ah nice, thanks!
yeah, understandability is definitely a valuable trait :-)

I have two issues with this Kata (Ruby version)

1. IMO, this kata should expect an exception to be raised, rather than thrown. It seems to be that throw/catch are for control flow, not for exception handling, as per this StackOverflow question/answer: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51021/what-is-the-difference-between-raising-exceptions-vs-throwing-exceptions-in-ruby
2. Test pass whatever the type of exception raised. That means that people can write solutions where an exception is raised due to a missing method, and still pass this Kata (such as has happened here: https://www.codewars.com/kata/reviews/56002f5b656fe9ec15000025/groups/59ea4ad07de4be9e700018ce). Instead this kata should be testing for specific types of exception - ArgumentError perhaps

This is amazing 😂

The exception you are raising is probably something like "method retunr does not exist"

Nice typo - you were lucky 😉

Thanks for the feedback - I've updated exactly as you've suggested 👍

Thanks for approving! My first published kata ✨

Do you have any tips for how I can get my other Kata published: https://www.codewars.com/kata/unique-items-in-array/javascript ?

A Grammar file such as this one, used to generate a parser via a tool such as PegJS, is surely a winner on many fronts:

It is easier to:

• Write
• Read & understand
• Maintain & extend

Hey Johan

Do you have any idea what else I need to do to get this out of Beta? I've added two translations, and got quite a few attempts now, and generally good feedback. Do you have enough points / ranking to take it out of Beta yourself?

Thanks!

Your first dictionary object has a name and is a const, but your second one is not. I guess I'd rather that one also had a name and was a const too - for consistency, and just because I think I'm more familiar with that code-style - I think it's clearer that way.

You also don't need the new Regexp at all - you can just pass in a pure String as the first arg to replace.

Then this will certainly get my +1 👍

I think you can remove the "g" from the RegExp! Try without, and see if it passes.

This is wonderful - peachy! 🍑

You solved it!

Looks good, but I'm sure that could be shorter / clearer 😉

Absolutely, thank you so much 👍

I didn't spot that in those existing solutions - I'll know for next time!

.toString() doesn't tell you a great deal about a JS variable, as it reduces it down to a string. Can you think of any other methods you can call, or ways you can find out more information about the variable? How else can you interrogate it? Of course ping me again if you want more help, but I felt this might get you there without being a spoiler.

Fantastic! I'm glad you liked it - thanks a lot for the positive feedback :D

Hi Donald

I've checked and can see the 3 tests you are describing, which produce the output you're showing here. The tests are working as intended, and there's something you haven't considered yet.

Good luck - and ping me back if you'd like a hint.