I dont agree. The example explains pretty clearly how the output is formed. Part of it being a "codewar" is that you have to think to figure out how to get the expected result.

Your "Issue" is just an opinion. There is no issue with the code. Its has been completed almost 500 times. I disagree as do the stats that there is an "issue" with the description in this Kata.

I dont agree. The example explains pretty clearly how the output is formed. Part of it being a "codewar" is that you have to think to figure out how to get the expected result.

It does not generate the correct shape. The result of your function is the same as '+'.repeat(int)

Description states: I expect a 3x3 square back just like below as a string.

This is not an issue with how the code is performing.

Part of understanding the instructions is staring at the example to figure it out. Its an exercise in thought not just an exercise in programming.

strArr is an array when you split stringOfInts so the placement of the integers into the new array sumNums is redundent and is an extra for loop that does not need to occur.

This is how. Your examples in the Kata are as follows:

"()" => true //# of open and closed parens ==
")(()))" => false //# of closed parens > # of open parens
"(" => false //# of closed parens !== # of open parens
"(())((()())())" => true //# of open and closed parens ==

Here is an example of a failed submission:

())( => false //# of open and closed parens are ===

There is no example of the tests being order dependent just that there are an equal number of open and closed parens.

Im going to add in a random work generator so people wont be able to do this in the future.

Added.

Well the intention there is to show all of the possible cases that the future random tests will expect as answers. What would you suggest I do differently to make them less redundant?

It has been updated.

Currently yes but its easily modified to be removed if you feel that is confusing.