thanks!

seems to work better now (anyway I fixed my solution before ;) )

in JS tests output is truncated like

Test failed for aroundFib(957): expected 'Last chunk 44842179940550505985582222…' to equal 'Last chunk 5402420264154456349058562;…'

so it is hard to debug

some names seem to be completely random, but there is some 'logic':

segments -> ss -> ß

result -> r

last -> l

I guess not all of them could be described by the word "easy" =)

thanks ;)

yes, it is already possible, but it's a huge amount so I guess I'll try to go through some purples as well (at least that few that I've already done in Ruby and haven't done in JS)

there are no more easy 3-4kyu JS kata left and not much easy 1-2kyu, so it wouldn't be fast I think

in Ruby

1. sample tests are broken, they have even syntax errors
2. style issue: function name coveredDots should be covered_dots
3. attempt tests expect strange non-integer results. e.g. 987.5909072547386 × 943.3982221769694 ↺ 73° 1240171 ̷≈ 931691.5061422606

in JS sometimes generateCoords generate illegal moves (a self-capturing move, for example) and a test (for instance, "Rollback more than amount of moves raises an error") could fail with a correct solution.
I was lucky to observe it at least once
maybe that could be fixed (or, at least, it could be mentioned in description that test could have some unstable behaviour)

random test cases are inconsistent between langauges: JS tests only lowercase letters but in Ruby there are uppercase letters as well

thank you!

thanks.

yes, it is still in "Ranking feedback needed" state

in JavaScript I've got such an input in random tests:

{ width: 5, height: 3 }
[
  [ { x: 1, y: 1 }, { x: 3, y: 1 } ],
  [ { x: 3, y: 1 }, { x: 2, y: 2 } ],
  [ { x: 1, y: 2 }, { x: 1, y: 0 } ],
  [ { x: 1, y: 2 }, { x: 1, y: 1 } ]
]

and it tells expected false to equal true
but when I copied it to sample tests picture clearly shows me that there are no partitions and my answer (false) seems to be correct

I just saw that ordering is stated in the description but isn't present in my query so I assumed that it is not tested well.
But now I checked and realised that the culprit is the PostgreSQL who orders the result of my query without me asking it. So I was wrong.