Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 19 Feb 2014 22:27:21 -0500 |
Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
"I don't think any set of deterministic standard tests can replace testing
on the diversity of platforms and situations where ECJ is used."
For high-level integration testing, this is true. But each step of the
process can be unit tests by stubbing out stochastic behavior (though this
can be tricky).
Siggy
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Raymond Shpeley <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> I agree with Siggy. Looking at the tests for GP alone is a fair chunk of
> work, let
> alone the entire library. Ideally, people who have seen and worked with
> these
> demo apps before should be testing them. Still, some quick scouring is
> likely
> worth the effort.
>
> With the information space (or search space as Koza calls it) of GC being
> so
> huge, I don't think any set of deterministic standard tests can replace
> testing
> on the diversity of platforms and situations where ECJ is used.
>
> Still, one must start some place.
>
> -- ray
>
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 16:37:58 -0500, Eric 'Siggy' Scott <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >It would of course be great to have CI and test suites for ECJ.
> > Retrofitting tests to the entire library is of course a monumental
> >undertaking, however.
> >
> >Also, in this case, Sean is asking if the example apps yield "basically
> the
> >same results" -- qualitatively. Setting up quantitative tests of
> >qualitative criteria to see if the behavior of stochastic simulations
> >changes is difficult and usually needs done carefully on a case-by-case
> >basis.
> >
> >Siggy
> >
>
--
Ph.D student in Computer Science
George Mason University
http://mason.gmu.edu/~escott8/
|
|
|