I don't think this is truly resolved. For the first tranche ("Trailing zeroes of") of tests in JavaScript, the parameters are always (num: 6, base: 16)

Ah yes, you are doing it for the user solution, but not for the ref solution to verify results against.

Ah, I see. Isn't that what I do in the full "Test Cases" suite? I know I consume all values in the "Example Test Cases" but that's just for simplicity. Am I missing something else?

Do a bunch of tests of years upto 9999, but only consume the first 10 - 20 results from the generator; now you are always consuming all elements [...results]

Yes. I'm struggling with the idea of testing for "infinite" sequences; particularly with the restriction "Some sequences may be infinite, but the tests will never ask for dates beyond the year 9999."

Do you have any suggestions how I could do that?

If you want us to correctly implement the generator, you'd want to make a bunch of tests on "infinite" periods, but only consume a small finite number of the results.

Interesting kata

Oh my! Good spot. I blame the human in the loop. Fixed. Thanks.

In your kata's description you state:

"Remember, a number from 1 to 12 could be interpretted as a month and a day of the month. So "1 2 2000" could be the first day of January 2000 and the second day of February 2000."

If I understand your intent however, it should read:

"Remember, a number from 1 to 12 could be interpretted as a month and a day of the month. So "1 2 2000" could be the first day of February 2000 and the second day of January 2000."

Good point. I've updated the description to clarify the ambiguity. It was indeed my intention.

Actually, the input specification allows for something like "1 9999", which would be every day in January and every first of the month, in 9999.

That's silly, but if that is your actual intention, that should be explicitly clarified.

From the description, we don't know if a number between 1 and 12 is a month or a day ( the other one may be missing ). An input example would help here.

Solvers should never have to click through to the trainer for ( part of the ) specifications.

This is a replacement for https://www.codewars.com/kata/66a8ad03d2a2a2307855693e

Even I'm unhappy with this kata! It needs a major rethink. Should I fork and retire the original?

Oh, thanks. I've removed the validation tests and updated the text. Good advice.