Java Fixed Test Sets Improvment.

Java sample test reports on STDERR:

./src/test/java/SolutionTest.java:11: error: cannot find symbol
assertTrue(Kata.fecolaast("chickadee","chote cake"));
^
symbol: method fecolaast(String,String)
location: class Kata
1 error

The C++ kata description says unsigned long. The max unsigned long number in C++ is about 10 digits, i.e. tests and control functions differ from problem description and it is a bug. Maybe the correct C++ description is unsigned long long, however the assert statements have to be updated in that case.

The test is not mine. It is a random generated test during attempt test phase and test numbers are reported by codewars. I simply copy/paste that test and both solutions, mine and ready made one from unlocked solutions report the 95 as a result?? At the same time the test says that the result must be 97?

Meanwhile, I unlock C++ solutions, and pass the same C++ test on my local PC with a a ready made unlocked solution and the result is 95 again, i.e. it is not 97 as a test states preliminary?!

More over I passed a JS solution with 106 green test (during attempt) of total 100 huge tests and the result is timeout, please write an eficient algorithm??

Why wrong?
I tested the same C++11 source code, however the results are not same???

Yes, you are true. The bug is mine,
however the bigest C++ unsigned long is 4 294 967 295,
i.e about ten decimal digits,
and at the same time random test (during attempt)
passes me 12 digit numbers

such as
assert(solution({340445127495, 60921759657, 293857899522, 204267076497,
347612393337, 258021570312, 25085430447, 14334531684, 168430747287,
129010785156, 336861494574, 304608798285, 322526962890, 21501797526,
146928949761, 272356101996, 28669063368, 136178050998, 150512582682,
229352506944, 318943329969, 7167265842, 161263481445, 236519772786,
351196026258, 118259886393, 172014380208, 39419962131, 236519772786,
218601608181, 43003595052, 344028760416, 250854304470, 3583632921,
297441532443, 57338126736, 175598013129, 293857899522, 211434342339,
351196026258, 247270671549, 315359697048, 154096215603, 311776064127,
139761683919, 222185241102, 143345316840, 351196026258, 351196026258,
222185241102, 347612393337, 143345316840, 175598013129, 283107000759,
225768874023, 336861494574, 10750898763, 186348911892, 240103405707,
265188836154, 258021570312, 107508987630, 354779659179, 204267076497,
46587227973, 193516177734, 75256291341, 254437937391, 25085430447,
275939734917, 204267076497, 64505392578, 17918164605, 154096215603,
193516177734, 326110595811, 243687038628, 68089025499, 225768874023,
240103405707, 265188836154, 326110595811, 261605203233, 215017975260,
286690633680, 78839924262, 53754493815, 100341721788, 89590823025,
222185241102, 71672658420, 344028760416, 240103405707, 333277861653,
311776064127}) == 340445127495) ;

If you update "Smallest possible sum" description

from "if X[i] > X[j] then X[i] = X[i] - X[j]"

to "if X[j] > X[i] then X[j] = X[j] - X[i]"

then you can pass the first of BasicTests as follows:

"Assert::That(solution({1,21,55}), Equals(3));"

Please fix that bug.

Screen Locking Patterns is a very GOOD Kata!

Pretty solution :-)

Why not to update to myList.add(0, ...) and
to remove Collections.reverse(myList); ?

Clean solution + style :-)