seems like there’s an issue with case 3. the person_id and from surveillance_records doesn’t match up with the person_id in the hotel_checkins table when joined on hotel-checkin_id
Yep, surveillance_records.person_id is the same as surveillance_records.id, which is incorrect. I looked at the Github repo and there’s already a report for it.
What I don’t understand (and apparently this is my problem, not a bug) is how we’re supposed to narrow the list down to three suspects in the next-to-last step, as the “Case Solved” text describes (Yeah, I cheated). The interviews with the two witnesses give a partial hotel name and a check-in date, but that returns dozens of results. The ending messsge congratulates us for reducing that list by using the surveillance records in some way, but I can’t see how. The only other detail I have is “The guy looked nervous”, which doesn’t seem to have any connection with the surveillance records.
seems like there’s an issue with case 3. the person_id and from surveillance_records doesn’t match up with the person_id in the hotel_checkins table when joined on hotel-checkin_id
Yep, surveillance_records.person_id is the same as surveillance_records.id, which is incorrect. I looked at the Github repo and there’s already a report for it.
What I don’t understand (and apparently this is my problem, not a bug) is how we’re supposed to narrow the list down to three suspects in the next-to-last step, as the “Case Solved” text describes (Yeah, I cheated). The interviews with the two witnesses give a partial hotel name and a check-in date, but that returns dozens of results. The ending messsge congratulates us for reducing that list by using the surveillance records in some way, but I can’t see how. The only other detail I have is “The guy looked nervous”, which doesn’t seem to have any connection with the surveillance records.