Problems 1925 3100 3133 3164 3197 3228 3260 3291 3320 3351 3380 3413 3444 3471 #107
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…s 1925, 3100, 3133, 3164, 3197, 3228, 3260, 3291, 3320, 3351, 3380, 3413, 3444, 3471 - Solutions verified and accepted via LeetCode submitter - Created explanations following required structure - Updated normalize_json.py to follow Prettier style with one number per line for arrays - Fixed solutions for 3380 (rectangle validation) and 3291 (Trie optimization)
- Attempted multiple optimization approaches for large n cases - Current solution passes 592/632 test cases - Note: TLE on very large n (7500+), may need different algorithm approach
|
You have run out of free Bugbot PR reviews for this billing cycle. This will reset on January 1. To receive reviews on all of your PRs, visit the Cursor dashboard to activate Pro and start your 14-day free trial. |
Contributor
Reviewer's GuideRefactors multiple LeetCode solutions for performance/clarity, introduces detailed English explanations for several problems, strengthens geometric and DP/string algorithms, and enhances the JSON normalization script to output sorted, Prettier-style formatted data. Class diagram for updated Trie-based solution in problem 3291classDiagram
class Solution_3291 {
+minValidStrings(words: List_str, target: str) int
}
class TrieNode {
+children: Dict_char_TrieNode
+is_end: bool
+__init__()
}
Solution_3291 ..> TrieNode : uses
TrieNode o--> TrieNode : children
File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed. WalkthroughThis pull request adds comprehensive explanatory documentation for 11 LeetCode-style problems, enhances the JSON normalization script with a Prettier-style formatter function, optimizes multiple algorithm solutions with improved approaches (digit-by-digit construction, Trie-based prefix matching, validated rectangle detection, and parameterized removal-time logic), and updates the Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 4 (Complex) | ⏱️ ~50 minutes Areas requiring extra attention:
Poem
✨ Finishing touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: CodeRabbit UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro 📒 Files selected for processing (19)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
romankurnovskii
deleted the
problems-1925-3100-3133-3164-3197-3228-3260-3291-3320-3351-3380-3413-3444-3471
branch
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey there - I've reviewed your changes - here's some feedback:
- In
solutions/3260/01.py, the inner loop repeatedly callspow(10, pos, k)andpow(10, mirror_pos, k)for the same positions; precomputing these powers for all indices once before the DP loop will significantly reduce overhead. - In
solutions/3380/01.py, membership checks likecorner3 in points/corner4 in pointsand the per-iterationtuple(point)conversions could be optimized by building a singlesetof point tuples up front and reusing it for existence and corner checks. - In
scripts/normalize_json.py, the formatter claims to followprintWidth=150but uses a hardcodedtotal_length < 100threshold for deciding single-line arrays; align this heuristic with the documented print width to better match the stated Prettier style.
Prompt for AI Agents
Please address the comments from this code review:
## Overall Comments
- In `solutions/3260/01.py`, the inner loop repeatedly calls `pow(10, pos, k)` and `pow(10, mirror_pos, k)` for the same positions; precomputing these powers for all indices once before the DP loop will significantly reduce overhead.
- In `solutions/3380/01.py`, membership checks like `corner3 in points` / `corner4 in points` and the per-iteration `tuple(point)` conversions could be optimized by building a single `set` of point tuples up front and reusing it for existence and corner checks.
- In `scripts/normalize_json.py`, the formatter claims to follow `printWidth=150` but uses a hardcoded `total_length < 100` threshold for deciding single-line arrays; align this heuristic with the documented print width to better match the stated Prettier style.
## Individual Comments
### Comment 1
<location> `solutions/3260/01.py:72` </location>
<code_context>
+ if len(res) == n and res[0] != '0':
+ return res
+
+ return str(k) * n
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**issue (bug_risk):** The fallback `return str(k) * n` likely violates the palindrome/divisibility contract.
This fallback string isn’t guaranteed to be a palindrome for multi‑digit `k`, nor divisible by `k`, so it changes behavior from the previous "no solution" case (empty string) to returning an invalid result. If the problem guarantees a solution, this branch can be removed; otherwise, either restore the empty-string behavior or construct a result that still meets the palindrome and divisibility constraints.
</issue_to_address>
### Comment 2
<location> `solutions/3260/01.py:25-29` </location>
<code_context>
+ mirror_pos = n - 1 - pos
+
+ # Calculate new remainder
+ if pos == mirror_pos:
+ power = pow(10, pos, k)
+ new_rem = (rem + digit * power) % k
+ else:
+ left_power = pow(10, pos, k)
+ right_power = pow(10, mirror_pos, k)
+ new_rem = (rem + digit * (left_power + right_power)) % k
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**suggestion (performance):** Repeated `pow(10, ...)` calls in the inner loop could be precomputed to reduce overhead.
Since `pos` and `mirror_pos` only depend on the outer loop and `n`, you can precompute `pow10[i] = pow(10, i, k)` once and reuse it inside the inner loops. This avoids repeated modular exponentiation in the hot path and should scale better for larger `n` and `k`.
Suggested implementation:
```python
# Calculate new remainder
if pos == mirror_pos:
power = pow10[pos]
new_rem = (rem + digit * power) % k
else:
left_power = pow10[pos]
right_power = pow10[mirror_pos]
new_rem = (rem + digit * (left_power + right_power)) % k
```
To fully implement the optimization, you also need to:
1. Define `pow10` once before this loop, in a scope where `n` and `k` are known, e.g. just before the outer loop over `pos`:
`pow10 = [pow(10, i, k) for i in range(n)]`
2. Ensure that `pow10` is reused for all iterations where `n` and `k` remain constant, rather than recomputing it inside inner loops.
</issue_to_address>
### Comment 3
<location> `scripts/normalize_json.py:7` </location>
<code_context>
-and writes the sorted data to a new JSON file.
+and writes the sorted data to a new JSON file following Prettier style.
+
+Prettier config: printWidth=150, tabWidth=2, useTabs=false, trailingComma=es5, bracketSpacing=false
python scripts/normalize_json.py data/leetcode-problems.json
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**question:** The advertised Prettier config (e.g., `trailingComma=es5`) does not match the actual output behavior.
The docstring claims `trailingComma=es5` and `printWidth=150`, but the formatter never emits trailing commas for objects/arrays, and line wrapping uses a `total_length < 100` heuristic for arrays. Please either update the implementation to match these Prettier options more closely, or reword the docstring to describe the output as “Prettier-like” without listing specific Prettier config values.
</issue_to_address>
### Comment 4
<location> `scripts/normalize_json.py:31-35` </location>
<code_context>
+ formatted_value = format_json_value(v, indent_level + 1)
+ items.append(f"{next_indent}{formatted_key}: {formatted_value}")
+ return "{\n" + ",\n".join(items) + "\n" + indent + "}"
+ elif isinstance(value, list):
+ if not value:
+ return "[]"
+ # Check if it's a list of numbers (for problems arrays) - format one per line
+ if value and isinstance(value[0], (int, float)):
+ items = [f"{next_indent}{json.dumps(item, ensure_ascii=False)}" for item in value]
+ return "[\n" + ",\n".join(items) + "\n" + indent + "]"
</code_context>
<issue_to_address>
**suggestion:** List formatting assumes homogeneously numeric lists based only on the first element.
This branch only inspects `value[0]`, so mixed-type lists (e.g., `[1, "x", 2]`) are still treated as numeric and formatted one-per-line. That can be misleading. Please check that all elements are numeric (or otherwise guarantee homogeneity) before applying the numeric-list formatting.
</issue_to_address>Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
| if len(res) == n and res[0] != '0': | ||
| return res | ||
|
|
||
| return str(k) * n |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
issue (bug_risk): The fallback return str(k) * n likely violates the palindrome/divisibility contract.
This fallback string isn’t guaranteed to be a palindrome for multi‑digit k, nor divisible by k, so it changes behavior from the previous "no solution" case (empty string) to returning an invalid result. If the problem guarantees a solution, this branch can be removed; otherwise, either restore the empty-string behavior or construct a result that still meets the palindrome and divisibility constraints.
Comment on lines
+25
to
+29
| if pos == mirror_pos: | ||
| power = pow(10, pos, k) | ||
| new_rem = (rem + digit * power) % k | ||
| else: | ||
| left_power = pow(10, pos, k) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion (performance): Repeated pow(10, ...) calls in the inner loop could be precomputed to reduce overhead.
Since pos and mirror_pos only depend on the outer loop and n, you can precompute pow10[i] = pow(10, i, k) once and reuse it inside the inner loops. This avoids repeated modular exponentiation in the hot path and should scale better for larger n and k.
Suggested implementation:
# Calculate new remainder
if pos == mirror_pos:
power = pow10[pos]
new_rem = (rem + digit * power) % k
else:
left_power = pow10[pos]
right_power = pow10[mirror_pos]
new_rem = (rem + digit * (left_power + right_power)) % kTo fully implement the optimization, you also need to:
- Define
pow10once before this loop, in a scope wherenandkare known, e.g. just before the outer loop overpos:
pow10 = [pow(10, i, k) for i in range(n)] - Ensure that
pow10is reused for all iterations wherenandkremain constant, rather than recomputing it inside inner loops.
| and writes the sorted data to a new JSON file. | ||
| and writes the sorted data to a new JSON file following Prettier style. | ||
| Prettier config: printWidth=150, tabWidth=2, useTabs=false, trailingComma=es5, bracketSpacing=false |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
question: The advertised Prettier config (e.g., trailingComma=es5) does not match the actual output behavior.
The docstring claims trailingComma=es5 and printWidth=150, but the formatter never emits trailing commas for objects/arrays, and line wrapping uses a total_length < 100 heuristic for arrays. Please either update the implementation to match these Prettier options more closely, or reword the docstring to describe the output as “Prettier-like” without listing specific Prettier config values.
Comment on lines
+31
to
+35
| elif isinstance(value, list): | ||
| if not value: | ||
| return "[]" | ||
| # Check if it's a list of numbers (for problems arrays) - format one per line | ||
| if value and isinstance(value[0], (int, float)): |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggestion: List formatting assumes homogeneously numeric lists based only on the first element.
This branch only inspects value[0], so mixed-type lists (e.g., [1, "x", 2]) are still treated as numeric and formatted one-per-line. That can be misleading. Please check that all elements are numeric (or otherwise guarantee homogeneity) before applying the numeric-list formatting.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary by Sourcery
Optimize several problem solutions, enhance JSON normalization formatting, and add detailed English explanations for multiple LeetCode problems.
New Features:
Bug Fixes:
Enhancements:
Build:
Documentation:
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
Refactor
Chores
✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.