The string has a length greater or equal to one and contains only letters from a to z.

That means the input consists of only lowercase letters.

Based on the description: ... a "bad" control string is produced e.g. aaaxbbbbyyhwawiwjjjwwm with letters not from a to m.

Then a test case with input "aaabbbAAABBBcccCCC" should expect "9/18", and fits with the existing description.

Maybe the description should specify ... with lowercase letters not from a to m.?

Otherwise, a truly valid soltion should be able to handle uppercase letters being in the control string as well.

✅

FArekkusu wrote to me that this is a duplicate (without clarification)

With this user, that's usually the case: issues raised with no explanations, which is awful for new kata creators. While the tone may seem annoying, I would still encourage to leave to issue open for a few days, so others can chime in (and closed if nothing is clarified).

The blocking function prevents the blocked person from texting me and leaving comments on my Kata

This is true, but it also interferes with the beta process. It transfers the burden of raising issues to other members.

it was interesting for me to look at the solutions of this particular Kata

And that's fine. The beta process is about making sure the quality is good, improvements are suggested, and not every kata gets the chance to be approved. Now I'm not saying this one is a duplicate, but it is similar, which may or may not be a problem. It's up to other reviewers and mods to decide that.

Usually there are a few fixed tests, followed by 50-100 random tests. This ensures that any solution is valid, and didn't pass just by chance.

By fixed tests I mean the code you have in sample tests currently (always same input, easier to debug). It should be copied to main tests too (and another similar one(s) added, think of any edge cases).

If you've solved other similar katas, you can navigate to solutions / discourse tab and click 'Show Kata Test Cases' drop-down to see how testing is usually done.

I note right away that this is my first kata, so I hardly understand how the tests should look. Therefore, I will clarify:

• Should I add more tests with 'random' inputs?
• Do fixed tests imply no 'random' inputs or something else?

Ohh, thank you, i will fix it as soon as i can

You won't be the first or the last to do it, but there's no benefit to doing that.

The blocking function prevents the blocked person from texting me and leaving comments on my Kata

Neither is that required for your kata

In the condition I indicated a note to use generics and I see that many options have appeared that I did not even think about, using them I will update the task conditions

There is a beta process here: respect it, and the people taking their time to review your kata.

FArekkusu wrote to me that this is a duplicate (without clarification), but I adequately answered that I see differences and closed the problem, instead they answered me rudely, is this the respect you are talking about? Nonsense, I do not intend to endure this. No.

You forcefully bring different tasks to the same form and I think this is wrong. When I created this kata, I was looking for just such a grouping. In addition, it was interesting for me to look at the solutions of this particular Kata and not a similar-simplified.

2 tests with 'random' inputs aren't enough. There should be some fixed tests, and more random tests as well.

Tests are vulnerable to input modification. See this solution.

You should compute the expected value first.

or i will block you

You won't be the first or the last to do it, but there's no benefit to doing that.

solution not use generics

Neither is that required for your kata.

you can specify the key by which objects be group

Right, because you are using objects to group, not primitive values.

Then output

Again, remove the aspect of it being objects and the differences are minor.

If generics were properly enforced (if that's possible), then I might consider this kata unique enough, but as it stands it looks rather similar.

Whatever the case, you need stop closing issues, because you feel like it. You seem rather new, but apparently you know what a duplicate is better than a long-standing user and reviewer. The list of issues it not for you to just look at and discard, but simply a TODO list that should be completed.

There is a beta process here: respect it, and the people taking their time to review your kata.

The resolved issue is below.

Stick to constructive criticism without offense "any sensible user" or i will block you >:\
Firstly - code from the Kata you mentioned: 1) can't group objects 2) solution not use generics - right?
Secondly - in my Kata you can specify the key by which objects be group:

// In example Kata we have key 'status', but we may pick other field:
const byKey = 'description';

Then output:

[
  {
    key: "OK",
    values: [
      { status: 200, description: "OK" },
      { status: 200, description: "OK" },
    ],
  },
  { key: "Not Found", values: [{ status: 404, description: "Not Found" }] },
  {
    key: "Internal Server Error",
    values: [{ status: 500, description: "Internal Server Error" }],
  },
]

Thus, we have at least 3 differences.

Still a duplicate.

Firstly, the array contents are irrelevant. Secondly, regardless of what "the key cannot be specified" is supposed to mean, the only difference between your kata and the one I linked is how the group is determined: value[key] against key(value). Don't claim your kata is not a duplicate when any sensible user here can clearly see that they are (almost) identical.