Done, sorry for being late

This new rule is still missing in the #Rules section. It is only mentioned in the #Return Values section and to me the exact format is not clear. Do I have to mention all indices with ", "? An example for this case would be good.

Also the #Return Values section is missing the rule and expected string for invalid phred33_chars.

Edit: opened as separate issue.

Yes, forgot to save. Those changes should be visible and testable now.

Thank you! I have amended my solution and Description field, "If a FASTQ line is blank (len == 0) | 'Field(s) Fail: empty field'.

Blank fields should be caught by the verification script. I'll wait to mark as resolved.

You bet, thought it was an interesting challenge

Changed Haskell to allow a tolerance of 1e-6. Those other two solvers can resubmit if they want to.

Clarified this in the description.

agreed

Thank You! :)

For the modifiers my hint would be: if a modifier already exists, it should be reused rather than recreated.

I also updated the description to be more specific about the lists:

"Additionally, Menu will have menu_items (a list of MenuItem objects), and a MenuItem may have modifiers (a list of Modifier objects)."

I think this is an inconsistency in the spec, as the test cases are expecting Modifier objects, like you noted. I will update the problem to indicate the the list should be of the Modifier objects, not just the ID's. I believe the same applies for MenuItems, so I'll review that for consistency as well.

(Hidden) Specs shouldn't come from examples alone, unless you deliberately are creating a puzzle. So if the spec is inadequate, feel free to post a comment about it.

The problem has been resolved.