Update to Elixir 1.17

[jiegillet]

This time I beat you to it @angelikatyborska :)

Quite a few code changes, a bunch of warnings for descending ranges (10..1 should now be 10..1//-1) and a few more specific ones that I will comment on.

What do you think about the mix files

  def project do
    [
      app: :ledger,
      version: "0.1.0",
      # elixir: "~> 1.10",
      start_permanent: Mix.env() == :prod,
      deps: deps()
    ]
  end

should we bother updating the comment to 1.12?

[github-actions]

Thank you for contributing to exercism/elixir 💜 🎉. This is an automated PR comment 🤖 for the maintainers of this repository that helps with the PR review process. You can safely ignore it and wait for a maintainer to review your changes.

Based on the files changed in this PR, it would be good to pay attention to the following details when reviewing the PR:

• General steps

  • 🏆 Does this PR need to receive a label with a reputation modifier (x:size/{tiny,small,medium,large,massive})? (A medium reputation amount is awarded by default, see docs)

• Any exercise changed

  • 👤 Does the author of the PR need to be added as an author or contributor in <exercise>/.meta/config.json (see docs)?
  • 🔬 Do the analyzer and the analyzer comments exist for this exercise? Do they need to be changed?
  • 📜 Does the design file (<exercise>/.meta/design.md) need to be updated to document new implementation decisions?

• Practice exercise changed

  • 🌲 Do prerequisites, practices, and difficulty in config.json need to be updated?
  • 🧑‍🏫 Are the changes in accordance with the community-wide problem specifiations?

• Concept exercise changed

  • 🌲 Do prerequisites and practices in config.json need to be updated?
  • 📖 Does the concept introduction provide all necessary information to solve this exercise?

• Concept exercise tests changed

  • ⚪️ Are all tests un-skipped?
  • 🔢 Are all tests annotated with @tag task_id?
  • 🐈 Can all tests be understood by reading the test's block only (e.g. no module attributes, no setup functions)?

---

Automated comment created by PR Commenter 🤖.

[jiegillet]

1.16 gives [{:..., [line: 3], nil}] but 1.17 gives [{:..., [line: 3], []}] so I needed to change the test to accept both versions.

The 1.17 changelog mentions in the debug section

[Kernel] Resolve inconsistencies of how .. and ... are handled at the AST level

So that must be part of it.

Does that need a comment?
There could also be other ways of fixing it, for example quoting ... and shoving it in the expected value.

[angelikatyborska]

I think the current way is the simplest way of resolving the problem

[jiegillet]

This one seems like a bug (in Elixir or OTP) to be honest, I'll try to reproduce on something simpler and check.

[angelikatyborska]

It was fixed in 1.17.1: https://github.com/elixir-lang/elixir/releases/tag/v1.17.1

[Kernel] Fix bug when using pinned variables inside with's else patterns

Since this is just in an example file, I'm fine completely ignoring this issue (meaning: doing the change you're suggesting to the example file and that's it)

[angelikatyborska]

One change request and then it's ready to go 🙂

[jiegillet]

Yay! Thanks for the review :)
One link is dead but we can fix that some other time