• Thanks, in the stats in the bottom :)

  • No problem, it's in Details, Stats: Created and Published.

  • Good morning, thanks

    Good point. I don't know where is the date of the born of the kata.

    Thanks,

    André

  • Have you seen how old is this kata? It wouldn't be approved today.

  • Good afternoon,

    With all respect, if I submit a kata, I receive a lot of "mi mi mi", like "not a fucking novel idea". And we have a very simple kata like this...

    Great, if you want to make users sad, is a good choice make a refuse like this...

  • i think it is x6 faces

  • I will try to publish other kata soon and I ask you to please detail if I fail in some point.

    Maybe I don't understood all clearly, I think that I will understand in future.

    Thanks!

  • Hi,

    Errr... would have been better to ask last month ('cause I don't remember your kata, now x) *)

    About the "expectations", might be I overlooked some things when I posted this. Or maybe you applied some changes in the meantime? Again, I don't remember (*).

    Might be I took the new ruby 3 assertions for the old (bad) test.expect too (*! ;) )

    About the ref solution, you already have one in the random tests, to compute the expected value. Note that you need to avoid to put that in the same statement/expression than the call to the users solution (because it can become visible the the solver in a stack trace)

    now about rejection: avoid too much simple tasks. Guys solving beta don't like them, unless there is a special additionnal value (and still, most of them will downvote the kata anyway). There a good reason to that: we already have too much of those in the data base (end guys solving beta generally have already done those. There is sort of an "epidermic" reaction going on, there. You'll see a section about "novelty" of the ideas for creating a kata, in the documentation btw)

    last thing: don't base your judgment about quality content on existing old kata. A lot of old kata are rather bad (some even very bad) and totally do not fit in the current requirement. Those requirements are specifically here to try to avoid to end up with that kind of quality. ;)

    'hope that helps? If you have other questions, go ahead.

    Cheers

  • Guy, thanks, good afternoon.

    I don't see where the Kata doesn't fit with the best pratices in the documentation of your link. I read the content that your link pass. Obs:

    • group of test cases: ok, I don't submited random tests in a separated group, but if you think that it is a problem, please say this. I saw a lot, a lot of katas here, and it is not a big problem;
    • Writing a Reference Solution: What kata (link) has a reference solution?

    There is a lot of text in the link. A lot! I read it quickly.

    I will try to publish other kata today and will be cool to know the problems in my Katas. I don't know the difference of my approved Kata and my Kata rejected.

    Hugs,

    André

  • "y" is not a vowel, at least in portuguese is not

  • I was talking about the interest of the task of the kata. What you were asking for has been done numerous times, and done in more interesting ways. That's what I meant. See the Idea part in the docs. ;)

    Cheers

  • Good afternoon,

    What do you say in "he main problem of the current one being the (lack of) interest of the task (as far as I can tell, the tests are technically ok)".. What is the interest in any kata?

    Thanks,

    André

  • Hi,

    you might be interested in this documentation, if you're interested in authoring kata. The main problem of the current one being the (lack of) interest of the task (as far as I can tell, the tests are technically ok)

    cheers

  • Merge conflict. The SQL example is gone now, but the initial solution in SQL doesn't seem to replace it fully...

  • Loading more items...