Hi, > Ok ... if the max value is outside the bounds and the code should have thrown > an error, then I apologize.
No issue. Looking again at it I’m still not sure which bit or code or test is wrong or perhaps neither(?) but I think it should be consistent. Perhaps Sebastian has a better idea? > But if you find something like this, wouldn't it be better to fix the broken > code or at least leave a comment in the test that is guaranteed to break? I wasn't 100% sure which method had the incorrect boundary condition. Thanks, Justin
