Fix Randomised Testing #652
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
dj5x5
pushed a commit
to dj5x5/aima-python
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 17, 2025
* add failure_test method to utils * comment fix * Update test_learning.py * Update test_csp.py
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hopefully this will take care of the issue where random tests would occasionally fail (#627).
The tests that were failing were on
csp(min_conflicts) andlearning(random_forest). I fixed the latter by using the existinggrade_learnerfunction.For
csp, I wrote a new function,failure_test. It takes as input a function and atestslist of tuples in the form(input, failure_output). It basically counts how many tests output something other thanfailure_output. I went down this route (as explained in the comments) because a lot of algorithms on failure return something likeFalseorNone, while on success they return something arbitrary (a dictionary, a list, etc.) so it is much easier to check if a function failed that check if it succeeded. I think this is a simple enough way to take care of this issue.