retired

This was why I uploaded the kata to ask for how I would check that the errors are being thrown. I will unpublish and add the error handling and then should be OK.

fixed

I created an issue above to discuss the rank of this kata. Please reply there with your suggestions.

The kata got unpublished, and I removed the 1 kyu vote from a cheater.

Currently, the only outlier vote is 3 kyu from the approver.

The 1 kyu vote was cast by a person who got later suspended for cheating, so it is not relevant and should be removed. This leaves us with 5x6kyu, 1x7kyu, and... 1x3kyu cast by the approver as, I believe, the highest rank allowed by the system.

This does not seem right :D

To the person who approved this kata (as well as the 1 kyu one), please try consulting with other users on Discord before approving new katas - your sense of reference seems a bit off.

That being said, the voting situation here also looks a bit questionable. When votes vary wildly, it's worth trying to understand the context: for example, has the kata been reworked several times with its difficulty changing, but users never updated their rank assessments? Or are some votes simply outliers that should be disregarded before finalizing the rank?

Sorry about the inconvenience, the kata has been updated into something that'd be more manageable to me, I'll try to fix the issue of the first kata

For point 2, it should be sufficient to say that the number of key-value pairs in d is always divisible by k, which is also stated in the description.

Thank you, fixed to include Q in test cases

Fixed.

randomTape still uses the same Clever code. and this

pos += (-1) ** (result[result.length - 1] == '<');

is hardly an improvement.

Just don't write clever code in test suites. It doesn't have to be 7kyu, but it may have to be read by translators who are not fluent in JS ( so no while ( condition with side effect ); ). Write the simplest reasonable code. Here, that's an if, not an exponentiation. And avoid implicit coercion.

( this is about JS. if this sort of code is in Python as well, improve it there as well. )

done

Fixed, I think, you might wanna double check to ensure.