sorry, indeed looks that it is ambiguous :/ Putting kata in draft and on the fresh head will polish tests. Good night :)

thank you very much - kata came out of the beta!

thank you for your kind words - such feedback helps to continue creating new! ^^

changed, unfortunately still not enough. :( Wrote to Ulrich asking him to provide a feedback because I am almost sure that he can help with it.

hi! can you please provide a ranking feedback for this kata? I think that only 1 vote is not enough to make it approvable. let's help this baby to be born :)

good kata, unfortunately, my vote and rank is still not enough to make it approvable :/

I am checking correct ordering in the tests. I think that ordering in the output here indeed is not the focus of the logic being tested, but rather a way to validate correctness in assertions. If a query logically guarantees correct representation without explicit ordering, I believe it should be accepted.

BTW, brilliant solution, Twilight_Sun :) Like in Ukraine we are joking, "solution of the son of his mother's friend" :D

Zich weren als een duivel in een wijwatervat. But I am back :) Happy New Year!

What if more than one person with the same name visits the same number of couuntries? :) I think that to cover all possible cases there should be 3 ordering criterions

"We always have to see both categories in the results, even if one or both of the counts is zero."

updated sample test. tnx!

don't have much time today :/. Putting kata into draft and will carefully work with all issues when have time (and re-check my solution because looks that it has issues)...Very interesting problem

yes, you are absolutely right :/ I just updated initially without thinking deeply. It should not be possible to be sold more than purchased

fixed :)

updated the Notes section of description as answers to your questions

done :) Thanks for the approvals of all previous katas! ^^