It seems codewars doesn't allow the translation author to update the translation.

I've tried to provide an update translation, but than jhoffner responded "Looks like this is a bug to be able to create this translation. The kata already supports java." and then the conversation ended.

So once the translation is there, it's up to the kata's original author to update it.

Thanks bkaes. I think that would count. Is there a possibilitiy the test cases can be updated to include the suggested workaround in the link you provided?

Yes, I was under the impression I could fork the current Java translation and offer improvements/changes to it. There have been comments by other users on suggested changes and, since I created the translation, I thought I would try to address them. Is the original author the only one that can update the original kata and any approved translations?

The current use of "assertEquals" is as follows: assertEquals(Groups.groupCheck("({"), false);

That is incorrect. The method is defined as assertEquals(expected, actual).

The implementation has it reversed. So if my groupCheck method returned true instead of the desired false I would get the following message:

"expected:true but was:false" When the message should be "expected:false but was:true"

I suggest correcting the use of assertEquals in the Test Cases in order to give developers more accurate feedback.

Translated this to Java (http://www.codewars.com/kata/this-is-a-problem/java).
Please provide feedback if you have any.

I'm passing the example test cases provided, but when I go to submit my solution it seems assertEquals in the Test Case is not being recognized.

/CaffeineBuzz_Test.java:9: error: cannot find symbol
assertEquals("mocha_missing!", CaffeineBuzz.caffeineBuzz(mochaMissingArgs[i]));
^
symbol: variable CaffeineBuzz
location: class CaffeineBuzz_Test

I am having the same problem. Solved it in Python, but for the life of me the test cases for Java are not lining up with how I would assume a "best practice" solution would look like.

Thanks g964, that looks better. I would accept that.

I am having trouble wrapping my head around this part of your post "for each prime factors you found to make the sum of the numbers of the initial array that are divised by that factor."

For each prime factor (ex [2,3,5]), make the sum of the numbers of the initial array (ex. 27) that are divised by that factor. Divised by the factor of [2,3,5]? Only 3 is a prime factor of 27 that is 27 is divisible of. So I am still confused.

If I = [12, 15, 18], the prime factors would still be [2,3,5]. But the sum of the initial array would be 45.

So what happens when you do not have the same number of prime factors as there are 12,15,18,45?

I know it would still look something like this "(2 ?) (3 ?) (5 ?) ( ?)".

So I guess the basis of my question is, what determines the order of the non-prime factor integers? And under what circumstances do we get the sum of all integers? Upon getting the sum, what determines where it is placed in the array?

It's not sorted by size, nor the order of the initial array. Maybe this is a case of a limited test case or I could be missing something.

I am having to reverse engineer my solution to pass the tests that fail upon submitting because the description is not clear to me.