oopsie
should be fixed by now - waiting for approval to my test cases updates

Made some updates on test cases for java solutions. Pls review :)

you have encountered problem that had been already resolved - you are mutating the original array. What it means is you are probably passing a reference to an object rather than creating new, or making a shallow copy rather than deep one.

Java translation kumited :)

well ok, got ur point, it's not more challenging indeed

Idk if u got me right. What I mean is make Kata that would include numbers above 9 like ten, eleven, eighty-five, etc. instead of - when encountered - returning "n/a".

Also imo you could increase available numbers threshold to 100 and above - Kata would be more interesting. Maybe consider part 2? :thinking:

Java translation kumited :)

java translation kumited :)

Well my problem was solved by attempting once more (previous 'invalid' answer came from random tests).
I repeated it few times more to see if the problem would return, but it worked perfectly henceforth...
Anyway enjoyed kata very much! :)

   input: 4948900009
expected:<4948090009> 
 but was:<4948099000>

why does it expect not-correct answer?
my programm returns the correct one...

Java translation kumited :)

As you may see lower in the comments I've ran into an issue about the expected output, and just realized that the "expected:" and "but was:" outputs are swapped - "expected" is what your programm outputs and "but was" is what was actually meant to be expected. Look that up, I was solving in Java.

Well I resolved my own issue by digging through other comments.
I misunderstood the instruction line:
"(...) the act of skipping to the matching ] when a [ is encountered (or vice versa) is considered to be one iteration (...)"
I thought 1 whole loop was supposed to be considered 1 iteration *facepalm*.
Anyway I'm glad I noticed my mistake, and btw this whole series of Kata is really great and satisfying :)