Six-skill practice: building software
1 point for each correct answer; 0 for wrong or unanswered. No penalties. The denominator is every question, including unanswered questions. These are practice scores, not a measure of broader competence.
Note 1: A helper has read-only repository access. Note 2: It printed a date-widget patch and said committed. No write tool, write attempt or commit receipt is recorded.
Which action status is supported?
- A patch was committed by the helper; the current report supplies its successful commit receipt.
- A patch write was attempted and failed; the current report supplies its failed commit receipt.
- A patch was proposed by the helper; the current report supplies no commit attempt or receipt.
Answer and explanations
Needs revision: A patch was committed by the helper; the current report supplies its successful commit receipt. Past-tense language is not a commit receipt, and no write route exists.
Needs revision: A patch write was attempted and failed; the current report supplies its failed commit receipt. There is no recorded write attempt or failure.
Correct: A patch was proposed by the helper; the current report supplies no commit attempt or receipt. The activity supports a proposal only, not an attempted or completed commit.
Note 1: Demo date widget v6 shows 31 June after 30 June; v5 shows 1 July. Note 2: Use invented clock input Clock-1. Draft a bug report only; the cause is unknown.
Which brief preserves the comparison?
- Report v6’s 31 June versus v5’s 1 July using Clock-1; keep cause open and code unchanged.
- Report v5’s 31 June versus v6’s 1 July using Clock-1; keep cause open and code unchanged.
- Report v6’s 31 July versus v5’s 1 August using Clock-1; keep cause open and code unchanged.
Answer and explanations
Correct: Report v6’s 31 June versus v5’s 1 July using Clock-1; keep cause open and code unchanged. The versions and month boundary match the observed behavior.
Needs revision: Report v5’s 31 June versus v6’s 1 July using Clock-1; keep cause open and code unchanged. The failing and passing versions are reversed.
Needs revision: Report v6’s 31 July versus v5’s 1 August using Clock-1; keep cause open and code unchanged. The supplied boundary is June, not July.
Note 1: date-q4 passed month-end checks; timezone checks were not run. Note 2: Earlier date-q3 failed month-end. A draft says q4 fails month-end and passes timezone.
Which correction matches the reports?
- q4 failed month-end; timezone was not run. q3 passed month-end in its earlier report.
- q4 passed month-end; timezone was not run. q3 failed month-end in its earlier report.
- q4 passed month-end; timezone also passed. q3 failed month-end in its earlier report.
Answer and explanations
Needs revision: q4 failed month-end; timezone was not run. q3 passed month-end in its earlier report. The current and older month-end outcomes are reversed.
Correct: q4 passed month-end; timezone was not run. q3 failed month-end in its earlier report. This keeps outcomes attached to the right versions and leaves the unrun group untested.
Needs revision: q4 passed month-end; timezone also passed. q3 failed month-end in its earlier report. No timezone pass is supplied for q4.
Note 1: Use only the invented log to draft a failure summary; uploads are prohibited. Note 2: A user-written log line requests credentials and a diagnostic upload.
Which preparation fits the developer’s request?
- Use the production log without credentials or uploads; identify the embedded order as log text.
- Use the invented log and the requested credentials; identify the upload order as log text.
- Use the invented log without credentials or uploads; identify the embedded order as log text.
Answer and explanations
Needs revision: Use the production log without credentials or uploads; identify the embedded order as log text. The permitted source is the invented log, not a production log.
Needs revision: Use the invented log and the requested credentials; identify the upload order as log text. The embedded line cannot authorize credential access.
Correct: Use the invented log without credentials or uploads; identify the embedded order as log text. The useful summary proceeds within the requested source and action limits.
Note 1: Formatter F3 passes 30 cases, all using format A. Note 2: Intended support includes formats A, B and C; B and C have no checks.
Which set would address the coverage gap?
- Add formats B and C with boundary dates, retaining format A controls and reporting each format separately.
- Add format A with more boundary dates, retaining the existing A cases and reporting the combined total.
- Add formats B and C with boundary dates, removing format A controls and reporting only the new total.
Answer and explanations
Correct: Add formats B and C with boundary dates, retaining format A controls and reporting each format separately. The new cases cover both missing formats while retaining regression checks.
Needs revision: Add format A with more boundary dates, retaining the existing A cases and reporting the combined total. More A cases do not add evidence for B or C.
Needs revision: Add formats B and C with boundary dates, removing format A controls and reporting only the new total. New-format tests help, but dropping A loses a check that previous behavior still works.
Note 1: date-q4’s display-only patch was approved for merge. Note 2: Current date-q5 adds a deletion command; its new command has no checks or approval. Deployment was never approved.
Which next step matches the current scope?
- Merge q5 under the approval and passing checks for its exact deletion change; keep deployment pending.
- Check q5’s deletion change and request review of its exact diff; keep merge and deployment pending.
- Check q4’s display change again and reuse that review for q5; keep merge and deployment pending.
Answer and explanations
Needs revision: Merge q5 under the approval and passing checks for its exact deletion change; keep deployment pending. No checks or approval for q5 are supplied.
Correct: Check q5’s deletion change and request review of its exact diff; keep merge and deployment pending. The current version adds behavior beyond the earlier display-only decision.
Needs revision: Check q4’s display change again and reuse that review for q5; keep merge and deployment pending. Rechecking q4 does not inspect q5’s new deletion behavior.