See below.
On 08/06/2012 12:49 AM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 12:54:11PM -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 8/4/12 10:57 AM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
Hello.
Referring to this failed test (cf. messages from Continuum):
---CUT---
org.apache.commons.math3.exception.NumberIsTooLargeException: lower bound (65)
must be strictly less than upper bound (65)
at
org.apache.commons.math3.distribution.UniformIntegerDistribution.<init>(UniformIntegerDistribution.java:73)
at
org.apache.commons.math3.distribution.UniformIntegerDistribution.<init>(UniformIntegerDistribution.java:53)
at
org.apache.commons.math3.stat.descriptive.AggregateSummaryStatisticsTest.generatePartition(AggregateSummaryStatisticsTest.java:275)
at
org.apache.commons.math3.stat.descriptive.AggregateSummaryStatisticsTest.testAggregationConsistency(AggregateSummaryStatisticsTest.java:89)
It is due to a precondition check while creating the
"UniformIntegerDistribution" instance:
---CUT---
if (lower>= upper) {
throw new NumberIsTooLargeException(
LocalizedFormats.LOWER_BOUND_NOT_BELOW_UPPER_BOUND,
lower, upper, false);
}
---CUT---
The test referred to above was using this code (before I changed it use a
"UniformIntegerDistribution" instance):
---CUT---
final int next = (i == 4 || cur == length - 1) ? length - 1 :
randomData.nextInt(cur, length - 1);
---CUT---
It is now (after the change):
---CUT---
final IntegerDistribution partitionPoint = new UniformIntegerDistribution(cur,
length - 1);
final int next = (i == 4 || cur == length - 1) ? length - 1 :
partitionPoint.sample();
---CUT---
Thus, AFAIK, the failure did not appear before because there was no
precondition enforcement in "nextInt".
The question is: Was the code in the test correct (in allowing the same
value for both bounds?
* In the negative, how to change it?
* The affirmative would mean that the precondition check in
"UniformIntegerDistribution" should be relaxed to allow equal bounds.
Does this make sense?
If so, can we change it now, or is it forbidden in order to stay
backwards compatible?
Your analysis above is correct. The failure after the change is due
to the fact that post-change the distribution is instantiated before
the bounds check. I changed the test to fix this.
Thanks.
Both the
randomData nextInt and the UniformIntegerDistribution constructor
now forbid the degenerate case where there is only one point in the
domain. In retrospect, I guess it would have probably been better
to allow this degenerate case. Unfortunately, this would be an
incompatible change, so will have to wait until 4.0 if we want to do it.
The original code above illustrates the convenience of being able to
just make direct calls to randomData.nextXxx, which is why this
class exists ;)
As I wrote in another post, I'm not against the convenience methods. But
IMO, they should be located in a new "DistributionUtils" class.
And we should also find a way to remove the code duplication (in the
distribution's "sample()" method and in the corresponding "next..." method).
The RandomData class (or whatever it would be called) does indeed seem
useful. If we plan to keep it, we should probably make sure that there is a
sample/next/... method in that class for EVERY distribution, as some of
them are missing, if I remember correctly. Perhaps this is a separate issue
though?
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
