Thankyou for your feedback - it is encouraging and constructive. I appreciate that the katas do test the same skills as some of the others and I will un-publish them

I have resolved this issue - apologies for the mistake.

We all have something to learn.

That's a pointless sentence. What are you trying to tell with that?

Like the parameter in the predicate function you pass to some could have a better name than x

Okay? It's a smart-ass statement more than anything.

Again, you're not making (or trying to make) any kind of statement that support what your kata should be preserved. Please try harder ;-)

The sample tests contains the solution, so...

I think both of your katas were well-crafted: clear and well-written descriptions, good use of markdown, decent tests. As others pointed out, however, the topic you chose has been covered by several other kata creators before you. I would suggest unpublishing this kata to avoid downvoting, having a closer look at the JavaScript coding challenges which have already been published and redirecting your energy to create a more original kata with better odds of getting out of beta.

Too close:
https://www.codewars.com/kata/5827acd5f524dd029d0005a4
https://www.codewars.com/kata/559f860f8c0d6c7784000119
Also take a look at all of these:
https://www.codewars.com/users/PiotrBerebecki/authored

Please shoot that messenger.

The message, though, is on point. Both of your kata do not provide learning opportunities CW didn't have yet.

Even if it's not an exact duplicate, did we really need another 8 kyu map filter reduce kata?

That looks like a reasonably exact duplicate though. Only difference is true is not passed as an argument.

I'd say it's an issue even.

We all have something to learn.
Like the parameter in the predicate function you pass to some could have a better name than x

Both of your katas are uninspired garbage. Filtering, accessing object attributes etc. - all of the topics they're focused on have been covered thousands of times already. Maybe it's a duplicate, maybe it's note, I don't care: there's NO point in spamming any more of these.

Just a quick note to say that this was only generating one random test, so I've increased that to 50.

Thanks for the feedback - I should have realised that recursion is a sub-optimal way of generating a random array of numbers. :)

sounds good. But note that the way you generate the random arrays of unique numbers is especially inefficient. Not a problem here, but keep that in mind for later use.

Thankyou - I have also placed my utility functions inside the scope of the first describe block

Although I don't think there's much difference between consts in preloaded vs the tests (globally) unless I forgot some detail: they are global either way and they can't be redefined either way. But putting them in a closure inside describe or it should be generally safer.