It is not related to that. Please ask Discord#reviewing why you should not be doing input validation.

You're thinking why your kata should exist. Please change your thinking to "what kata would add value to Codewars?"

Content should be novel, so if a task already materially exists, you should not be creating duplicates of it, especially not by adding unrelated additional tasks like input validation.

Please take any further discussion of this to Discord#kata-ideas.

There already are:

• Matrix rotation,
• Rotate matrix counter - clockwise N - times!,
• Rotate a square matrix in place
  ... and probably a few more which I did not find now.

Are you sure we need yet another matrix rotation task?

it looks alike but with differences:

• spaces management
• negative rotation
• multi step rotation (n * 45°)
• error management

and as a kata suite, i think it's better suited for progression

Hello, not sure to understand. But is it related to "NameError: uninitialized constant Rotator" error?
If yes, i've fixed it.

it looks alike but with differences:

• spaces management
• negative rotation
• multi step rotation (n * 90°)
• error management

and as a kata suite, i think it's better suited for progression

done :)

Input validation has been done. Please provide only valid inputs.

This should be a translation on https://www.codewars.com/kata/5da74bf201735a001180def7 instead of a new kata.

Please unpublish this duplicate.

This should be a translation on some existing kata, not a new one. This task definitely already exists.

oh! yes, the 1st form was a class, then i switched to a method. I fix that, thx

Encountering the following error:

An error occurred while loading ./spec/solution_spec.rb.
Failure/Error:
RSpec.describe Rotator do
subject(:rotation) { described_class.new(square).rotate(degrees) }

describe "#rotate" do
  context "with 1x1 square" do
    let(:square) {
      [
        %w[A],
      ]
    }

NameError:
uninitialized constant Rotator

./spec/solution_spec.rb:1:in `<top (required)>'

No examples found.

1 word book (only "Persepolis") was badly handled in my code,
it's fixed now :)

look like a bug.. i check that, thx

{"Persepolis"=>14, "Adults in the Room"=>11}
["Noughts & Crosses x10",
 "ts x7",
 "immortal",
 "tur x4",
 "nothing x2",
 "persepolis x10",
 "thwae",
 "tdc",
 "The Hare with Amber Eyes",
 "Outline by Rachel",
 "thwae",
 "tgd"]
expected: {"Adults in the Room"=>11, "Persepolis"=>14}
     got: {"Adults in the Room"=>11, "Persepolis"=>4}

(compared using ==)

Diff:
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
 "Adults in the Room" => 11,
-"Persepolis" => 14,
+"Persepolis" => 4,

The catalog needs 14 Persepolis.

However, in the inventory notes, there is "persepolis x10"

Why does the reference solution expect 14 Persepolis? There are 10 Persepolis in the inventory.