@JohanWiltink Thank you very much for the JS translation and adding progressive sizing there! Just have added it!

Hi! I am sorry for the late reply! Yes, @KayleighWasTaken,please, feel absolutely free to rework the test generation and structure, if you would have time for it, I would be extremely grateful for your help!! You're also completely right that the generators are messy!

Thank you so much!! Added it!

That was my fault, fixed.

I could tell that's what you were going for but the actual generation functions are really messy and I didn't want to reimplement them in case there was some biasing you were doing intentionally that I might remove.

If you just want 50% case distribution I can implement it this evening (along with some nice progressive test sizing so that the top assertion messages are easier to read for the user).

Thank you KayleightWasTaken! You we pointing me about this issue of test cases in a different kata but I forgot to change it here :/ . I will go around my other katas shortly and modify it and make sure not to do this mistake again!

So what happens with the functions that generate structures. I have one for generating bad structures generate_bad_structure which should ideally test for False cases and generate_nested which generate True case structures and 50% chance to select one of them. generate_bad_structure generates random nested arrays and usually they are False structures but I also noticed that ocasionally it does create some true structures ( usually, when the structure is small like [ [],[],[] ]). I think, they should be fine but, if not, please let me know.

Hi! Yes, you are definitely right about antipattern. Just have approved the proposed translation by KayleighWasTaken which tackles the problem

Somewhat refactored the tests here. Didn't touch the test generation code itself though, not currently awake enough to try to parse what exactly it's trying to achieve, though generate_bad_structure seems to generate True cases sometimes, and the inverse for generate_nested?

I'll have a go at cleaning up the tests a little and adding assertion messages etc then.

It would be much better if the OP published one kata, got it through the beta stage applying all remarks raised by reviewers, and then moved to creating the rest of challenges. Because now, the OP has four published kata, all affected by the same issues, collecting downvotes due to technical problems.

I think it's generally a good idea not to take any feedback that points out problems in your kata personally. Try to focus as much as possible on improving the kata and not worry about how the criticism was delivered (that's what's important to you, and your goal is to have a good kata; focus on that). Of course, the goal of the platform is to create a pleasant environment for everyone, but that won't be a problem for you if you simply keep your mind focused on improving.

I'm a beginner and my first kata was a disaster, but i learned a lot from the criticism and got a approved kata, but i definitely have a lot of room for improvement.

propose improvements to the process

We are trying :')

I thought anyone could submit ideas and the community would shape their fate, but I didn’t know that a core group of experienced users is responsible for maintaining the quality bar.

Basically, this. However, this does not mean that there is no place to discuss your idea for a kata, there is the #kata-ideas channel specifically for this purpose on Codewars Discord. It is also hinted in documentation.

Unfortunately, there is one hugely incorrect assumption behind your reasoning: you seem to think that improvements to the process are not being proposed, and that there is no internal push for better solution. This is, unfortunately, very, very wrong assumption, and the problem lies on the receiving end of the proposals, suggestions, and requests :(