19 Dec
2014
19 Dec
'14
7:34 a.m.
On 19.12.2014 00:00, Semen Trygubenko / Семен Тригубенко wrote:
On the positive side, our tests are now much more robust to that sort of changes. :)
We had the same issue a few years ago when changing to boost::random - almost every test broke. It turned out that testing for specific values or only a small number of samples (the only tests which are affected by this kind of change) can mask a lot of bugs - even though some values seem to be correct, confidence intervals or measured variances can still be off. So for us a more robust test also meant a better test that discovered bugs. But yeah: such a change should be part of the change-log.