Why is it an issue? Edit: You're right, the description sets the numbers must be different. I missed that point.

Please don't forget to say which language you are using.

Fixed in Rust, D and Javascript. Python was not affected. Ruby must be checked.

Ruby OK

Would it make more sense to return usize instead of u32 for (1) and (2)?

usize (like size_t in C / C++) is a platform dependent type used for indexes and memory sizes. There is not point in using it just to count numbers.

Thanks.

This is exactly an issue. This kata asks for totally different concepts: it is more an accumulation of tasks rather than a brand new mission.

I lost the count of katas where all you have to do is writing a prime checking function and there is already this kata on divisor function. This kata is redundant and I think it shouldn't have been approved.

Duplicates are reserved for things that are exact duplicates. If combining multiple tasks together is a duplicate to the individual tasks, there will not be any new katas. Everything is a combination of smaller tasks when you break them down to implement the solution. (Just think about how many times you have to write a BFS/DFS on a kata. So are they all duplicates?)

So near duplicates will never be exact duplicates, which means this kata is not a duplicate to anything (unless you can point out one, but there really isn't any).

What you said is at most an opinion (as JohanWiltink quite likes to point at people about). The correct way to express this is to vote accordingly. The "not satisfied" button is there for a reason. If you don't vote accordingly and utilize the satisfaction rating, who'll know that you don't like the kata?

I approve things that are not exact duplicates (as far as I can tell) and is functionally complete (e.g with random tests). That's it. Please utilize the satifaction system if you don't like a kata. I think the final score of 92% is telling that as far as the people who solved this kata goes, most of them think the kata is good.

Duplicates are reserved for things that are exact duplicates.

Do you have a reference for that? Or are you just expressing an opinion here?

Just think about how many times you have to write a BFS/DFS on a kata. So are they all duplicates?

Frankly, a lot of them are.

Make Sure Content is New

Something important to consider when one is writing or editing kata: Is the concept behind this kata novel?
There are many standard exercises in programming that are well represented on CodeWars. Some examples include:

FizzBuzz [1, 2, 3]
Fibonacci Sequences [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7]
Reverse [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

When working on a kata, make sure to check that it has not been done already. Every new kata should ideally teach something different.

This does not talk about exact duplicates. It talks about "the concept behind a kata" instead. So sorting a list by some property of its elements is a duplicate of any kata that asks to .. well, sort a list by some property of its elements. Regardless whether that list is a newline- or space-separated string, an array, a linked list or whatever.

And yes, I get tired of actually listing duplicates, with links, sometimes. Do you remember the duplicate kata about Base--2 calculations? The first one was called "Skrzat" and never actually mentioned "base" or "-2". Sometimes the originals are plain unfindable. Sometimes finding the original is more work than the author of the duplicate ever invested in the duplicate kata. And sometimes finding duplicates takes all of two seconds (approved, with random tests, and with hundreds of solutions in multiple languages), but the duplicate was pushed out anyway. And eventually, it'll get approved, regardless. Because most people either don't dare or don't care to vote less than "fully satisfied", or speak their mind and raise issues and suggestions.

@Voile Please be honest: when creating new katas, combining concepts or ideas to produce a new result is essential but this kata reads as such: this_kata = [length, kata_prime, kata_divisor]. It can't be called a combination, this is a mere concatenation of already existing katas.

Also on satisfaction system, do you really think a 92%-satisfaction feedback of 12 warriors is representative of a community counting thousands of warriors?

Thanks for your feedback aand observation. It's fixed.