I personally had to look it up.

.

you are training on a long-outdated version of the sample tests.

(python)

• The sample tests require a function named pareto and the expected output is a list of list

• The submissions tests (also in the description) require a function named pareto_front whereas the expected output is a set of tuples.

• Th domination criteria is not explicit Wiki:

  An allocation {x_{1},\dots ,x_{n}}, where x_{i} in R^{k} for all i, is Pareto-optimal if there is no other feasible allocation
  {x_{1}',... ,x_{n}'} where, for utility function u_{i} for each agent i, u_{i}(x_{i}') >= u_{i}(x_{i}) for all i in {1, ... ,n} with
  u_{i}(x_{i}') > u_{i}(x_{i}) for some i

This should have been an Issue. The kata is not solvable without these specifications.

I agree with your suggestion. I've now changed the output type, updated the description, and notified the three authors whose solutions were invalidated.

Technically, the kata is now ready to be approved, but perhaps we should wait for a few more solutions and rank votes. Average assessed rank is 4kyu, but one could argue that the handling of root multiplicities pushes this closer to 3kyu territory.

Just my opinion, but given such low solve count (and the fact it's still in Beta) I'd suggest to apply this change, and leave a comment under each solution to notify and encourage them to re-submit.

It was a really nice kata. Unfortunately, the author hasn't been around since December 2022. I could change the output type from float to Fraction, but it would invalidate all existing five solution (including the author's). I'm not sure what the best way to proceed is.

Only invalidated solutions were the ones which tried to use a correct prime checker and then append the wrong results as special cases.

Okay I have approved your fork with some modifications. If this invalidates solutions then it's on me.

You shouldn't end up invalidating any solutions if you add the import to the setup as well as preloaded.

It'll be disgusting, yes, but we haven't been given much choice.

My apologies for not responding to your original suggestion. Obviously the question of whether indexes should start at 0 or 1 is a matter of style. I prefer 1 in this case for the following reason: If someone says something like "the maximizing move was move 8", they most likely mean the 8th one, not the 9th one.

Certainly not now but I made this suggestion before the kata got approved.

I don't know whether we should still make such a breaking change after approval of the kata.

fixed