Solution

[Rafael-deCarvalho]

No description provided.

[mateacademy-ai-mentor]

Review Summary

Your test file correctly validates all required functionality for the split_integer function. All 5 tests properly verify the expected behavior, and the core requirements are met. That said, there are a couple of style improvements worth noting for future reference. First, you can simplify by inlining function calls directly in assertions rather than assigning to intermediate result variables—something like assert split_integer(11, 3) == [3, 4, 4] instead of storing the result first. Second, test_sum_of_the_parts_should_be_equal_to_value should compare the actual result array to the expected value rather than just checking the sum; comparing [3, 4, 4] directly validates both the correctness of values and the number of parts. These are minor improvements that help with code clarity, but they don't block the task completion since your tests are functionally correct.

---

✨ Please rate this review in the Platform's notification center¹. I will be grateful for your feedback! ✨

Footnotes

1. Rate AI review example ↩

[mateacademy-ai-mentor]

This violates checklist item #1: unnecessary result variable. Inline the function call: assert sum(split_integer(11, 3)) == 11

[mateacademy-ai-mentor]

This violates both checklist items: #1 - unnecessary result variable, and #2 - asserts on sum(result) instead of comparing the actual result array.

[mateacademy-ai-mentor]

This violates checklist item #1: unnecessary result variable. Inline: assert split_integer(7, 1) == [7]

[mateacademy-ai-mentor]

This violates checklist item #1: unnecessary result variable. Inline: assert split_integer(11, 3) == [3, 4, 4]

[mateacademy-ai-mentor]

This violates checklist item #1: unnecessary result variable. Inline: assert split_integer(3, 5) == [0, 0, 1, 1, 1]