Test and/or solution for the Add Methods After Inheritance challenge seems to be incorrect

After seeing a question on the forum concerning the Add Methods After Inheritance challenge, I am wondering if either the following test’s text and/or textString is incorrect.

  - text: <code>Dog</code> should have the <code>bark()</code> method as an <code>own</code> property.
    testString: assert(Dog.prototype.hasOwnProperty('bark'));

If the bark method is really an own property, then when I write the following:

const beagle = new Dog();
for (let prop in beagle) {
  if (beagle.hasOwnProperty(prop) {
    console.log(prop);
  }
}

I would expect to see bark displayed in the console, but do not.

The current test is checking if bark is part of Dog’s prototype, which would not be an own property would it? If I am correct, then the solution (below) is incorrect as it adds bark to Dog’s prototype.

function Animal() {}
Animal.prototype.eat = function() {
  console.log("nom nom nom");
};

function Dog() {}

// Add your code below this line
Dog.prototype = Object.create(Animal.prototype);
Dog.prototype.constructor = Dog;
Dog.prototype.bark = function() {
  console.log("Woof!");
};
// Add your code above this line

let beagle = new Dog();

beagle.eat(); // Should print "nom nom nom"
beagle.bark(); // Should print "Woof!"

Shouldn’t the solution really be a matter of changing the original function declaration of Dog to be the following or should the test text not mention the own property?

function Animal() {}
Animal.prototype.eat = function() {
  console.log("nom nom nom");
};

function Dog() {
  // Only change code below this line
  this.bark = function() {
    console.log("Woof!")
  }
  // Only change code above this line
}

Dog.prototype = Object.create(Animal.prototype);
Dog.prototype.constructor = Dog;

let beagle = new Dog();

beagle.eat(); // Should print "nom nom nom"
beagle.bark(); // Should print "Woof!"

[Nirajn2311]

Sure will create a PR soon.

[raisedadead]

Hi @Nirajn2311 will you be interested in making a PR. I understand because haven’t had any objections to your recommendation in a while we should go forth with this.

Thanks.