Approved by author

yep, I should use const reference.

Prototype of find_routes looks a bit awkward (in both solution setup and example solution), is param sent by a const value deliberate? Did you mean const reference?

Is this correction sufficient?

Rust tests were not ideal, and they've been fixed recently

Thanks for review! I have fixed all mentioned problems. I agree that using pair is much better approach.

• missing some includes in most of snippets, for string and vector
• unnecessary TODO note in full tests
• regerence solution should not be global or public

I think that pairs would be nicer as input that array<2>, what do you think?

Thank you for review and detailed description of all problems. I already fixed all mentioned points, please review changes.

• includes are missing in all snippets: for std::vector, for std::pair, for random utilities
• utilities from the random header should be preferred over rand
• TODO note is unnecessary in full tests
• helper functions should be ideally declared as static, or members of test suite
• reference solution should not be accessible from global scope, ideally it should be made private or local to the test suite

Please see C++ authoring docs for some hints on reported issues: https://docs.codewars.com/languages/cpp/authoring

C++ translation:
https://www.codewars.com/kumite/6244bc2c58ad06006b64b094?sel=6244bc2c58ad06006b64b094

C++ translation:
https://www.codewars.com/kumite/62433060e2be22004f060552?sel=62433060e2be22004f060552

If Rust tests are fine then C++ tests are ok as well.

Are you sure the example tests work properly?

I'm really sorry for the problems, I have already fixed the issue, this was my first translation and I misunderstood how the tests are checked before publication.

At Example Test Cases I have changed expected value (e.g. 5) into Equals(5), Hidden test cases were fine.

Once again sorry for the problems.

Sir, there seems to be an issue with this translation. A warrior pointed out in discourse