On Oct 30, 2012 12:28 AM, "Neil Toronto" <neil.toro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 10/29/2012 02:41 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> >> This commit marks a few files that have intermittent failures as >> randomly failing, and possibly-more-controversially, removes the >> annotation from some genuinely random tests. These tests, such as the >> random test for places, consistently succeed. > > > Does the annotation mean "this test uses randomness" or "this test has a practically nonzero probability of failing"?
The annotation means "if this file fails on a push, don't email the pusher, just the person responsible for the file". Certainly some of the annotated files don't explicitly use randomness, but nonetheless fail intermittently. Sam > Here are a couple of tests that use randomness but always succeed: > > (check-true ((+ (random) 1.0) . >= . 1.0)) > > (check-true (let loop () > (if (zero? (random 10)) #t (loop)))) > > Here's one that's more interesting because its probability of failure is nonzero (about 1/20^19): > > (check-false (= 0 (+ (random 65536) > (random 65536) > (random 65536) > (random 65536)))) > > Another way to restate my question is, should those tests be marked as random? > > Neil ⊥ > > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
