Kata

Because we're not looking for 1 | 2 | 3 | ... | (n-1) | n.

The problem wants you to calculate (n | 1) + (n | 2) + (n | 3) + ... + (n | (n-1)) + (n | n)

ohhh sh- okay. well, uh, thats kinda dumb

Cause it that was the case, the answer would be (1 << n.bit_length()) - 1, which is too easy for 6 kyu, lol.

oh look at that, finally completed it!

It really depends on your mathematical background. If you're familiar with sequences and bitwise operations, it's quite trivial. Otherwise, it can take you quite a while.

Good luck solving it though, I hope you figure it out :)

upd: nevermind, I think I misunderstood this one!

I wouldn't even call these kata's similar. They are however remotely related in that both require a sum of some bitwise operator.

Exactly. After reading this one more carefully, I see that they are very different.

Wow, it's quite rare for me to have a kata without any issues and only a translation in the discussion section.

I find it quite amusing how you defined the Python exclusive functions in JS, like randint and range. I feel like the things I do in Python may not be the best or easiest to implement in other languages.

Anyways, I was looking through the translation, and it looks fine. I just thought it's weird that, in the random tests section, it states that each batch of 10 or 20 tests is only 1 test. 

Looking more into it, it seems to work as intended for passing cases, breaking early upon a fail. I just wanted to know if that's intended. It's just a bit weird for me to see 35 passed tests in a passing solution if 100 random tests were stated.

I just want to clear up this confusion of mine, and then I'll be sure to approve it. Thank you very much for the translation :).

Yep, it is correct that there appears to be less random tests than there really are. Each batch fails early on first test that fails. I could change that if you want. In fact, since there are only 10 - 20 tests in each batch, I could run them all, regardless of early failure. Lemme change that.

I changed the random tests. Could you verify?

It was fine the way it was; I just wanted to make sure it worked as intended. But it's good the way it is now as well.

Just one thing: aren't you missing the Special tests? They aren't all that important, and I could remove them if you think they're unnecessary, but I'd say it's good to have all versions be consistent with the tests.

ah yes, there are special random tests too. I only just noticed. Lemme add them ..

special cases added