Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed! Fixed!

Fixed.

Thanks for fixing :D

updated

And doubtlessly just getting used to CodeWars as well. So you have a reason, but what's your excuse?

Why try to run, when you're still crawling learning to walk? Why not solve more kata, read their tests and comments, read the docs that are often referenced there (and are hard to find otherwise), and get a feel for what's expected here?

Really, please, just unpublish this, and start working on creating original, well-tested kata. Which starts with solving existing kata and learning from them, not with blindly creating another lightweight undertested duplicate.

just getting use to javascript(starter)

But I can't edit my comment anymore

okay...thanks for that!

Good

Example tests would have been nice too.

Codewars Forums - Kata Best Practices - Make Sure Content is New

I just conducted a Kata search and couldn't quite find a Kata that this Kata is an exact duplicate of, but the idea of sorting a list (string or array) in alphabetical order definitely isn't a novel concept on Codewars. Please come up with something more original and interesting next time.

Codewars Forums - Kata Best Practices - Follow Conventions

The user function is currently in snake_case while the function naming convention in JavaScript is camelCase (source: W3Schools). Please rename alphabet_order into alphabetOrder in the Initial Solution, Complete Solution and Test Cases.

The initial solution provided to the user is syntactically incorrect. Unless you intend this Kata to be a bug-fixing one, please modify the initial solution such that it starts out syntactically correct (but with the function body empty, of course).

@ice1000 While I do appreciate your effort on raising the lack of code coverage as an Issue (which I was planning to just do anyway), I see no reason to spam the simple statement "Random tests!", like, 42 times (just a rough guess) - once is enough ;)

@tundeaji1232 The section "Have Full Code Coverage" in the Codewars Forum justifies @ice1000's comment as an official Issue Report - only 3 fixed assertions in the entire test suite is far from enough for preventing logically flawed and/or hardcoded solutions from passing. In order to fully address this Issue Report and resolve the issue, you will need to (1) either add at least 17 more unique, distinct fixed assertions including edge cases as well or (2) better still, write 100+ random tests.