On Feb 3, 2009, at 7:17 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: By allowing Random to randomly seed itself, we effectively test a
much
: much larger space, ie every time we all run the test, it's
different. We can
: potentially cast a much larger net than a fixed seed.
i guess i'm just in favor of less randomness and more iterations.
: Fixing the bug is the "easy" part; discovering a bug is present is
where
: we need all the help we can get ;)
yes, but knowing a bug is there w/o having any idea what it is or
how to
trigger it can be very frustrating.
I agree, it's frustrating. But I'd prefer to know the bug is there
and then
writhe in frustration at not being able to reproduce it very easily,
then let
the bug go undetected. I guess ignorance is not bliss, for me ;)
it would be enough for tests to pick a random number, log it, and
then use
it as the seed ... that way if you get a failure you at least know
what
seed was used and you can then hardcode it temporarily to reproduce/
debug
+1! I like this approach. We could record the seed up front, and
then in
a try/finally if the test failed, print the seed.
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
