lol this was three years ago... i got it now haha

Keep practicing! I'm alright at python too but I always use loops to do simple tasks. Keep analysing what the best answers do, and try to figure out what each part does. Then try it out yourself and google anything you don't know. The next thing you know, you're improving!

@ajgrinds:

In summary, you can ignore it. I wrote it as optional info and as something you can use to check yourself if you're going in the right direction.

As mentioned by @RobsonMoon, it's trivia and not a restriction of the challenge; that's the reason why I added it as Optional Extra.

Also, as mentioned, that knowledge could be used to write your own practice tests. Indeed, one of the Kata's tests (not part of the Sample Tests), checks that the sum of combinations of lengths from 4 to 9 adds up to 389112, but that's just something internal.

Filtering out patterns less than 4 is not part of the challange. So why would it be included?

That's just a bit of interesting trivia, although you could use that knowledge to write your own sample test.

Out of curiosity, in case you're wondering, for the Android lock screen, valid patterns must have between 4 and 9 dots, So this isn't part of it...?

It starts with a comment: //

Very nice. I still don't understand what stepped ranges are but Im sure googling could figure it out. Although having some sort of example would be nice

Edit: NVM you fixed this I didn't notice

I've rearranged it a couple of times, unfortunately it makes sense to me (obviously), are there any obvious reworks that would make it cleaner.

I've removed the 31st of February unnecessary statement.

I'll be cleaning up some of the assertions in the simpler tests to make them easier to understand (which should cover the code side of the suggestion)

Edit: I've done some rearranging and adding of headers. Hopefully should be a little clearer now?

he's not talking about the code, but about the description (As I said below, the information is spread "all over the place", so it might be useful to rewrite it in a more structured fashion)

In regards to the test assertions, do you have any suggestions to make it more readable?

The issue with changing the assertions is, I could update it to compare each line in the output, but in the case of issues in multiple fields it would not be clear (only the first failure would be rendered). It would also muddy the water as to the output format as it would look like a list more than a string output.

Edit: Have added specific formatting tests, and updated the tests that are expecting a single field to be outputted correctly to only assert that line. The random tests will still use the old compare everything assertion.

Could you be more specific in regards to which of Blind4Basics issues are coming up for you as well? Each of the issues has been marked as resolved so the same issues should not be possible.

Everything Blind4Basics said has come up for me as well as the output of 'minute 1 15 16 17 0 10 20 30 40 50\nhour 0\nday of month 1\nmonth 1\nday of week 1' should equal 'minute 0 1 10 15 16 17 20 30 40 50\nhour 0\nday of month 1\nmonth 1\nday of week 1' is TERRIBLE to read and Im sure you could come up with a better way of solving it.

Please make the directions better. This line isn't necessary and is misleading as it is one of two exapmples According to crontab.guru 5 4 31 2 * would occur “At 04:05 on day-of-month 31 in February.” And overall they're just hard to read

bruh

Im pretty good at python, but solutions like this still elude me. I can understand them, but its hard to engineer them, any tips?