Skip to content
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion app/calculator.py
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -18,4 +18,4 @@ def abs(x):
return x if x >= 0 else -x

def pow(x, y):
return x**y
return x*y
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Bug: The pow function now performs multiplication (x*y) instead of exponentiation (x**y), leading to incorrect power calculations.
Severity: CRITICAL | Confidence: High

🔍 Detailed Analysis

The pow function at app/calculator.py:21 was changed from performing exponentiation (x**y) to multiplication (x*y). This causes the function to return incorrect results for power calculations. For example, pow(2, 3) will return 6 instead of the expected 8, pow(2, 0) will return 0 instead of 1, and pow(2, -1) will return -2 instead of 0.5. This violates the function's intended behavior as indicated by its name and existing test cases.

💡 Suggested Fix

Revert the change in app/calculator.py:21 to use the exponentiation operator (return x**y) instead of the multiplication operator (return x*y) in the pow function.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agent
Review the code at the location below. A potential bug has been identified by an AI
agent.
Verify if this is a real issue. If it is, propose a fix; if not, explain why it's not
valid.

Location: app/calculator.py#L21

Potential issue: The `pow` function at `app/calculator.py:21` was changed from
performing exponentiation (`x**y`) to multiplication (`x*y`). This causes the function
to return incorrect results for power calculations. For example, `pow(2, 3)` will return
`6` instead of the expected `8`, `pow(2, 0)` will return `0` instead of `1`, and `pow(2,
-1)` will return `-2` instead of `0.5`. This violates the function's intended behavior
as indicated by its name and existing test cases.

Did we get this right? 👍 / 👎 to inform future reviews.
Reference ID: 3214950

Loading