Skip to content

docs: restore the teardown requirement in the README - #4

Merged
lassebenni merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/readme-teardown-and-date
Aug 2, 2026
Merged

docs: restore the teardown requirement in the README#4
lassebenni merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/readme-teardown-and-date

Conversation

@lassebenni

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

What I built

Two small documentation fixes in the cohort hand-in repo.

How to review

  • README.md: the teardown paragraph and the step-3 table row
  • docs/portal_confirm.md: sample date only

The cohort README said:

Teardown is part of the guidelines, not a separate graded file.

That contradicts three places that all require the opposite: assignment Task 3 step 4, the Deliverables list, and the rubric's Teardown dimension, which is worth 10 points and is graded on a final line in docs/portal_confirm.md. The canonical repo already has the correct wording; only this mirror drifted. The docs/portal_confirm.md scaffold already prompts for the line, so students following the scaffold were fine and students following the README were not.

The sample teardown date also moves from May to August to match the chapter.

How to run

No code change, nothing to run. Diff is 5 added and 4 removed lines across two files.

What reviewers should see (expected results)

  • README step-3 row reads Deploy + what-if + portal evidence + teardown line
  • README teardown paragraph now points at docs/portal_confirm.md and explains why (the grader is static and cannot see Azure)
  • Both files now match the canonical HackYourFuture/data-assignment-week-14

Self-check

  • Diffed against canonical to confirm this restores parity rather than inventing new wording
  • Confirmed the docs/portal_confirm.md scaffold already prompted for the teardown line
  • No change to .hyf/test.sh or any workflow
  • Merged by a human (not me)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

The cohort README said teardown is 'part of the guidelines, not a separate
graded file', contradicting the assignment chapter, the Deliverables list and
the rubric, all of which require a teardown line in docs/portal_confirm.md.
The scaffold already prompts for that line; only this prose was stale.

Also moves the sample teardown date to August, matching the chapter.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Aug 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

📝 HackYourFuture auto grade

Assignment Score: 40 / 100 ❌

Status: ❌ Not passed
Minimum score to pass: 60
🧪 The auto grade is experimental and still being improved

Test Details

=== Week 14 Autograder ===
  ✓ PASS  found main.bicep
  ✓ PASS  found modules/storage.bicep
  ✓ PASS  found docs/deploy_succeeded.txt
  ✓ PASS  found docs/what_if.txt
  ✓ PASS  found docs/portal_confirm.md
  ✓ PASS  found WRITEUP.md
  ✓ PASS  found AI_ASSIST.md
  ✓ PASS  found README.md
  ✓ PASS  Level 1: required files (20/20 pts)
  ✓ PASS  main.bicep has an @secure() parameter
  ✓ PASS  main.bicep calls a module
  ✓ PASS  declares a storage account resource
  ✓ PASS  declares a nested blob container resource
  ✗ FAIL  main.bicep missing param environment (Task 1)
  ✗ FAIL  missing Environment tag wiring — pass tags from main into the module (Task 1)
  ✗ FAIL  need a second nested container named curated (keep raw; Task 2)
  ⚠ WARN  only 1 nested container resource(s) — Task 2 expects raw + curated (count >= 2)
  ✓ PASS  Level 2: Bicep baseline + extensions (20/35 pts)
  ✗ FAIL  docs/deploy_succeeded.txt still empty or missing Succeeded/provisioningState
  ✗ FAIL  docs/what_if.txt still looks like the scaffold placeholder
  ✗ FAIL  docs/portal_confirm.md is still the scaffold stub — write 2-3 sentences from the portal
  ✓ PASS  Level 3: deploy evidence (0/25 pts)
  ✗ FAIL  WRITEUP.md is still too short or still the scaffold stub
  ✗ FAIL  AI_ASSIST.md is still too short or still the scaffold stub
  ✓ PASS  Level 4: write-up + AI report (0/20 pts)

Score: 40 / 100  (passing: 60)  pass=false

@lassebenni
lassebenni merged commit 70419bd into main Aug 2, 2026
1 of 2 checks passed
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.

1 participant