That's quite allright, no problem at all :) Yes, from a competitive standpoint, this definitely takes way too much time to write!

Can you articulate why? :)

The fact that it is much longer than other solutions does not make it inefficient, and especially not bad code. Multi-layered ternary operators in a single line may be more clever, but not "better"(see note in the bottom). In fact I think my code is exceptionally readable, though others are free to disagree. As for efficiency, we could debate it, but the use case is a grid of 12 elements, so it is quite pointless.

Note: I do not believe that there is a general definition of better. Sometimes time complexity is paramount, other times space complexity, yet other times developer time/maintainability/extendability are way more important.

Thanks, this is a good catch. I've added the above mentioned example as a test to prevent this.

Thank you :)

Yes, I know it is difficult. I think these should generally be rated independently, though I can see the problem with that. Also, some of my proposed problems (not all are posted yet) can have similar solutions, but they are quite different problems. I think in those cases you also need to rate them independently.

Also keep in mind that these can be very simple if you have studied graph theory but quite challanging if this is the first time you encounter graph algorithms.

It is true that they are somewhat similar but I intend to continue this with multiple parts in the near future :)

Yes they do - thanks!

Please get back to me if it still doesn't work, but hopefully it's ok now :)

Thanks! Yes, there was a mistake on my side (actually, with hashCode.... no comment).

Your code should work now. Thanks for the feedback and sorry about the trouble :)

Thanks, fixed!

Thanks, fixed!

Ahh, I'm sorry, this is me being sloppy. I fixed the issue, please let me know whether it works properly on your end.

Quite frankly, I don't think so... Can you post some code here? I'll mark it spoiler once we figure out the problem.

Thanks, I'm glad you liked it! ;)

Don't forget to give it a rank assessment so it can get out of Beta! ;)

Good Kata!

But you need to cover cases where there are multiple solutions correctly. My solution is failing random tests though from the error message it is pretty clear that I have found another (but valid) shortest path between S and G.

I suggest you assert whether you can get from S to G moving only on Ps and count the steps instead of simply asserting strings.

Thanks, this was a very fun Cat-a.

(Sorry. I had to.)