Hi Nils, On 2013-02-27, Nils Bruin <nbr...@sfu.ca> wrote: > 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.
Isn't this the case already? In doctests, one can assume that the output of our random number generators is deterministic. > 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. If I understand correctly, that rare situation occurs here. Hence, one can still rely on deterministic output, but a *different* deterministic output. > The more appropriate thing might be to rewrite the test to check > general behaviour rather than rely on exact output. +1 Testing against theorems (such as: One has random data, but the test is using an identity that must hold for any data) is most elegant. Cheers, SImon -- 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.
