On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 6:18:11 AM UTC-7, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > 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. > > One of the concerns is that you won't get very good error reports this way: without good condition reporting, you might get reports "sometimes this test fails" and in many cases people will probably not bother reporting because the problem went away the next time. In my experience, "corner cases" in mathematical algorithms are often NOT found with random input, because the probability measure of their triggering inputs is vanishingly small.
A cheap compromise might be to make the "starting seed" for tests configurable. The default would be just the seed we have now, but if people want to set it to another value, they can go ahead. It could be helpful if the value used is part of the test result report. If people want, they can then just script the testing with variable seeds. It would offer a cheap workaround to get a bit more coverage in your tests (at some point) if you think your code is particularly sensitive to output from the random generator. -- 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/91dd85dd-71f4-4b0f-984a-3b9852b6bb61o%40googlegroups.com.
