g is redundant here ;) and yep this is a very cool solution (if not consider performance^^)

Thanks. That case is now included in the test.

Test cases aren't strong enough.

There needs to be a test case like "01234abcde<>", because you can pass the kata by only checking that the hash contains 5 numbers and 5 letters, and not verifying that the hash contains incorrect characters.

Definitely! Let me know if you see any issues.

Congrats on your second first kata! :P

Thanks for that. Now edited to reflect numbers and lowercase letters.

Your instruction is incomplete!

In this scenario, a valid hash value consists of five numbers and five letters in any order.

you didn't mention that CAPS are not allowed.

Again, appreciate all the feedback. I certainly realise I could have done with a bit more research on the testing. All clear now.

Did not mean to imply that's not a good possibility. Reading back, I see how you could very well read that into it.

The audience that'll review this kata is rather limited, but you get to change things here before publishing a new one - and the new one had better get a lot of things reasonably right from the get go, otherwise - well, you see what happened to this one.

One consideration though: there's a lot to learn from solving other people's kata, and then reading their solutions, tests and comments. Inventing the wheel yourself, then getting feedback on a kata that gets retired because you're making all the same bloody mistakes lots of people have already made may work for you - but it will not be working endlessly for me. And these comments will not be read by future generations to learn from, so there is little incentive to give a crash course in kata creation here. But if you had read more comments on existing kata, you would have stumbled on that crash course ( by me or by some other helpful code warrior ) already. There's plenty out there, it's just fragmented all over the place.

You can always fix and improve the kata and then post a new kata with it.

Testing looks better. Description could still do with an update.

But this kata seems to be retired, so there's no use any more spending any effort on it.

Believe I've resolved the testing issues.

Thanks for the feedback. Still figuring out the testing framework.

Task Description is unclear. What exactly are we supposed to do?

Testing is inadequate broken. Returning a constant is probably not what you had in mind as a solution. Testing the user solution against itself is not the way to do it.

Example tests are also broken, differently.

Would not solve again.