You lost your fancy drop-downs in description o_O This is probably better tho :p

A fun kata, but different ruleset made me confused at times. Using the regular format would've made it just as good :P

I'd suggest to clarify that all inputs are valid (no more than 3 lifelines used, no repeating lifelines, no 'E' or '1W', etc.)

In the seoond case, the walk is only 8 minutes long.

Angry? I just left some snarky replies to your equally ridiculous comments, while trying to point you to the source of the error.

And no, we can't just ban you because we want to (I'm not sure about Hob), but the fact you would just blindly imply it is quite disgusting.

It's possible that you modified sample tests by accident, hence the error. Sample tests are local for you and editable (is that a word?). However, you can't modify "attempt" tests, so maybe that's why it passed.

do you see my solution

Yes, there has been a feature introduced a few years ago that lets you see someone else's current solution, if you solved the kata yourself.

people before me wrote about the errors

And what was your conclusion? That they couldn't possibly be wrong? Did you read the responses and possible solutions to these "errors"?

I would start by logging inputs, like adding print(f"name: {name}") line at the beginning of your function, or downvoting others' comments and pretending codewars is the problem.

But you passed all the tests. What was wrong?

I get an error when if argument for name is empty it returns "Hello, !".

Correct, this is what your code produces. It is also incorrect answer. The mistake is in your code.

You're probably testing something different locally. Try running hello("") and see what it outputs.

Not a kata issue.

Nope. Oh, you mean your code? Yes, yes it is.

Approved.

Approved.

how is the 0 bigger than 8

That's exactly why your answer isn't correct. There are smaller numbers that are bigger than initial number. 1234567890 < 1234567908 < 1234567980.

Maybe you misunderstood the task, but the clue is in the title.

Yeah sorry about that. I must've copied tests from incorrect translation :P

But that's simply not true for Prolog. Same for the issue below, there are no 0s anywhere in the tests as far as I can see.

Edit: I guess you modified the tests by yourself?