Skip to content

README.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
77 lines (60 loc) · 1.78 KB

README.md

File metadata and controls

77 lines (60 loc) · 1.78 KB

Assessment 02: Core

Goal

Practice validation, aggregation, file output, and defensive handling of mixed-quality input.

Task

Write a program that:

  1. Repeatedly reads integer scores until the user enters -1.
  2. Accepts only values in the range 0..100.
  3. Ignores invalid numeric values outside the accepted range.
  4. Prints:
  • count of valid scores
  • average score
  • minimum score
  • maximum score
  • frequency table by tens (0-9, 10-19, ..., 90-100)
  1. Writes the same report to core_assessment_report.txt.

Learning Metadata

  • Difficulty: Intermediate.
  • Estimated Time: 45-60 minutes.
  • Prerequisites: All 02-core modules, especially input-validation, maps-and-frequency-counting, and error-handling-and-defensive-programming.
  • Learning Focus: Prove validation, aggregation, defensive handling, and report generation under mixed-quality input.

Quick Run

python main.py

Sample Input

91
88
72
105
60
-1

Sample Output (shape)

Valid scores: 4
Average: 77.75
Minimum: 60
Maximum: 91
Frequency:
- 0-9: 0
- 10-19: 0
- 20-29: 0
- 30-39: 0
- 40-49: 0
- 50-59: 0
- 60-69: 1
- 70-79: 1
- 80-89: 1
- 90-100: 1
Report written to core_assessment_report.txt

Cross-Language Notes

  • Compared with the C++ assessment, this version shortens the mechanics of filtering and counting while keeping the same correctness bar.
  • Relative to C#, Go, and TypeScript, more trust is placed in disciplined runtime checks than in compile-time structure.
  • The comparison to watch is concise code versus explicit static guarantees.

What To Check

  • out-of-range or malformed values do not pollute the valid-score summary
  • frequency buckets match the accepted scores exactly
  • the generated report contains the same summary shape promised by the README