fix: tests for saddle points

[kkweon]

[EDITED] to change the test cases instead of the instruction

The original instruction is confusing because it implies a row-first coordinate (row, col), 

> So the point at `[2, 1]` (row: 2, column: 1) is a great spot for a tree house.

but the expectation is a column-first coordinate, such as (col, row) or (X, Y) assuming X is on the horizontal axis. 

For example, the first test case is almost the same example as in the instruction, and it returns (1, 2) = (Col, Row).

The current instruction text `[2, 1]` is not consistent with the test result `(1, 2)`.

https://github.com/exercism/prolog/blob/64074e43cb2deae529ad60dd62afce73d23f8a00/exercises/practice/saddle-points/saddle_points_tests.plt#L10-L13

[github-actions]

Hello. Thanks for opening a PR on Exercism 🙂

We ask that all changes to Exercism are discussed on our Community Forum before being opened on GitHub. To enforce this, we automatically close all PRs that are submitted. That doesn't mean your PR is rejected but that we want the initial discussion about it to happen on our forum where a wide range of key contributors across the Exercism ecosystem can weigh in.

You can use this link to copy this into a new topic on the forum. If we decide the PR is appropriate, we'll reopen it and continue with it, so please don't delete your local branch.

If you're interested in learning more about this auto-responder, please read this blog post.

---

Note: If this PR has been pre-approved, please link back to this PR on the forum thread and a maintainer or staff member will reopen it.

[ErikSchierboom]

The text comes a shared source (https://github.com/exercism/problem-specifications/blob/main/exercises/saddle-points/instructions.md) so we can't really change that. We should then change the exercise, even though it will invalidate all existing solutions.

[kkweon]

Would you prefer that or leave as is? Invalidating existing solutions don't sound too good to me.

[ErikSchierboom]

Only 11 people have started the exercise, so I think that is fine. Would you be willing to make the change?

[kkweon]

yeah let me update in this PR

[kkweon]

PTAL @ErikSchierboom , thanks!

[ErikSchierboom]

You'll also need to update the example solution

[kkweon]

Thank you! I also noticed that some other tests were failing, but the script did not catch them because PLUnit returned a success code when there was a syntax error.

[ErikSchierboom]

I also noticed that some other tests were failing, but the script did not catch them because PLUnit returned a success code when there was a syntax error.

Great catch! That's bad though! Any idea how we can fix that?

[kkweon]

Thanks. Will take a look and send a fix.

[kkweon]

#454 has been created but closed.