That's... possible. It was the case in the past, yes. I don't know if it got fixed or not. I guess not...

Note for future: create a new translation.

approved

Not sure exactly what you mean here.

I guess it's just the diff that is not showing the next line (worst case, I can fix it after approval)

• the expectedSolution method should be private
• the building of the random list of coins is a bit weird (why not directly an array?) but at this point, "whatever", I guess.

Poke at me when the method is private.

That's the opposite... The actual problem is the extra s

• I think the java code block is missing the closing backticks? (maybe not, it's not clear by looking at the diffs)
• Why the instane if the method is static...? => remove the instance completely?
• the solution setup is not aligned with the current solution (no static method)
• could we use a loop to write only once the code for assertions?

Duplicate. Changing the language doesn't change the fact there are already a solid bunch of kata about that.
Unpublishing.

Hi,

• the specs are not matching the tests: 'S' should return None while it's supposed to be taken as 's'.
• This has nothing to do with a date parser, this is a time converter.
• why returning None when the value is negative? A negative timedelta makes sense.
• The task as very little interest, and the DateParser class and its methods are totally useless => ?

Cheers

maybe you should add some specifics about the expected behaviors, now. Because it's not really good (imo) to let the user dig into the tests to guess what the specs are.

btw : so "sufucuent"? I don't get the pun (I guess there is?)

yeah, I'm not at home (in every possible meaning...), and the error messages are quite unreadable (because I'm not used to their formatting on smal windows: I didn't see some parts were hidden on the right, outside of view).

edit: I don't fill like I "solved" the task, there...

tests are not suffucuent

Is that wanted? (I guess not?)

I'm not a C# guy at all. Currently facing 3 errors in submission tests and no idea where to look at. Shouldn't we have the contract for the IStunee object? (might be unrelated to the task, I have no idea...)

yup.

nope, not at all. It's still the very same : the user is still told to compute a random element while the only matrix they have seen until then is not the one holding the output.

=> back to the drawing board ;)

totally up to you, it just has to be specified. But considering the other specs, yes, it probably should be tested against.

Hi,

It's not said if the initial inventory object should be copied or not/can be mutated or not.

Cheers