I was wondering which anti-exploit measures you were referring to as ridiculous?
Each was added to counteract an exploit that my original version failed to detect.

I have updated the testing so the solutions you pointed out correctly fail

I have updated the testing so your solution correctly fails

Yes, the test code was the same (one of many mistakes)

To clarify, in beta and live kata:

1. If you have not solved the kata you can only see the sample example Test Cases. The full Test Cases are hidden
2. Once the kata has been solved, you can see the full Test Cases

I was not aware of this and assumed to avoid re-training with full test case knowledge in mind that the full test cases would always be hidden

As highlighted by your submissions I will need to take this into account

Thanks for the pointers. Can I ask if the full test suite code is visible to you? I am unclear how much is visible in a beta kata and if the same visibility rules apply if a kata is accepted.

Thank you for the feedback. You are correct. It should not pass.
I am still new to authoring and this is a valuable learning experience!
I will work on a fix.

The intention was to not give a final target code length to make the challenge interesting

As the coder submits their one-liners, the target would be beaten and the next one given ("I've finally done it... oh no, more to do!")

The first target is 128 and it steps down 16 each time the coder achieves this (until 48)

It is intended to mimic the challenge of code golf in that you usually have no fixed target but must try and reduce it further

I have updated the description detailing this

Thanks for the suggestions.

The (byteToMirror, byteMirrored) is actually the accidentally the wrong way round but as the mirroring works both ways it doesn't make a difference.

I also intended to replace the long constant array with my final function but forgot. I have now done this

Both of your suggestions have now been implemented

Thank you both

I have rewritten the test output text as follows:

Originally published as:

If correct: processing PARAMETERS should return CORRECT (received RETURNED)

If wrong: processing PARAMETERS should return CORRECT (received RETURNED) - expected CORRECT to deeply equal RETURNED

Re-published as:

If correct: Processing PARAMETERS correctly returned EXPECTED

If wrong: Processing PARAMETERS should return EXPECTED bue returned ACTUAL - expected ACTUAL to deeply equal EXPECTED

My first kata was a 0% satisfaction. This one was 37%
I'm hoping my next one will pass :)

I tried many times to find an issue but could not.
Is there a test case you can provide me with?
All test cases are randomized so it's possible I'm just being lucky!
Thanks for the feeback - I'll take this into account for future kata I create

Thank you.
I have rewritten the details and also fixed the limit displayed