Thanks! I approved it.

I actually wasnt planning on publishing this, but now that you said that, i feel like i would be squadering what i wrote since it could be useful to other users. Forked and now republished with the changes requested.

Tests update looked good! Which is why it was a bit of a shame really to reject it - those tests need updating to current versions.

Maybe fork this, restore the solutions, but keep the ( updated ) tests? I'd approve that, it'd be a good thing for the kata. :]

I didnt realize i published this kumite, apologies. Was using this as a way to test how flatmap worked (which as you noted is not correct way) in comparison to filter approach and how kata template (including giving it a shot at updating tests) worked. thanks for the heads up im fine with a reject on this.

Appreciate your efforts. Two remarks:

• You are changing the example solution. Unless it just won't work with the new testing, please don't. Please respect the original author's solution. ( It will be replaced if the new fork is approved, but it will still be under his name. Also, it's just a piece of history. )

• Your new example and reference solution uses flatMap. It uses it wrongly ( the types don't line up ), which JS won't complain about but is not a good example. Also, it's not as maintainable as possible, which is important for a reference solution. Just do something with filter ( the top voted solution shows how ).