Janus Dam Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does it make sense to run all unit tests with the same configuations
> of players and thresholds. That is, for all protocols p, is p
> executed with x players and threshold t is p welldefined?
Well, no, not in general. If you write a protocol for se
I thing to consider.
Does it make sense to run all unit tests with the same configuations
of players and thresholds. That is, for all protocols p, is p
executed with x players and threshold t is p welldefined?
I suspect, out of the blue air, that this is not the case. I am I
right or am I w
"Thomas Jakobsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suggest that we - as far as it's reasonable - write unit tests
> that don't depend on a specific number of players and threshold, but
> instead use number of players and threshold as defined by
> runtime.threshold and runtime.players. This will all
Hi
I suggest that we - as far as it's reasonable - write unit tests that
don't depend on a specific number of players and threshold, but
instead use number of players and threshold as defined by
runtime.threshold and runtime.players. This will allow us to
automatically run these tests with many co
