Kata

Yeah, honestly I was considering that as an issue before beta approval but thought it would not be pretty crucial...

For now changed in the initial solution self._parts to self.parts as more suitable with the actual tests, thanks for your feedback :)

I'm more bothered with comparison tests that rely on the existence of the parts attribute, actually. This is not bad per se, but this is totally white box testing.
I was also annoyed with the _parts vs parts thing, but this is mostly because of the non existence of specifications. A "private" (underscore thing) against a frozen public propety (without the underscore) is quite usual in python.

@Blind4Basics as well as the actual tests which would surely throw an exception for non-existing self.parts, actually (got it myself during completing the kata). At least, according to the lore and such, that could've been considered as a slight-ish hint... that, or you can go over it in other ways tbh

So yeah, honestly I don't think the comparison tests having the MockObject with parts is a big problem, especially with the fixed initial solution (unless I'm missing something at 9 AM...)

ipaddress also has __format__, and also allows adding/subtracting integers from them, and also has a ton of other functionalities, so...

Not sure that copying every single bit from standard library will be helpful

The current set of methods does not teach solvers a best practice.

It is also not understandable, why you ask to implement hash method, if you don't use it as designed (i.e. testing sets of IpAddress, using IpAddress as key of dict, etc.)

1. What do you mean by that?
2. What it will help to achieve?

It is mandated by every kata: see https://docs.codewars.com/authoring/guidelines/submission-tests#random-tests

it is not mandated for every kata, see "Under some rare circumstances, it is allowed to use so-called randomized tests instead of fully random ones."

Terminology is quite weak in this section of documentation. I doubt that it is expected to have truly random tests instead of tests with randomised testing values.

I will update the tests, making the basic ones (visible to user) with only fixed inputs. And extended version with randomised inputs, duplicating existing ones. Even though the solution passing all the already provided tests will be laborious enough to be seen as actually showing the skillset reauired to solve this kata normally.

"Under some rare circumstances, it is allowed to use so-called randomized tests instead of fully random ones."

Please explain what makes you kata so special you can just ignore the standard practice for every kata. Note that this has been done only for several katas out of thousands of katas, and it's usually due to severe technical limitations, not "I believe my kata is so simple/elegant random test cases aren't necessary". You're not gonna convince everyone around (include me) with that here.

Not even trying to convince. Just pointing out that the rule that not enforced autotaically and has exceptions can not be mandatory.

the true question here is: is that very difficult to generate random tests for your kata (edit: or a limited set of possible inputs)? As long as the answer is no, the random tests are mandatory.

Yeah, it all makes sense. @Voile apologies for being overly defensive. Shouldn't have been answering to the comments in the middle of the night.