I just changed the behaviour of Haskell to match JS and Python. Ruby still needs to be adjusted.

Very nice solution, but wouldn't be very readable without proper commenting in a codebase.

Python fork rewriting the description & adding fixed tests of string length (0 - 2)

You've had more than eight years, you're still here, and it's still not fixed.

( Haskell )

Test suite tests different specs than are in the Description. Inputs of length 1 are special-cased in clear contradiction of the description.

Yes, that was not clearly specifified and could only be derived from the example. To make sense as an outlier-rejection algorithm the order of evaluation must not matter. We therefore only consider the original data as a whole.

Specs are still incomplete. How does cutting an outlier influence earlier values? ( They may now be outliers. ) Is cutting outliers strictly left-to-right, iterative, right-to-left, or does it only happen in original windows?

How can the example still have the outlier 3 in it?

Oops, there was an off-by-one error that is fixed now. So the 3 is cut now correctly.
Thanks for raising this issue!

I have the exact same question. My code passes all other tests execpt this one.

    @test.it("Cut one value")
    def cut_one_value():
        arr = [1,1,2,2,1,7,0,1,3,0,1]
        test.assert_equals(lawnmower(arr, 5, 2), [1,1,2,2,1,0,1,3,0,1])

I have a question about this example.

With a lawnmower of length 5, it will consider the range [0,1,3,0,1]. In this range, the median is 1. However, 3 is more than 2 times the median in this range. So why is 3 not cut?

Thank you for the feedback on the beta of this Kata! The initical code was indeed necessary as part of the specification, so I changed the description now that it can stand alone.

Description is incomplete. Examples are not specifications; the description should be complete without them. Even the values that the example introduces ( threshold, window ) are, again, unspecified. They might be function arguments, but, again, the description does not specify that. Initial code is not specs either!

approved by someone

Thank you for the suggestion. I removed the "for simplicity" from the description. Please do not hesitate to give any additonal feedback.

Of course, my friend. I'm sorry for the carelessness