generally, we nest them the deepest we can anyway. But that's not critical, no.
On the other hand, nesting them that way increases the readability since the data is closer to the place it's used, so win/win, sort of.

Ah, so there's no need to have them as local variables of the test group functions?

I did some changes to test cases. The names of the randomized name functions in test cases I didn't modify, those were like that to begin with.

btw, that's actually useless: files are running as separated modules, now, so it's not that easy to access the stuff in the test suite from the user solution (not undoable, ofc but...). Generally, putting the ""critical"" pieces inside a closur is enough.

No need to change your fork, tho.

looks good to me. I'll see about finding a contributor to approve it (I'm not yet, and I'd prefere it to stay that way)

I did some changes to test cases. The names of the randomized name functions in test cases I didn't modify, those were like that to begin with.

Alright. I will need to take a break to do something for a while, but will go ahead after that.

perfect, go ahead

I've changed the example test cases. I would like to know whether this seems right or whether I should fix anything, and whether to make similar changes to the actual tests as well.

Yes, I did use "fork". I'll take a look at the link and see what I'd need to do.

Would be better to properly update the test suite, using the decorator syntax as well, and adding the proper imports too.

note: you did use the "fork" link (top right corner of the page in the discourse or the solutions page), right? (I mean, this is not a "translation"?)

Your call. You can find something less clever (for instance, the 4x4 can be purely brut forced. Like "really dumb brut force"), or you strip some parts of your logic to make the solution less efficient (not always easy, yeah...)

The best way, imo, would be to solve the series "in order", but trying less clever stuff first.

Cheers

https://www.codewars.com/kumite/61e3e275af28c2005c57c42d
I believe this fixes the "NameError: name 'Test' is not defined" error for the sample tests with Python 3.8.

That is fair. Do I just avoid solving the easier Kata then, or something else?

next time, try to not post a solution that passes the hard versions of a kata series in the easier one, thx...

thx