On Feb 27, 9:39 am, Timo Kluck <tkl...@gmail.com> wrote: > The issue is that we're upgrading boost, and apparently, its random number > generator has slightly changed. Therefore, we have some failing doctests > for random_set.
Do we really want to test our random number generators for deterministic behaviour? If so, the test should probably at least set the seed prior to testing things that depend on actual values produced. Of course, if the algorithm used for the pseudo-random generator has actually changed, setting the seed would not be enough, but that should be rare. The more appropriate thing might be to rewrite the test to check general behaviour rather than rely on exact output. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
