Clarification of test cases of CHEFROUT (MAY17) .

The test cases aren’t clear. Say in Case of SC. Why is the answer no. WHat if the chef followed following routine CESCES and bot missed the first cooking and eating log and the last eating and sleeping log, hence SC ? Pls clarify

1 Like

I thought the same thing but after a couple of attempts and reading the question was able to understand what was going on. I’d recommend you read the problem carefully and try to understand what/when the robot records. Explanation of the test case is going to make the answer obvious, hence I won’t do it here. And in general, if you have any questions regarding a problem of an ongoing question, post a comment on the question page itself, you’re likely to get a response from the problem setter then.

1 Like

In this problem CESCES and CECECS should be accepted or not.??

Please ask this in comment section than in discuss section!

I did. Guess the admin is too busy to reply.

Will it be a “No” if the input is “ES” ?

But admin will be able to provide better insight to your query than us, because we can just guess but @admin ll know the constraint better

1 Like

It depends on what approach we are taking. As of now the given test cases are too unclear to me to judge the above test case.

Even i didnt get what was required in first glance !!
All i can say is try every logic u make out of the given test cases and run them !!
After all Long contest doesnt count attemps made (tho 500 max attempts are allowed ):stuck_out_tongue:

hey @manumeral_80 , you shouldn’t be asking these things about problems of ongoing contest at this platform .

1 Like

Read the question again carefully, focus on each and every word. That’s all I can tell you.
All the best :slight_smile:

1 Like

Same here! This is hardest easiest problem for me! :stuck_out_tongue: Statement and test cases are very ambiguous. I tried asking them in comment section but no reply!

Finally ! Yes, each and every word is important :wink:

I told u .

2 Likes

True that. Reading it carefully was needed, but i still say the Q was pretty ambiguous.

2 Likes
//