On Fri 19-11-21 23:54:12, Chris Torek wrote: > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 8:51 AM Johannes Schindelin > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > An interesting problem, for sure! > > > > It is slightly related to a scenario that has been described to me > > recently: in a gigantic project whose full test suite is too large to run > > with every Pull Request, where tests are more likely to become flaky > > rather than simply break, a stochastic CI regime was introduced where a > > semi-random subset of the test suite is run with every CI build. That team > > also came up with the concept of attaching confidences as you describe. > > > > I only had time to look at the first patch closely so far. I hope to find > > more time next week to review further. > > I only scanned for obvious items myself, but the idea of a > probabilistic test is indeed interesting. > > I do wonder why you (Jan Kara, not Dscho :-) ) used fixed-point > arithmetic here though. Ah, very good question. I guess because I'm primarily Linux kernel programmer and we don't have floating point arithmetics in the kernel so I'm used to fixedpoint :). Secondarily because fixedpoint arithmetics provides me more control over where I'm loosing precision but looking at this now I agree the ugliness in the code is not probably worth the imagined win. I'll rewrite stuff using floating point. Thanks for the suggestion. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
