Wow...
That's the first time I attempt to approve a kata, and I made it bad?

Technicaly, what's the heck with Test.expect wich forbid (so many) katas absolutly to never be approved? (as an aside, that tends to discourage me for looking further at kata authoring, if even building tests is subject to so specific rules ^^)

edit:
Why this kind of forbidden to be approved kata are not retired, why nobody have raised an issue about the lacks of assertDeepEquals/deepEqual?

See my issue above: using assertDeepEqual forbid solution wich doesn't preserve initial (and next update) order of data... this could be fixed by sorting resulted and expected response body arrays before ^^ (some others remarks too ;P)

Needs random tests...

Really?

I'm kidding...
actually, this is a onliner formated with spaces and new lines to improve readability ^^

'students' property of classes objects hold an array of 'id' values (your 'item' variable): a number referering to the 'id' property of the students objects listed in the array of students object given as second argument... you should search and find inside the object with the related 'id' property, not acccess the 'students' array directly with it (this is not an index).

The description lacks of informations: what is the expected final rod, could the board have more than one rod filled with discs at start?

I'm agree that's could be easily discovered by running the final tests, but that's waste of time (needs to refactor each time our guesses are wrong ^^)

Issue have been solved now (look at the most recent discuss) ;)

Issue have been solved now (look at the most recent discuss) ;)

Issue seems solved now ^^

Sorry, I don't have received notification for your answer ^^

Ok, I understand... but when such kata is to be translated, couldn't be behavior adapted to the targeted language? However, I take note that's discouraged ;)

Yes, it looks like it is: at least, my solution was passed ;)

Still problems in reference solution apparently: I've posted an issue two weeks ago, and despite I didn't receive any answer, I made one more attempt, and found again some wrong expected result (different from the previous issue wich has not occured this time: fixed? if so, new bugs introduced ^^)...

splitMessage("random o O UczrIpA oNyb TjDSLoKyr XjlFuFaO KbWSwF")
expected [ 'random o O', 'UczrIpA oNyb', 'TjDSLoKyr', 'XjlFuFaO KbWSwF' ]
to deeply equal false

But my result fulfill the requirements: less than 5 rows, each less than 16 chars (10,12,9,15)

splitMessage("random RetPCgD fq u mAxWEoYnBL twOeQTSheBTD")
expected [ 'random RetPCgD', 'fq u mAxWEoYnBL', 'twOeQTSheBTD' ]
to deeply equal [ 'random RetPCgD', 'fq u', 'mAxWEoYnBL', 'twOeQTSheBTD' ]

Expected result doesn't follow rule 1:

When you cut the string you need to put the max char in the first rows before going to the next

My result fit in less than 5 rows, and each has less than 16 chars (12,15,12)

splitMessage("random wVJiFBJ gHFxenTLFOY ogh ZxoqizdgAr LWbFFtqYAPp")
expected [ 'random wVJiFBJ', 'gHFxenTLFOY ogh', 'ZxoqizdgAr', 'LWbFFtqYAPp' ]
to deeply equal [ 'random wVJiFBJ', 'gHFxenTLFOY', 'ogh ZxoqizdgAr', 'LWbFFtqYAPp' ]

Quite same for this one: my result has respectively 14, 15, 10, and 11 chars in each rows (expected result has 14, 11, 14, 11, wich breaks the rule 1)