it's the second one that's expected
that wording is terrible though because it refers to the assertion code which the solver doesn't get to see and it's all too easy to see "expected x" and then not read the rest

Look at what the input was.

No it isn't. And you've got some basic problems with it before it'll even compile in the kata, maybe fix those first? And then when you get it running it'll tell you what test cases it fails for, which will also fail locally, and then you can debug it.

I'd appreciate not getting spoiler tagged when my message contains no spoilers, thank you.

nobody will know what you think is missing unless you tell them

both | and || are binary (accept two operands, as opposed to one, as is the case with a unary operator), and both | and || can operate on two booleans. no bug there.

nothing's stopping you from using print to observe what is happening there.

Please use the issue tag only to point out problems with kata that you can demonstrate/prove, as that tag is used to keep track of things to fix.

It seems to me like a closer look at the description will answer your question.

That's self-inflicted though innit? Because that's the file that you're editing. Fix it yourself or hit the reset button to get back to a compiling state.

No you're not.

also js

literally the first thing I told you

uhh. it already was using that though.
.. ??

yes, your code works wrong for that test case.
.. go fix it? x)
if you think the test case is wrong then I don't think you looked at the test case, which makes me really confused - why wouldn't you even look at it before posting about it?

but there was no ambiguity? xD