[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RNG-60?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16689367#comment-16689367
]
Gilles commented on RNG-60:
---------------------------
In short you are right, but there seems to be a trade-off between grouping the
same tests (differing only by some parameter) within a single "@Test" and that
it will entail failure with a higher probability (and thus rerun also for the
parameters that had passed).
The alternative is to use "parametric" tests but setting them up takes more
code (and is not always worth it in terms of clarity, although that may well
have improved with Junit 5 (?)).
Improvements are always welcome, but the test suite is in much better shape
than it was within Commons Math (fixed seeds, some wrong thresholds, and a fair
amount of code duplication).
> Random seeds in "ProvidersList" (unit tests)
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: RNG-60
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RNG-60
> Project: Commons RNG
> Issue Type: Task
> Components: core
> Affects Versions: 1.1
> Reporter: Gilles
> Assignee: Gilles
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: unit-test
> Fix For: 1.2
>
>
> Unit tests for the RNG "providers" should demonstrate some robustness wrt the
> seed passed to them.
> The currently fixed seeds will be replaced by values obtained from a JDK's
> {{SecureRandom}} instance.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
