New version here. I hope it works now. Python version later; better to Beta it one language at a time.

.

.

.

.

Hello daryjoe,

Maybe you could allow others to help you by ticking the check box:-
-> Allow Contributors.

That way you can get some help with the kata.

What do you think about that?

JohanWiltink,

Thank you.

sure go ahead

Are you still working on it?

If not, can we hijack the idea or the whole kata and do it right?

No. 450 is the correct answer according to the specs. The test is wrong.

Hello folks,

Just had a go at this my answer to example given is 450.

However, answer is stated as 470!

Have I missed something?

In python random tests use user solution as reference.

Python tests, JS tests and description seem to be not two but three different realities ..

There should not have been a function setup in Preloaded. And there should especially not have been a working function in the test suite. If you see that in other kata, it's the reference solution for the random tests, and it has a different name than the user solution.

Please go read available documentation.

The whole idea of the kata also just wasn't novel. Do something that hasn't [ approximately ] been done. This is also in the docs.

There actually are random tests. But the reference solution does not implement the specs.

Leaving this issue open, but the actual issue here is the reference solution, not the random tests.

( Fixing the specs to conform to the reference solution is not the way to go here; that would be a less interesting kata by a comfortable margin. )