Updating tests for poker exercise

[jagdish-15]

Pull Request

This PR updates all 11 unsynced tests for the Poker exercise, including 2 reimplemented tests and newly added tests to align with the problem-specifications repository.

---

Reviewer Resources:

Track Policies

[kahgoh]

The poker tests in the CI is failing. Does the example solution need updating?

Checking poker exercise...
poker: example solution did not pass the tests

[jagdish-15]

The poker tests in the CI is failing. Does the example solution need updating?

I've updated the Poker.java file and its helper classes to ensure they pass the tests. However, I'm still unsure how to verify the changes locally using configlet. Could you guide me on that?

[kahgoh]

Unfortunaetly, the tests and Checkstyle tests are still failing. To run the tests locally, run ./gradlew test from the exercises directory. For example:

# Start from where you clone the repo to
cd exercises
./gradlew test

If you want to run just the poker test, use ./gradlew practice:poker:test. I also recommend running ./gradlew check to run Checkstyle.

[jagdish-15]

Thank you so much, @kahgoh, for this! I truly appreciate your guidance—I wasn’t aware we could run these tests locally, and this has been incredibly helpful.

After testing the old reference answers on my local machine, I discovered that the initial reference implementation was failing five tests. Despite spending over two hours trying to understand the code, I found it overly complex and challenging to follow. A few days later, I attempted to use AI for assistance, but unfortunately, that approach also fell short.

Eventually, I realized I could explore community solutions for inspiration. While I didn’t immediately find a fully working solution, analyzing the approaches helped me iterate and improve. During this process, I identified several excellent alternatives that were far more efficient and readable compared to the original implementation. However, these solutions all failed a newly added test case.

This led me to uncover an oversight on my part—I had mistakenly marked the test as passed in the initial implementation. I sincerely apologize for this error. That said, since the original code was already failing four other tests, replacing it was necessary.

After further investigation, I selected the best community solution available, which resolved most issues. I also located the GitHub profile of the original contributor and have appropriately credited them as a contributor to the project.

[All tests have now been passed.]

Please let me know if you have any thoughts or feedback on this update!