Make crypto doctests ready for random seeds

[kliem]

This ticket makes

sage -t --long --random-seed=n src/sage/crypto/

pass for different values n than just 0.

Component: doctest framework

Author: Jonathan Kliem

Branch/Commit: 05d474e

Reviewer: Markus Wageringel

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/29980

[kliem]

Commit: 2a96462

[kliem]

Branch: public/29980

[kliem]

New commits:

da1c6be	start from a "random" random seed for doctesting
b7b836d	make random seed reproducible
eedbe5e	document random_seed
998b1b9	default random seed 0 for now
1d7b00e	dash instead of underscore for command line options
2a96462	make crypto fuzz ready

[kliem]

Author: Jonathan Kliem

[kliem]

comment:3

Merge conflict.

I also need to go through it again and check I respected the design decision in #29935.

[kliem]

Changed commit from 2a96462 to 0b128d8

[kliem]

New commits:

b31e2d5	Merge branch 'public/29962' of git://trac.sagemath.org/sage into public/29962-reb
2f30dd9	small fixes
b62f781	doctests do not start from a random seed by default yet
1d99129	fix merge conflict
0b128d8	make crypto fuzz ready

[kliem]

Changed branch from public/29980 to public/29980-reb

[mkoeppe]

comment:6

Setting new milestone based on a cursory review of ticket status, priority, and last modification date.

[kliem]

New commits:

2a96462

make crypto fuzz ready

[kliem]

Changed branch from public/29980-reb to public/29980

[kliem]

Changed commit from 0b128d8 to 2a96462

[kliem]

Changed dependencies from #29962 to none

[sagetrac-git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:

432a400

make crypto ready for fuzzed doctests

[sagetrac-git]

Changed commit from 2a96462 to 432a400

[sagetrac-git]

Changed commit from 432a400 to 05d474e

[sagetrac-git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

05d474e

29980: tested property of carmichael_lambda only holds for k≥3

[mwageringel]

Reviewer: Markus Wageringel

[mwageringel]

comment:10

This looks good to me. I have fixed one more test of a property which, according to its documentation, only holds for k>=3.

We could also remove the calls of set_random_seed(1337) in lwe.py, though either way is fine with me. You can set a positive review on my behalf.

[kliem]

comment:11

Thank you.

I think we should remove those set_random_seed's as a follow up to #29935.

[mwageringel]

comment:12

Ok, that sounds good to me.

[vbraun]

Changed branch from public/29980 to 05d474e