Skip to content

Conversation

@Feminto
Copy link

@Feminto Feminto commented Jun 10, 2025

No description provided.

@super30admin
Copy link
Owner

Let's evaluate each file separately:

  1. Article View I.py:
  • Correctness: The solution correctly identifies authors who viewed their own articles by comparing author_id and viewer_id, then returns unique sorted IDs. This appears correct.
  • Time Complexity: O(n) for filtering + O(m log m) for sorting (where m is number of matches), which is reasonable.
  • Space Complexity: O(m) for storing filtered results, which is optimal.
  • Code Quality: Good variable naming and clean structure. Could add a docstring explaining the function.
  • Efficiency: Could potentially use drop_duplicates() instead of unique() to avoid creating intermediate arrays.
  1. InvalidTweets.py:
  • Correctness: The solution correctly filters tweets with content length >15 characters, but the problem might require tweets with <=15 characters (invalid ones). This appears to be the opposite of what's typically required.
  • Time Complexity: O(n) for filtering, which is optimal.
  • Space Complexity: O(k) where k is number of matches, which is optimal.
  • Code Quality: Clean and simple, but needs a docstring. Variable name 'df' could be more descriptive.
  • Efficiency: The string length operation is efficient, but the logic might be reversed from requirements.

Key improvements needed:

  • For InvalidTweets.py, verify if the filtering condition is correct (should likely be <=15)
  • Both files should include docstrings
  • Consider more descriptive variable names in some cases
  • Article View I could use drop_duplicates() for slightly better efficiency

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants