And how was I escalating anything? I just gave you an info I thought you were lacking. Again, the only person escalating anything here is you...

Stop bothering me until you can learn how to be unbiased.

sounds like I'm the one who should say this, actually.

Also, for the record, there are a lot of legitimate reasons for issues being posted twice, such as requests going out twice due to bad internet, double clicking submit button, etc...

There were mostly two possible reasons: either you didn't know about the time delta, or you're currently subject to some kind of "posting troubles". The first seemed more natural, that's all.

If you aren't capable of de-escalating the situation by just removing the duplicate issues and reminding me they were duplicated instead of taking such wild assumptions (why wouldn't I know when a kata is sent back to draft? like I said I wasn't cleaning up old beta katas since today), it implies something more about your ability as a site mod than anything else. And if you aren't capable to act in a way that is not clearly showing bias (for the record, demanding absolute infallibility out of particular people isn't unbiased), I have doubts about your integrity as a site mod as well.

Now if I were as incapable of de-escalating the situation as you do I'd already have headed to github issues and raised official complaints about the integrity of several of the existing mods, and demand resignation of said mods, several months ago. But don't want to bother dealing with the absolutely echo chamber that is CW Discord. If you all want it that way, let it be.

So, get lost. Stop bothering me until you can learn how to be unbiased. If you're really trying to be helpful you should get someone update these katas out of Node 8 instead.

lol... yeah, let's call some funny bird names...

Are you stupid or do you need to learn how to read? ( point being "two issues" => do you see the second...? Wondering why?)

Your last 4 issues were posted two times. I deleted the second for each of them. There were mostly two possible reasons: either you didn't know about the time delta, or you're currently subject to some kind of "posting troubles". The first seemed more natural, that's all.

edit: the very only person rambling here is you, just like usual...

Are you stupid or something? I don't just raise issues starting from today, of course I know how the return to draft works.

Nobody has raised any existing but unnoticed issues on old katas, so there will have to be pointed out. Now if you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute please don't barge in with irrelevant rambling.

I guess you are trying to push back those kata in draft by raising 2 issues?
=> won't work. This feature is activated only for recent kata (as in "less than a bunch of days")

Kata is stuck in Node 8.

It's really not clear what you were asking for. For a given network (defined by the original IP and subnetmask), you want us to partition that IP space into smaller subnets with number of hosts in each subnet.

You said the Number of Hosts will not always be valid, but it would have been more helpful to say, if you cannot make subnets with exactly number of hosts then we should use the smallest possible subnets that hold at least that many hosts.

It'd also help if you gave an example of a network which is partitioned into more than 1 subnet.

Also, for your test cases, look into using Test.assertSimilar and you won't have to use JSON.stringify on all of the values.

this is not only keys, but key-value pairs

good luck!

Thanks.

Got my error now, which was clear when I re-read the description. :-)

Hey, thanks for the feedback =)

it will now show the expected value

and i hope i've corrected all spelling mistakes

I thought I knew this stuff, but I can't get past the first test case. :-)

It's an interesting exercise, though, and I'll return later and try again.

As for feedback, I know that a lot of katas don't do it, but it would be great if your test cases wrote out what was the expected output and not just that it wasn't the correct value.

Also, there are a few spelling mistakes in the description. "wand" instead of "want", "arrar" instead of "array".

But leading zeros are no problem, e.g. "192.168.1.001" will work, your webbrowser will convert it to "192.168.1.1" so you reach your router.
And even C# has no problem if you try to connect to a server at "127.0.0.1" with "127.0.0.001".