fixed that too

Thanks. Well, that last statement should just be removed. I added it for clarity, but it is a false statement. Also added your test case in sample tests.

Thank you. Here's another nice one, for the guitar: https://www.codewars.com/kata/63ac8b9e3f04b10022696fc3

It was in the first fixed test, I changed it to be compliant to the specs. Any other cases where you see a test that does not adhere to the specs?

Well spot! Is this in a fixed or random test? In random tests, I should prevent to generate such cases. If it's in a fixed test, I'll update that test.

how does the tester expected them to be spelled?

how about now?

fixed

you can republish the kata now

fixed, thank you

sample tests to be precise, you did not import assert from chai

Oh my! Good spot. I blame the human in the loop. Fixed. Thanks.

True. I changed the description.

The built-in function max does exactly what is required: return 1 as a minimum. However the wording 'max', I thought could be clarified a little bit more: what is required
for specifying the stack would be a bound, that is between 1-->floor(1/10 * n) and 1-->floor(1/2 * length(list_one)). 'With two or more arguments, return the largest argument' is how max is specified in Python's help doc. However, the word 'maximum(floor(1/10n),1)' could be interpreted as a ceiling of 1 or floor(1/10n); so values like 0.9 or 0.8 are permissible. I am talking about the general specification of the problem for someone who is not familiar with the function max(). So I decided to word it as greater(floor(1/10*n),1) to explicitly specify that 1 is a lower-bound.

duplicate issue

I believe numbers like 20 should also fall under this category, as their first and last digits are the same once padded.