no answer from OP

what does "is missing the function name" mean, could you be more precise ? is this about the sample tests or the full tests ?

One of the test cases in the test is missing the function name and therefore always returns false because the argument list and the result list are different

Thanks for the comment. Much appreciated!

There are some kata similar to what you suggest. Check out these:

"Check and Mate?"

"Is the King in check ?"

"One line task: Is the King in check ?"

"Explain the Algebraic Chess Notation"

"Find the Final Position"

Enjoy!

Hi, very nice kata, love it :)
Please please please make a harder version (either normal chess or atomic chess or even both) (suggestions to make it harder below)\

1. Instead of f3xe5 the input is a proper chess notation e.g. Nxe5 - this will allow move disambiguation (and of course double disambiguation!!!!)
2. Allow pawn promotion, castling and en passant
3. Verify whether a move is legal (especially for castling - cannot castle out of check, into check, or through check)
4. Require the solution to output whether either side is in check or in checkmate

The random tests don't work (at least in Python), Anything works (def calc_type(a, b, res): pass - passes all 100 of the random tests)

from string import ascii_lowercase will give you a variable (type string) called ascii_lowercase which equals 'abcdef...wxyz' (ascii_uppercase works the same way)

Decent data searching exercise.

Put a dictionary in the 'preloaded' tab, it'll make people's lives much easier

No, in the tests. You know exactly what data you're generating, you don't need to use a reference solution to verify it.

I'll mark the issue as resolved for now so that I can re-publish the kata

I fixed the first problem (added arguments), but when you say refsol do you mean the 'complete solution'? (Am I allowed to leave it blank?)

Random tests only produce functions without arguments.

Also, don't use a refsol for fucks sake.

Description no longer matches specification. You're passing some kind of module object now, but description still specifies strings.

Honestly, the previous setup with a string was nicer imo.