• ###### sgkoishicommented on "Luck check" kata

Is it fixed right now? I throw a Error for random tests with letters but failed. Letters should not be allowed right?

• ###### fibonaccioscommented on "Luck check" kata

Might be the easiest 5kyu I have seen so far.
I guess it is too old right?

• ###### FArekkusuresolved an issue on "Luck check" kata

Not sure what you're talking about. The tests are working fine.

• ###### FArekkusucreated an issue for "Luck check" kata

Python 3 should be enabled.

• ###### hksongcommented on "Luck check" javascript solution

And I thought mine was unreadable...

• ###### Chrono79commented on "Luck check" kata

Obviating the 3 middle numbers seems rather odd to me (and that's not what the example shows), but if it helps, I've added a comment in the example you found not clear.

• ###### DavidBeevaMxcommented on "Luck check" kata

That is not as explanatory as you think it is, for example, if I would have this string 12341, I can think that obviating the three numbers in the middle, the answer is True, however as you previosly explain is just the number at the very middle. This kind of things most be explicit explain in the problem description.

• ###### Chrono79commented on "Luck check" kata

Pretty self explanatory given the example, if the length is odd, you should ignore the middle number when adding the halves. You should test the string represents a valid number tho (the middle char included.)

• ###### DavidBeevaMxcommented on "Luck check" kata

I don't understand problem description, how this number is lucky: 17935 # 1 + 7 = 3 + 5, you are not adding 9 anywhere and do not mention nothing about this. Can anybody explain, please.

• ###### Therucreated an issue for "Luck check" kata

Please fix this error in test cases:

• It should give an error for invalid input: True should equal False
• Python
• ###### Darshan97commented on "Luck check" kata

Old Katas are overranked damn

• ###### Voilecreated an issue for "Luck check" kata

JS: The error checking tests were completely bonkers and hence doesn't actually check for errors at all:

``````Test.expectError('6F43E8') //wait what, the luckCheck function isn't even called here
Test.expectError("It should work for random inputs too",luckCheck(teststr)); //wrong usage, see below
``````

The correct way to use expectError is to wrap it into another function, which the test fixture then execute things inside to catch possible errors:

``````Test.expectError("It should work for random inputs too",function(){luckCheck(teststr);}); //this works
``````
• ###### bestwebuacreated an issue for "Luck check" kata

Hey, @SandaySalsa! Description and Ruby test cases aren't clear! Or this kata like puzzle, guess what should be: `luck_check('6F43E8') == false` or `luck_check('6F43E8') == 'Error'` or end of program :) And `luck_check('')` in test cases will be an error.

Yours sincerely,
FridayBachata

• ###### WillLearncommented on "Luck check" kata

Ruby: on the test's if I had raise "Error" if (wrong type,etc)...then the tests would fail.
But if I put return "Error" if (wrong type,etc) they passed. The opposite is true for final submission.