fix shuffle tests in CoinSelectionSpec once and for all #295
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jonathanknowles
approved these changes
May 21, 2019
| return $ cover 90 (xs /= xs') "shuffled" () | ||
| prop_shuffleCanShuffle (NonEmpty xs) = monadicIO $ liftIO $ do | ||
| xs' <- shuffle xs | ||
| return $ cover 90 (xs /= xs') "shuffled" () |
| prop_shuffleNotDeterministic (NonEmpty xs) = monadicIO $ liftIO $ do | ||
| xs1 <- shuffle xs | ||
| xs2 <- shuffle xs | ||
| return $ cover 90 (xs1 /= xs2) "not deterministic" () |
paweljakubas
approved these changes
May 21, 2019
|
bors r+ |
2 tasks
iohk-bors bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 21, 2019
289: show feature availability in API specification r=KtorZ a=KtorZ # Issue Number <!-- Put here a reference to the issue this PR relates to and which requirements it tackles --> N/A # Overview <!-- Detail in a few bullet points the work accomplished in this PR --> - [ ] I have removed the"priority" from the specification and added a "status" indicating the availability of a particular feature in the API. # Comments <!-- Additional comments or screenshots to attach if any --> As requested by Chris. Makes it easier for externals to know what's available or not. A preview:      <!-- Don't forget to: ✓ Self-review your changes to make sure nothing unexpected slipped through ✓ Assign yourself to the PR ✓ Assign one or several reviewer(s) ✓ Once created, link this PR to its corresponding ticket ✓ Acknowledge any changes required to the Wiki --> 295: fix shuffle tests in CoinSelectionSpec once and for all r=KtorZ a=KtorZ # Issue Number <!-- Put here a reference to the issue this PR relates to and which requirements it tackles --> #291 # Overview <!-- Detail in a few bullet points the work accomplished in this PR --> - [ ] I have removed the precondition about the list length in favor of a correct generator # Comments <!-- Additional comments or screenshots to attach if any --> Turns out that the problem wasn't much the confidence interval that was being too strict as I thought in the past, but simply that the precondition was too hard to satistify. Indeed, quickcheck does generate empty lists quite often, (more than 10% of the generated values actually) and this caused the `checkCoverage` to give up very early despite the coverage being okay. I've switched to using a generator of `NonEmptyList` instead of the precondition and re-run both statistical tests a thousand times: ``` replicateM_ 1000 $ quickCheck (checkCoverageWith lowerConfidence prop_shuffleNotDeterministic) ``` without observing any failure. So I've got quite some confidence that this is now fixed.. <!-- Don't forget to: ✓ Self-review your changes to make sure nothing unexpected slipped through ✓ Assign yourself to the PR ✓ Assign one or several reviewer(s) ✓ Once created, link this PR to its corresponding ticket ✓ Acknowledge any changes required to the Wiki --> Co-authored-by: KtorZ <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issue Number
#291
Overview
Comments
Turns out that the problem wasn't much the confidence interval that was being too strict as I thought in the past, but simply that the precondition was too hard to satistify. Indeed, quickcheck does generate empty lists quite often, (more than 10% of the generated values actually) and this caused the
checkCoverageto give up very early despite the coverage being okay.I've switched to using a generator of
NonEmptyListinstead of the precondition and re-run both statistical tests a thousand times:without observing any failure. So I've got quite some confidence that this is now fixed..