Update tests word-search

[jagdish-15]

No description provided.

[github-actions]

This PR touches files which potentially affect the outcome of the tests of an exercise. This will cause all students' solutions to affected exercises to be re-tested.

If this PR does not affect the result of the test (or, for example, adds an edge case that is not worth rerunning all tests for), please add the following to the merge-commit message which will stops student's tests from re-running. Please copy-paste to avoid typos.

[no important files changed]

For more information, refer to the documentation. If you are unsure whether to add the message or not, please ping @exercism/maintainers-admin in a comment. Thank you!

[jagdish-15]

This one was a bit unusual—the last test (before adding the 4 at the end of the file) seemed off. I’ve fixed it to align with the canonical-data.json, added the remaining four tests, removed all the describe sections to maintain consistency with the canonical data, and updated the proof solution accordingly.

Here’s the odd test I was referring to:

    xtest('should fail to locate a word that is not in the puzzle', () => {
      const grid = [
        'jefblpepre',
        'camdcimgtc',
        'oivokprjsm',
        'pbwasqroua',
        'rixilelhrs',
        'wolcqlirpc',
        'screeaumgr',
        'alxhpburyi',
        'jalaycalmp',
        'clojurermt',
      ];

      const expectedResults = {
        fail: undefined,
      };
      const wordSearch = new WordSearch(grid);

      expect(wordSearch.find(['fail'])).toEqual(expectedResults);
    });

In the expectedResult, this was checking if the word "fail" exists in the puzzle rather than verifying whether all the other words are located, and it fails only for the word that isn’t present in the grid! Or am I missing something?

[jagdish-15]

@SleeplessByte

What do you think?

[SleeplessByte]

Eh, we'll have to check the problem-spec PR to figure out what was intended.

[jagdish-15]

Eh, we'll have to check the problem-spec PR to figure out what was intended.

I've changed the test mentioned above to match what was intended in the problem-specificatio repo. I just wanted to confirm it's what was expected.

[SleeplessByte]

Yeah, reading this again and it looks right. Let's merge it and see what happens :D