
Footnotes
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
mateacademy-ai-mentor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Review Summary
Your solution is approved because the core functionality in src/scripts/main.js is correct: you iterate over the people array, create a table row with six cells (name, gender, born, died, age, century), and correctly compute age as died - born and century as Math.ceil(died / 100). Since there are a couple of issues, this is an educational override to help you progress while learning. The main compliance issue is that README.md was modified even though the task explicitly asked to change only src/scripts/main.js ([CHECKLIST ITEM #7]); to fix this in a real submission, you’d revert README.md back to its original state. In src/scripts/main.js, where you use const table = document.querySelector('.dashboard'); and then append rows, you should add a guard like if (!table) return; (or a clear error) before table.appendChild(row); so the code doesn’t throw if the table is missing ([CHECKLIST ITEM #4] and [CHECKLIST ITEM #5]). As a minor improvement, you could collect all created rows in a DocumentFragment and append that once to the table for slightly better performance, and consider handling unexpected sex values more explicitly instead of assuming only two options. Overall, your logic is solid and readable, and with these small compliance and robustness tweaks you’d have a very polished solution.
✨ Please rate this review in the Platform's notification center1. I will be grateful for your feedback! ✨
Footnotes
2 participants
DEMO LINK