This one keeps bubbling to the very top of my todo stack, only to be pre-empted a minute later by some other task.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 2:00 AM Michal Vala <mv...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > I'd like to finish this review. Are you still willing to sponsor this? > > Thanks! > > On 1/9/19 11:39 AM, Michal Vala wrote: > > ping > > > > On 1/3/19 9:31 PM, Michal Vala wrote: > >> Hi Martin, > >> > >> can we please finish this review? > >> > >> On 12/19/18 6:32 PM, Michal Vala wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 12/19/18 4:15 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote: > >>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 6:59 AM Roger Riggs <roger.ri...@oracle.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Martin, > >>>>> > >>>>> It is also useful and conventional to print the seed of the random > >>>>> so that if necessary it can be reproduced. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> For many years, we've been using ThreadLocalRandom for testing, and > that > >>>> does not allow setting a seed. > >>>> > >>>> I remain unconvinced that saving a seed has value in the real world. > When > >>>> a randomized test fails, running it with sufficient iterations has > always > >>>> worked for me. > >>>> > >>> > >>> What's the reason behind using ThreadLocalRandom? > >>> > >>> In my opinion, reproducing the issue is key. One failure of randomized > test > >>> run might be caused by one issue, second run due to another issue. How > we > >>> reproduce then and how we know even how many issues we have? When > we're > >>> running random tests until it pass, it might even hide the issue. > >>> > >>> They sure have good value on reveal the issue, but then we have to > know how > >>> to reproduce and what we're searching for. > >>> > >>> If this case would not require ThreadLocalRandom and Random is enough, > I'd > >>> like to use that because of benefits I've mentioned. > >>> > >> > > > > -- > Michal Vala > OpenJDK QE > Red Hat Czech >
