Again @defaude
If the algorithm is working fine, then no need to modify it. Someone from the team has already approved and merged by reviewing it.
Moreover, don't create test cases for other's files. Try to create PR with a new Algorithm problem.

Hi @pomkarnath98 :)

As with #713 , I still think contributing test-cases to already-existing algorithms is valid (and wanted).

Regarding my re-write: True, the existing version worked. It was a bit hard to read, though, and even harder to properly test. So I decided to propose a new implementation that improves a few things:

• more readable (plus more comments)
• better testability
• tiny functional change - the new implementation is loosely based on the original but mixes in the "solution matrix" idea from the example at the linked article.
• at the same time, introduce a few modern JS syntax things (class syntax, private fields, etc) The reason is: newcomers to this repo might stumble upon this, trying to understand the algorithm itself and are learning something about the language itself at the same time :)

Update: I gave @chiranjeev-thapliyal credit as the original implementation's author in the documentation block 👍

@defaude Please format your code with standard.js.