Skip to content

Completed BFS-1 - #1659

Open
RitikaC1 wants to merge 1 commit into
super30admin:masterfrom
RitikaC1:master
Open

Completed BFS-1#1659
RitikaC1 wants to merge 1 commit into
super30admin:masterfrom
RitikaC1:master

Conversation

@RitikaC1

Copy link
Copy Markdown

No description provided.

@super30admin

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Binary Tree Level Order Traversal (Problem1.py)

Excellent work! Your solution is correct, efficient, and well-written. Here are some highlights:

Strengths:

  • Correct handling of the edge case (empty tree)
  • Using deque for O(1) popleft operations is a great choice
  • Clean, readable code with good variable naming
  • Proper type hints (Optional[TreeNode], List[List[int]])
  • Good comments documenting time and space complexity

Minor suggestions for improvement:

  • The comment at the top has a typo: "COMPELXITY" should be "COMPLEXITY"
  • You could add a brief docstring to the levelOrder method explaining what it does
  • Consider adding the import statement for deque (from collections import deque) at the top, though this is often handled by the platform

Overall, this is a solid implementation that demonstrates a clear understanding of BFS traversal.

VERDICT: PASS


Course Schedule (Problem2.py)

Great work! Your solution using Kahn's algorithm is a clean and efficient alternative to the DFS-based approach in the reference solution. Both approaches have the same time and space complexity, so choosing between them often comes down to personal preference.

Strengths:

  • Correct algorithm choice for cycle detection
  • Good use of BFS with deque
  • Early termination when all courses are processed
  • Clear comments documenting complexity

Minor improvements:

  1. The if not q: return False check is redundant — if the queue is empty initially, count < numCourses, and the function will return False at the end anyway. You can remove it for cleaner code.
  2. Typo: "dependencie" should be "dependency" (singular).
  3. Consider simplifying by removing the early return inside the loop and just letting the final return False handle it — though your current approach is also fine and slightly more efficient.

VERDICT: PASS

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants