On 2020-06-22 09:03, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 1:25 PM Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would prefer this to explicit calling of set_random_seed() in > doctests (i.e. it'd prefer implicit fuzzing of tests to explicit one). > I've opened https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/29935 to get this in. >
I think this is far preferable to the status quo. For many functions, full fuzz testing is undesirable. I don't want spend hours e.g. computing polynomial determinants of every order up to N, but I might like to compute one, to make sure it works. And if the particular example I compute is irrelevant, it would be nice if I could compute a "random" one of reasonable size. Doing so won't consume any extra time on any individual machine, and the multitudes of reviewers and patchbots running the test on different examples will ferret out any corner cases. A lot of the existing tests can be fixed proactively, before we change anything, to keep the branch diff somewhat small. -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/f0c3f6b8-7c9c-ec88-ba9a-42a24029b914%40orlitzky.com.
