Date: 2026-06-06
Time: 16:13
defuse-the-bomb/solution.pyThis file solves LeetCode 1652 — Defuse the Bomb. It decrypts a circular array by replacing each element with the sum of its next or previous k neighbors, depending on the sign of k. It's a self-contained solution module following the repo's standard per-problem layout.
Solution.minOperations(code, k) — Despite the method name (minOperations rather than the canonical decrypt), this implements the decryption logic. The contract:
code — a circular integer array; k — signed integer controlling direction and window size.k:k == 0: every element becomes 0.k > 0: each element becomes the sum of the next k elements (wrapping circularly).k < 0: each element becomes the sum of the previous |k| elements (wrapping circularly).% n. Every neighbor access uses modular arithmetic to wrap around the array, which is the textbook approach for circular arrays.n positions, it sums |k| elements from scratch, giving O(n * |k|) time. A prefix-sum or sliding-window approach would reduce this to O(n), but the brute-force is acceptable for the problem's constraints (n, |k| ≤ 100).Solution class, typed signature, docstring with Args/Returns.typing.List — no external libraries.defuse-the-bomb/test_solution.py (the "Imported By" list in the prompt is the repo-wide test import graph for Solution, not specific to this file).1. Compute n = len(code).
2. Short-circuit: if k == 0, return a zero-filled list immediately.
3. For each index i in [0, n):
k > 0: sum code[(i+1) % n] through code[(i+k) % n].k < 0: sum code[(i-1) % n] through code[(i-|k|) % n].result.4. Return result.
Python's % operator always returns a non-negative result for positive divisors, so (i - j) % n correctly wraps negative indices — no special handling needed.
code.k == 0, every output element is exactly 0 regardless of input.code[i] itself — the inner loop starts at j = 1, not j = 0.None. The function trusts its inputs match the LeetCode contract (non-empty list, |k| < n). No validation, no exceptions.
The method is named minOperations rather than the LeetCode-canonical decrypt. This is likely a copy-paste artifact from another problem's scaffold. It won't affect correctness (the test file presumably calls whatever method name is defined), but it would fail on LeetCode's judge as-is.