Uploaded image for project: 'Commons Lang'
  1. Commons Lang
  2. LANG-592

RandomUtils tests are failing frequently

    XMLWordPrintableJSON

Details

    • Test
    • Status: Closed
    • Minor
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • None
    • 2.5
    • lang.math.*
    • None

    Description

      The additionan of 40+ chi-square tests added for RandomUtils have caused the RandomUtilsTest to start failing frequently.

      Phil Steitz investigated this and wrote the following (http://markmail.org/message/mo4qb3qh75nq2kwn) on the mailing list:

      The random data tests are failing at a high enough frequency to be
      annoying / alarming to users.
      
      I investigated the high incidence of test failures and found nothing
      wrong with what the tests are doing and nothing to indicate
      systematic bias in the data being generated; but the addition of 40+
      chi-square tests in the test methods added in r907159 makes the
      probability of failure in a given run > 1/25.  This is why there is
      a high incidence of test failures.
      
      I verified that failures appear to be evenly distributed (too many,
      too few even/edd, too many, too few above/below range midpoints) and
      that the chisquare statistics are being computed correctly, with the
      right critical values applied.
      
      If you do cut another RC, I would recommend one of the following:
      
      1) Grab / copy and extend [math]'s RetryTestCase (will cut incidence
      of failure in half)
      
      2) Disable the stochastic test cases for the release
      
      3) Reduce sensitivity of the chi-square test (change to e.g., .0005
      level of significance)
      
      4) Reduce the number of tests
      
      My recommendation is 2) - leave in the source but comment out.  The
      tests are valuable as they would fail regularly and miserably if
      there were systematic bias (as there used to be on odd/even); but
      without reducing significantly the number of tests or the
      sensitivity (or limiting to a single "successful" PRNG sequence),
      there is no way to leave them all in without generating an
      annoyingly high rate of random failures.
      

      Attachments

        Activity

          People

            niallp Niall Pemberton
            niallp Niall Pemberton
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: