Which of the MS Learn modules from the dropdown are you submitting an update request?
None
Additional information
Information about the requested update
The exercises displayed in all of these learning modules are not actually provided.
They have to be set up manually
Because the exercises are often in unfamiliar languages using unfamiliar libraries, we are left to guess how to set them up, there are no step by steps to get us started.
Having set them up, we have to manually try to copy code examples from animated GIFs which cannot be paused unless we screencap them and replay them, so doing examples is a test of ingenuity for which no one is going to give students credit -- 10 minute units running into an hour by the time we get code set up to run.
The code examples include code that won't actually execute, for instance markup comments being used inside of Go code that cause issue when executing. From my conversation with Copilot in Edge,
What you're describing sounds very much like a GitHub Copilot marketing/demo GIF where the editor was displaying a Go file (main.go) with Go language decorations, line numbers, and syntax highlighting, but the user was temporarily typing a natural-language instruction directly into the file to trigger completions.
A few observations:
• ## is not valid Go comment syntax.
• ## is not standard JavaScript comment syntax either.
• If the file were actually compiled in that state, the Go compiler would reject those lines.
• Copilot does not require text to be syntactically valid in order to generate suggestions from it.
Also, recognizing there is a lot of upselling implicit in these reviews of features, there are still places it doesn't belong. Too much market slang. It makes for lousy topic heading when the topic is better described in plain terms. For instance
"PR-ready code generation"
When working on features or bug fixes, Copilot helps create comprehensive changes that minimize review cycles:
• Complete implementations: Generate full feature implementations with proper error handling, logging, and edge case coverage.
• Consistent code patterns: Ensure new code follows established project conventions and architectural patterns.
• Documentation integration: Include inline comments, function documentation, and README updates as part of the initial code generation.
• Test coverage: Generate corresponding unit tests, integration tests, and example usage alongside new functionality.
PR-Ready is already an acronym, bad enough if a person isn't already in the know, and although being "pull-request" ready may be an exciting prospect for quick code generation, the points beneath don't involve the pull request processing, they involve completeness and quality of the code over those named areas of interest. The header is a distraction, baby, sales-speak that promotes rather than explains.
Which of the MS Learn modules from the dropdown are you submitting an update request?
None
Additional information
Information about the requested update
The exercises displayed in all of these learning modules are not actually provided.
They have to be set up manually
Because the exercises are often in unfamiliar languages using unfamiliar libraries, we are left to guess how to set them up, there are no step by steps to get us started.
Having set them up, we have to manually try to copy code examples from animated GIFs which cannot be paused unless we screencap them and replay them, so doing examples is a test of ingenuity for which no one is going to give students credit -- 10 minute units running into an hour by the time we get code set up to run.
The code examples include code that won't actually execute, for instance markup comments being used inside of Go code that cause issue when executing. From my conversation with Copilot in Edge,
Also, recognizing there is a lot of upselling implicit in these reviews of features, there are still places it doesn't belong. Too much market slang. It makes for lousy topic heading when the topic is better described in plain terms. For instance
PR-Ready is already an acronym, bad enough if a person isn't already in the know, and although being "pull-request" ready may be an exciting prospect for quick code generation, the points beneath don't involve the pull request processing, they involve completeness and quality of the code over those named areas of interest. The header is a distraction, baby, sales-speak that promotes rather than explains.