Autograder Fixed in Under 24 Hours: 100/100

The assignment

Jack (name changed per NDA) was completing a computer science degree and needed to submit a networking assignment on distance vector routing. The topic required both solid coding skills and a working knowledge of the underlying protocol theory.

The deadline was June 9. Jack reached us on June 8. Under 24 hours to deliver.

What made this difficult

Three problems arrived together, each one compounding the others.

Time. Less than 24 hours from first contact to deadline. We replied immediately, but Jack's response came late, and he initially forgot to upload some files. We contacted him over WhatsApp to collect everything.

Incomplete context. No lecture notes. Without knowing how his instructor framed the topic, we had to infer the expected conventions from the assignment spec alone.

Buggy starter code. When we reviewed the uploaded files, the existing code had two problems: inconsistent output formatting and a broken routing table. That combination is exactly why code fails on submission even when it runs locally.

After reviewing the files, our project manager quoted a price. Jack agreed. The moment payment cleared, the project manager opened a direct WhatsApp channel between Jack and the developer taking the assignment.

How we fixed it

Our networking developer followed a four-step process.

Step 1: align with the course material

We asked Jack for his lecture slides before writing a single line. Routing conventions vary by course: some instructors expect Bellman-Ford iterations printed per-round, others expect only the final stable table. Matching the expected format is what passes hidden test cases that a generic correct solution would fail.

We also set up a local test environment mirroring Gradescope's autograder structure, without touching the original files.

Step 2: trace and fix the output bug

The core defect was a mismatch between the number of distance vectors printed and the count the autograder expected. The critical section of the update logic was rewritten to guarantee that every routing table change printed exactly once, in the correct order, with the correct field widths.

Step 3: test across multiple topologies

We ran the fixed code against ProvTopo1 (4 nodes) and EvalTopo1 (4 nodes). Both produced output that matched the expected format on every iteration. Checking multiple topologies catches edge cases where a single-path graph hides a bug that appears only when there are parallel routes.

Step 4: deliver with full context

Because Jack stayed in the WhatsApp channel throughout, questions were answered in real time. The final code was sent with annotated screenshots before the deadline so Jack could verify the output himself before submitting.

The result

Jack submitted and scored 100/100.

• Submitted on time despite a sub-24-hour window
• Routing table updates and formatted outputs passed all autograder checks
• Jack reviewed the output against his lecture notes before hitting submit

What Jack said

The student confirmed the result after submission.

Tight deadlines and broken starter code are the two most common reasons students come to us. If you are in the same situation, send your brief to Computer Science Homework Help and we will quote within 15 minutes. Pay 50% to start, 50% after you verify the code runs.