I still do not understand:
[1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15], N = 4

• sequential - True
• odd - True
• equal to cube N - True

findSummands(3) = [7,9,11] // because 7 + 9 + 11 = 27, the cube of 3. Note that there are only n = 3 elements in the array.

added:
I think I understand now! Thank you!

Misleading description! (python lang)
From the description: "you need to find consecutive, odd numbers whose sum is equal to the cube of a given number."

Using the example N = 4, as a result, all tests pass, except for the length test:

• iterate from the beginning: sum([1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15]) == 4 ** 3 Incorrect length for n = 4: 8 should equal 4
• iterate from the end: sum([31, 33]) == 4 ** 3 Incorrect length for n = 4: 2 should equal 4

There is still 1 option left for N = 4: [13, 15, 17, 19]. Judging by the tests, this is exactly what is needed, how should I guess about it?

Just need to check equivalence instead of equality:

• js: "==="
• py: "is"

because the type of the variable must also be taken into account.

A good task, but your solution (Python lang) does not provide all possible options, for example print(eq_all([0, False])) will return True although it should be False. It would be nice to include something like this in tests.

Wrong description!

• According to the condition: it is necessary to find the indices of the letters (the index starts from 0)
• In fact: the order of letters in a word.

I have not even hit the Train button because I don't understand a word of this description.

This is not the original comment! The original was removed as it I reconsidered all of the above and changed my judgment, I was too hasty. I worked on the description of the task of this kata. And I also wrote about this in the first answer.

Thanks for your feedback. =)

This is not the original comment! The original one was removed because it did not solve the problem!

On business:

• Remark on this kata accepted.
• Changed the description of the task and example.

Thanks for your feedback! =)

“This would not fly for test”, but the tests have already worked, maybe with a single test in the group, division into individual ones is not necessary, I’m not sure. However, from a “clean code” point of view, I agree that separate tests should be allocated in the group. Already fixed it, thanks for the note.

Thanks for your feedback. In random tests, lists were actually passed as arguments instead of strings. This was not done intentionally, my oversight. Already fixed it. =)