The thing to do now is unpublish this kata. If you don't do it, a moderator probably will.

the kata has already been automatically retired due to the low satisfaction rate.

Apparently, somebody did. Even then, I think you're overrating this ultimately simple substitution cipher, and possibly a piece of telly.

Also, you don't seem to understand the meaning of "duplicate" as used on CW. Even if the exact problem with its exact backstory were not identical, this would be a duplicate of any plain old substitution cipher because the algorithm is the same. Regardless of input encoding, output encoding, or setting of the problem, if the algorithm to solve the essential problem is the same as in another kata, it's considered a duplicate of that kata, because it doesn't add a new challenge to Codewars.

The thing to do now is unpublish this kata. If you don't do it, a moderator probably will.

I did searches both with "the Wire" and "baltimore" and no kata came up. I did find it strange that nobody that saw the wire on here didn't make a kata about the cipher

Exact duplicate of this

• Still no random tests (many fixed tests != random tests)

• assert.strictEqual should be used

• The "random tests" only generate a string format of \d\d\d-\d\d\d\d

• Description should be language-agnostic (no mention of function name)

• Example tests should be stated clearer by using code blocks

• duplicate and more

done ! :)

How about adding random tests?

The log message is kinda misleading.

Push 3 items, ( add [86,51,67] to... )

From that message, people would thought the input is an array (e.g. array.push([86,51,67])). But in reality, it can also mean separate arguments (e.g. array.push(86,51,67).
I'd suggest changing the brackets to parentheses or none at all.

Also, you might want to remind people in the description that the function should accept multiple arguments.

Fixed in JS.

Click reset and try to run initial or wrong code.

Works fine for me.

Thank you!

dear lord

0 and "" are both nothing :)