oh, my bad, I misread

Not really, the comment below suggests changing depth for length, which I don't think is worth it because it'll render all sql solutions invalid.

it likely solves the suggestion below

Fixed again.

Weight? Seriously Weight?????

Did you read the comments in the initial code?

-- # write your SQL statement here: 
-- you are given a table 'box' with columns: width (int), height (int), depth (int)
-- return a query with columns: width, height, depth, area (int), volume (int)
-- sort results by area ascending, then volume ascending, then width ascending, then height ascending

Either way, I've edited the description with a code block for SQL with the same information.

Why is it [width, height, depth], and not [width, lenght, height]?
Would really make it more understandable.

I agree. If that is a requirment, it should be listed within the problem statment explicitly imo.

This kata has broken test - at least for SQL, as it requires a very specific order of sorting for the code to be accepted even though it is logically valid and passes test attempt. Sorting is NOT described in the instruction!!

It was hard to understate the purpose

Thanks, that's fixed it. I must have missed the comment.

-- sort results by area ascending, then volume ascending, then width ascending, then height ascending

you are not doing that in your current solution. note that in ORDER BY , the order in which you write the different sorting criteria matters

In SQL there may be an issue with ordering - I'm pretty sure I have the correct answer but the ordering logic is opaque to me. No matter which ordering logic I choose, it won't accept my answer.

Approved by someone

Approved