I rewrote the description to clarify what people were doing, and replacted the reference solution with a much cleaner piece of code, and used DeepEquals.

Fixed.

Sample tests are missing.

Sorry ignore my question

Hi xDranik,

Can you please update on the Test.assertEquals(validBraces( "(({{[[]]}}))" ), false);
Shouldn't it return true?
Thank you in advance

Thank you Johan. I've just updated the name and expected behaviour. Will be shortly working on new Kata with your feedback in mind. Wish u a nice evening.

You'd have to specify expected behaviour exactly, and to me it would feel like a contrived, unnatural, illogical task.

If in this way you wanted to get around the fact that your idea isn't new, you could do that. Frankly, I would not care for it much, but you're not beholden to my opinion.

Also, you'd have to rename the kata. People would be getting wrong ideas.

Hi Gents,

Thanks for all your help. The Kata "Next bigger number with the same digits" is a more complicated version of mine( I wasn't aware about its existance, when I created mine). My Kata checks whether there is an existing next larger value by inversing just the last two digits, otherwise it retruns the same number.
I was wandering if my Kata can qualify as a simplified version of the existing one, which can be ranked much lower, thus new starters as me can take advantage of?

Thank you in advance

:-)... next time, next try...

There's duplicate and there's bad implementation. And they're not mutually exclusive .. ;]

Are you seriously asking him to do your homework for you ?!? :S

Not really, look at 1243 so 1234 is not bigger, but for example 1324;-)...

Thank you for your feedback. Would you be able to give me some more details on your comment, as I was thinking that by checking if I can cahnge the last two digits for a bigger number, is the check if there is a next bigger number. Thank you in advance

Not really, the tests work different - see my issue;-) So he can change the description (no duplicate, but sense?) or his code/tests... than it's a duplicate;-)

.