Yes, fixed already, thanks everyone.

Ok, never mind, all good.

See https://discord.com/channels/846624424199061524/850435343789850636/956948053074514022

It's impossible to delete a kata once there is a solver.

Ok, thanks for the discussion.

I will delete this kata now.

Edit: Hmm, can not delete it, clicked on un-publish for now.

I think I confused myself. Sorry, you're right.

I agree on your last point.

I looked at the sample tests again, I do not see an invalid solution, e.g. n=1e5 pages should give a total of 488895 digits, no?

When I hit the publish button, I get a message 'Kumite was published with failed tests!' below highlighted in orange background. (But the tests all pass.)

Do I maybe need approval from you?

I am not testing summary=10

See sample tests ;-) I don't think any of them are 'valid'.

The original kata is too polluted with such solutions. While there may be other approaches for that one that aren't viable here, it's still not that different. I wish the original kata had higher limit

Thanks, I will fix this asap.

I did see a lot of very inefficient solutions in Java, they pass the tests in the orignal kata because n is not very big.

Now that I am thinking about it, it is probably not worth having a separate kata, simply pointing out the inefficient solutions in the orignal kata may be enough.

Concerning you second point: I am not testing summary=10 (or any other summary that is not valid, because I generate it with an algorithm out of a random n.

if you find an efficient algorithm, then it will of course work for the other kata as well.

But that's every other solution out there (at least for python, haven't checked java). It's full of solutions that would spoil this one. If it's only a matter of changing a few numbers around, I would argue that's a duplicate kata.

Concerning the second issue: Can you give me an example?

Let's take summary of 10. A book with 9 pages results in summary of 9, and a book with 10 pages - 11. It's impossible to get summary of 10, but you're testing these numbers.

Done! Thanks for notifying.

Edit: Hmm, not yet, some issues, looking into this right now.

Concerning the second issue: Can you give me an example?

Hi B1ts,

if you find an efficient algorithm, then it will of course work for the other kata as well.

This is essentially a duplicate of the kata mentioned in description. Same algorithm works for both.

Also, you're testing with numbers that don't correspond to actual number of pages, so you're expecting us to round it down for some unspecified reason.