From 098daf25d448ecb528c3be7ce89fb51f056d4fcf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Manuel Maxera <95315128+manumafe98@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 18:33:48 -0300
Subject: [PATCH] Expanding analyzer comment possibilities for log levels
 message and loglevel methods (#2770)

---
 exercises/concept/log-levels/.meta/design.md | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/exercises/concept/log-levels/.meta/design.md b/exercises/concept/log-levels/.meta/design.md
index ba6b49a10..7e87f0143 100644
--- a/exercises/concept/log-levels/.meta/design.md
+++ b/exercises/concept/log-levels/.meta/design.md
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ This exercise could benefit from the following rules in the [analyzer]:
 
 - `essential`: Verify that the solution does not hard-code the log levels (`[ERROR]:`, `[WARNING]:`, `[INFO]:`)
 - `actionable`: If the student did not reuse the implementation of the `message` and `logLevel` methods in the `reformat` method, instruct them to do so.
-- `actionable`: If the solution did not use `substring` in the methods `message` and `logLevel`, instruct the student to do so.
+- `actionable`: If the solution did not use `split` or `substring` in the methods `message` and `logLevel`, instruct the student to do so.
 - `informative`: If the solution uses `String.format` in the `reformat` method, inform the student that this cause a small performance penalty compared to string concatenation.
 
 If the solution does not receive any of the above feedback, it must be exemplar.