Skip to content

test: migrate stats/base/dists/normal/mgf to ULP-based assertions - #14302

Merged
kgryte merged 1 commit into
developfrom
kgryte/ulp-normal-mgf
Aug 15, 2026
Merged

test: migrate stats/base/dists/normal/mgf to ULP-based assertions#14302
kgryte merged 1 commit into
developfrom
kgryte/ulp-normal-mgf

Conversation

@kgryte

@kgryte kgryte commented Aug 15, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Resolves a part of #11352.

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

Changes are confined to test/test.mgf.js, test/test.factory.js, and test/test.native.js. In each fixture loop, var delta/var tol and the abs( y - expected[i] ) <= EPS * abs( expected[i] ) comparison are replaced with t.strictEqual( isAlmostSameValue( y, expected[ i ], N ), true, 'returns expected value' ), and the now-unused @stdlib/math/base/special/abs and @stdlib/constants/float64/eps requires are removed in favor of @stdlib/assert/is-almost-same-value. The existing expected[i] !== null guards are left in place.

The ULP bounds were measured against the full fixture set (1000 cases per fixture) and tightened to the minimum passing integer:

Fixture Previous tolerance ULP bound
positive_location.json 1200.0 * EPS 1867
negative_location.json 1050.0 * EPS 2039
large_variance.json 700.0 * EPS 969

Each bound is the measured maximum ULP difference over its fixture, and is minimal: lowering any of them by one causes that fixture to fail (verified by running the suite at N-1, which yields exactly one failure per fixture loop). The same bounds apply to all three test files, since factory and the main export return identical values for every fixture case, and the C implementation mirrors the JavaScript implementation directly (exp( ( mu*t ) + ( 0.5 * pow( sigma*t, 2.0 ) ) )), so no JS vs. C divergence needed to be accounted for.

The package test suite passes, and was run twice at the final ULP values to confirm the results are deterministic. ESLint (via etc/eslint/.eslintrc.tests.js) is clean for the package.

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request has the following related issues:

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

test/test.native.js was skipped locally, as the native add-on was not built in the environment used to author this change; the bounds applied there are the ones measured against the JavaScript implementation. Please confirm CI exercises the native tests.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

No.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

AI Assistance

When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of AI assistance?

  • Yes
  • No

If you answered "yes" above, how did you use AI assistance?

  • Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
  • Test/benchmark generation
  • Documentation (including examples)
  • Research and understanding

Disclosure

If you answered "yes" to using AI assistance, please provide a short disclosure indicating how you used AI assistance. This helps reviewers determine how much scrutiny to apply when reviewing your contribution. Example disclosures: "This PR was written primarily by Claude Code." or "I consulted ChatGPT to understand the codebase, but the proposed changes were fully authored manually by myself.".

This PR was authored by Claude Code, following the migration pattern established in previously merged conversions (e.g. #14274, #14272, #14267). The ULP bounds were determined empirically by measuring ULP differences across the full fixture set and verifying minimality, rather than guessed.


@stdlib-js/reviewers


Generated by Claude Code

Ref: #11352

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01VYbMUHCscinCpwPMnzDvH4

---
type: pre_commit_static_analysis_report
description: Results of running static analysis checks when committing changes.
report:
  - task: lint_filenames
    status: passed
  - task: lint_editorconfig
    status: skipped
  - task: lint_markdown_pkg_readmes
    status: na
  - task: lint_markdown_docs
    status: na
  - task: lint_markdown
    status: na
  - task: lint_package_json
    status: na
  - task: lint_repl_help
    status: na
  - task: lint_javascript_src
    status: na
  - task: lint_javascript_cli
    status: na
  - task: lint_javascript_examples
    status: na
  - task: lint_javascript_tests
    status: passed
  - task: lint_javascript_benchmarks
    status: na
  - task: lint_python
    status: na
  - task: lint_r
    status: na
  - task: lint_c_src
    status: na
  - task: lint_c_examples
    status: na
  - task: lint_c_benchmarks
    status: na
  - task: lint_c_tests_fixtures
    status: na
  - task: lint_shell
    status: na
  - task: lint_typescript_declarations
    status: passed
  - task: lint_typescript_tests
    status: na
  - task: lint_license_headers
    status: passed
---
@stdlib-bot stdlib-bot added Statistics Issue or pull request related to statistical functionality. Good First PR A pull request resolving a Good First Issue. labels Aug 15, 2026
@stdlib-bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Coverage Report

Package Statements Branches Functions Lines
stats/base/dists/normal/mgf $\\color{green}293/293$
$\\color{green}+100.00\\%$
$\\color{green}19/19$
$\\color{green}+100.00\\%$
$\\color{green}4/4$
$\\color{green}+100.00\\%$
$\\color{green}293/293$
$\\color{green}+100.00\\%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.

@kgryte kgryte added the Tests Pull requests specifically adding tests. label Aug 15, 2026
@kgryte
kgryte marked this pull request as ready for review August 15, 2026 22:33
@kgryte
kgryte requested a review from a team August 15, 2026 22:33
@stdlib-bot stdlib-bot added the Needs Review A pull request which needs code review. label Aug 15, 2026
@kgryte
kgryte merged commit e0fb5df into develop Aug 15, 2026
82 checks passed
@kgryte
kgryte deleted the kgryte/ulp-normal-mgf branch August 15, 2026 22:35
@stdlib-bot stdlib-bot removed the Needs Review A pull request which needs code review. label Aug 15, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Good First PR A pull request resolving a Good First Issue. Statistics Issue or pull request related to statistical functionality. Tests Pull requests specifically adding tests.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants