Technical Test Should Take No More Than 2 Hours

I recently just failed a technical task, it's the second one I've failed in the last month. First one took me 4 hours and got rejected due to not being production ready.

Usually I get failed for the following reasons

* Didn't split code into separate files (helper functions, single use components etc)

* Expected more tests (1 hour extra)

* Not doing the stretch goals

* Rudimentary XXX

* Would have liked to seen use of XXX (technology not included in the starting template)

* Didn't use GitHub (publicly broadcasting my job search)

* Didn't <insert personal preference here>

* Didn't use a linter (5-30 minutes depending on codebase to set up)

I'm just wondering how common practice it is to lie about how long these tasks take?

In my most recent test, I included a time breakdown of how long various parts of the task took me, and still got rejected based on a 'rudimentary' submission. There was literally no more time left to implement the feedback. I left the computer once to go to the toilet, and I took a minute to plug in my monitor, and other than that, flat out coding.

I see 'should take no more than 2 hours', on web-apps that include multiple components, responsive design, asynchronous state management and reading/understanding the brief.

It's at the stage I would prefer hacker rank tests now, as there is at least transparency and honesty about how long things should take and do take.

This feels a bit ranty, but I've been trying to find out if this is the norm, or the exception. UK based Front-End Dev. Do I need to start lying, or just accept that I'm going to have to spend 40 hours doing the same basic task over and over until I get the next job?