not an issue, issue with your code, read this b4 raising issue next time

Wonderful! Thanks again Steffan!

If you have the time, would you be willing to look at this translation I submitted for the kata Rail Fence Cipher: Encoding and Decoding?

Approved. It worked this time :)

Thanks Steffan!

I had to resolve one merge conflict regarding the description upon forking the original — I did not change anythiing here upon forking the original, it simply told me there was a conflict. While resolving it, I removed the comment about Rust receiving a Vec<u32>. As you said, this can be gathered from the function signature.

Hopefully it'll work.

No, it didn't change. Please fork again.
https://github.com/codewars/codewars.com/issues/1793

Hi Steffan, it seems the kata's test cases haven't changed yet and my solution has not been declared obsolete? Do you know why this might be the case? It does mention that the translation has been approved. Thanks for the help so far!

approved

Thanks for the tip Steffan, noted! I thought I had edited that out in the previous version, but I have just done so.

Random tests look good, thanks!

Note: the matrix may include non-integer elements.

All the elements are unsigned, so I don't think that's necessary, the user can see u32 in the initial solution anyway.
If you really want to say that, please only make it show for Rust, like this:

```if:rust
Here put Rust specific text
```

I just added random tests for good and bad sudokus of different sizes. It took me some time as I'm new to Rust, but I've learned some new things along the way! If you have any feedback, please do let me know.

Please add random tests. (In a new fork, otherwise it won't work.)

I don't blame you, all the languages need random tests. But, while you're at it, can you add them?

I approved this one since it fixed something, but in another fork, it would be nice if you can add them.

I added a test case for subgrids, as only checking the validity of subgrids allowed me to pass, which shouldn't be the case.

See: https://www.codewars.com/kata/reviews/58cacb357584f5e6e5000121/groups/5e97925fa51912000102a59d

Your expectation is incorrect.
In logic all of an empty list is always true, regardless of the condition.

If you want a good explaination look to this stackexchange post.

I really do not see the point of submitting a copy/paste of my solution...

Can you wirte your unittest in a way that someone can see what value you expectet and which value you get?