I encountered the exact same error, and used the exact same hard-coded solution to bypass it. So I came here to post about the same problem. Perhaps that would change your estimation of the likelihood of coding error?

Well... I tried (Python) this specific case against my solution and the code used to resolve the random tests and both return False.

Your add to your code is useless because that peculiar case has very little chances to show itself a second time in the random tests. So this add didn't solve anything by returning True because the if statment was never verified in your next attempts.

Once again, the problem seems to be in your code. ;)

Warning : I don't know what langage you train, but the output is not always clear on what's happening : when the output is something like '-177.96186842018926, 53.94099' failed to validate, this means only that your code didn't do what was expected. BUT !! That doesn't mean that the expected answer was true, just that your code didn't give the correct answer.

Now, considering that a lot of guys did complete this kata, I suggest you to watch carefully at your code, I think the "issue" lays there... ;)

I close this issue, assuming that this is a misunderstanding of the output of the tests (which are not really clear, once again). Feel free to post a new issue if you can confirm that there is effectively a problem in the tests (please give the langage you use at the same time if you do).