I've been thinking about this test all afternoon (mostly). And it can be faked easily because it doesn't really enforce you to define/use the class. One can build a tuple with(None, "<Properly formatted string>") and the test will pass.

I think it's trickier that it seems to perform some checks on the actual class. One way is to parse the AST as Simone did with some FP tests, but I didn't want to implement it for the time being.

Needs some more thoughts... 💭

You could check whether there is a class with the nameScoop in the locals() of the function. Something like:

importinspectimportastdefcheck_if_class_in_scope(class_name:str,scope:callable)->bool:source=ast.parse(inspect.getsource(scope))fornodeinast.walk(source):matchnode:caseast.ClassDef()ascd:returncd.name==class_namedeff1():classA:a=1is_a=check_if_class_in_scope("A",f1)# Trueis_b=check_if_class_in_scope("B",f1)# Trueprint(f"A is{is_a}, B is{is_b}")

That's a good suggestion 👍🏻 We must change the solution and add the classinside the solution function. Or apply the same idea to the entire code of the cell.

You could check whether there is a class with the nameScoop in the locals() of the function. Something like:

importinspectimportastdefcheck_if_class_in_scope(class_name:str,scope:callable)->bool:source=ast.parse(inspect.getsource(scope))fornodeinast.walk(source):matchnode:caseast.ClassDef()ascd:returncd.name==class_namedeff1():classA:a=1is_a=check_if_class_in_scope("A",f1)# Trueis_b=check_if_class_in_scope("B",f1)# Trueprint(f"A is{is_a}, B is{is_b}")