First code-repair receiving session

Follow sections 1–3 of the existing worksheet; the receiving rounds below replace its section 4. Agree Q1 before editing: a supplied nonnegative integer stays present, including zero; only null and undefined mean missing. Keep fde-quantity-regression.test.mjs unchanged. The separate quantity-repaired.test.mjs changes only || to ?? or an equivalent explicit null/undefined check. All four original assertions stay fixed.

Each person retains a prediction and their own first original/repaired reports, including actual commands and exit status. The original's zero assertion should fail with exit 1; the repaired copy should pass all four with exit 0. A missing runtime, file or import is a setup failure, not that observed zero regression. Retain the worksheet's misleading weak-assertion example separately; it is not the candidate you hand over as a repair.

A builds and B receives. A supplies Q1, unchanged original, repaired copy and exact commands. B predicts what the following commands will actually exercise, then runs them before reading A's explanation:

node --test --test-reporter=tap --test-name-pattern="positive" fde-quantity-regression.test.mjs
node --test --test-reporter=tap fde-quantity-regression.test.mjs

The first command is green but selects the positive case. It supplies no execution of the zero assertion. Locate the selected test names rather than inferring execution from a skip count. The full original still fails zero. Keep each actual result and exit separately; a supplied report is not B's run.

B names the missing observation, then locates the changed implementation line and unchanged zero expectation. A observes without taking over. Neither a green process nor an unchanged test name establishes that the required question ran.

B now builds and A receives. The requirement owner agrees a fictional Q2: negative integer quantities may represent backorders. This is a teaching decision, not permission to change a real inventory system. Both partners predict whether the new example alone will distinguish the original from the repair.

Preserve every earlier file. B supplies the unchanged original and actual repair. In an editor, A creates separate copies named quantity-original-q2.test.mjs and quantity-repaired-q2.test.mjs from the unchanged original and actual repaired copy. A appends this same independent assertion to both; leave the function and four earlier assertions unchanged:

test("Q2 negative quantity stays unchanged", () => {
  assert.equal(displayQuantity(-3), -3);
});

A checks the two copies' original/repaired difference and predicts the selected names and zero observation before running. Run each command separately so the expected failing original does not prevent the repair's run:

node --test --test-reporter=tap --test-name-pattern="Q2 negative" quantity-original-q2.test.mjs
node --test --test-reporter=tap quantity-original-q2.test.mjs
node --test --test-reporter=tap quantity-repaired-q2.test.mjs

The new example alone passes the broken original with exit 0. The full original Q2 copy still fails zero: four pass, one fails, exit 1. The full repaired Q2 copy passes all five, exit 0. Keep the actual TAP output and Observed zero result line alongside your prediction. The expected reports here are teaching notes, not evidence that a participant ran them.

The new case and the earlier regression answer different questions. Keep both. Do not weaken zero, drop positive/missing examples or change an expectation merely to make a process green. These published changes are practice, not held-out evidence of unaided transfer or general correctness.

Each receiver explains their own observation and assistance before the team agrees a limited receiving decision. The four Q1 examples and one Q2 example do not validate strings, fractions, NaN, oversized integers or arbitrary input. Neither || nor ?? is an input-validation policy.

One copy per participant:

Alias / actual role / prior reading and help:
Requirement and independent expected behavior:
My first prediction / exact file and command:
Actual selected test names / output reference / exit:
Original-versus-repaired change / unchanged assertions:
Receiving action I performed / help or takeover:
What I revised after the observation, keeping my first account:
Remaining input-policy question / responsible role / next test and update:

Assign actual people later. These local examples establish no deployed integration, model quality, production permission, qualification, independence or client placement. Preserve unrun work and the original individual accounts.