[issue40046] Increase test coverage of the random module

Carol Willing added the comment: Thanks Serhiy for the explanation. I agree with Raymond about the doc change. Raymond, These tests, after reading Serihy's response, make sense to me. Let's revisit and reconsider the PR on the tests without the doc change. Thanks! --

[issue40046] Increase test coverage of the random module

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: Yes, of course. The PR adds new tests for different types of arguments which currently are accepted (so it would be a regression if they will no accepted in new releases or in alternate implementations) and for types which currently are not accepted for

[issue40046] Increase test coverage of the random module

Carol Willing added the comment: Hi Raymond and Serhiy, Serhiy, Was there a specific use case or regression that you felt the tests would be helpful? -- nosy: +willingc ___ Python tracker

[issue40046] Increase test coverage of the random module

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: What is wrong with adding more tests? -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing

[issue40046] Increase test coverage of the random module

Raymond Hettinger added the comment: I'm against this doc change. While factually true, it is irrelevant and distracting to most users. We do not need to test and document every implementation detail, nor should we. -- resolution: -> rejected stage: patch review -> resolved

[issue40046] Increase test coverage of the random module

Change by Serhiy Storchaka : -- keywords: +patch pull_requests: +18475 stage: -> patch review pull_request: https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/19114 ___ Python tracker

[issue40046] Increase test coverage of the random module

New submission from Serhiy Storchaka : The propose test adds several tests for random module. Mainly tests for integer, sequence and iterable arguments. It also documents that randrange() accepts non-integers. -- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation, Tests messages: 364840