On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 4:35 PM Eric Wieser <wieser.eric+nu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You make a bunch of good points refuting reproducible research as an > argument for not changing the random number streams. > > However, there’s a second use-case you don’t address - unit tests. For > better or worse, downstream, or even our own > <https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/c4813a9/numpy/core/tests/test_multiarray.py#L5093-L5108>, > unit tests use a seeded random number generator as a shorthand to produce > some arbirary array, and then hard-code the expected output in their tests. > Breaking stream compatibility will break these tests. > > I don’t think writing tests in this way is particularly good idea, but > unfortunately they do still exist. > > It would be good to address this use case in the NEP, even if the > conclusion is just “changing the stream will break tests of this form” > I do! Search for "unit test" or "StableRandom". :-) -- Robert Kern
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
