Weekly Challenges
Solve the challenge, share your solution and summit the ranks of our Community!Also available in | Français | Português | Español | 日本語
IDEAS WANTED
Want to get involved? We're always looking for ideas and content for Weekly Challenges.
SUBMIT YOUR IDEA
I saw quite a few answers that either:
A. Did not account properly for the number of names both in the assignment to teams, but in ensuring that an equal number would go to each person regardless of total players, or
B. Did not properly randomize.
Obviously I have the advantage of doing this problem three months after it was published ;).
I tried to solve these problems by: randomizing both the names to match to the top ranked teams, as well as the remaining teams to match to the names. I also counted name records to drive the number of highly ranked teams to match 1:1, as well as the remaining teams to calculate the "multiplier" to generate rows for the remaining allocation.
I also installed a test to ensure the multiplier modulus was equal in the end to the number of teams remaining. These kinds of checks and balances were crucial at my last job, where data sets fluctuated wildly. QA checks were constantly being updated and implemented.
After saving the flow, I checked it to ensure that additional names would still make for an even allocation of teams, and the modulus=remainder check being passed. See attached output where I added the names "Albert" and "Barkley" to make 7 entrants - the flow still works and each entrant is assigned 4 teams, for a remainder/modulus of 4.
Really enjoyed this challenge, thank you!
My world cup fever was so big I didn't get around to doing these challenges, time to catch up.
