Skip to content

test: migrate stats/incr/nanme to ULP-based assertions - #15876

Draft
kgryte wants to merge 1 commit into
developfrom
kgryte/ulp-stats-incr-nanme
Draft

kgryte wants to merge 1 commit into
developfrom
kgryte/ulp-stats-incr-nanme

Conversation

@kgryte

@kgryte kgryte commented Oct 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Resolves a part of #11352.

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

Two test cases were migrated, and, in each case, the ULP bound was tightened to the minimum passing integer value:

Test case Previous tolerance ULP bound
the accumulator function incrementally computes the mean error 6.0 * EPS * abs( expected ) 0
if not provided an input value, the accumulator function returns the current mean error 3.0 * EPS * abs( expected ) 3

The bounds were determined by starting from a high ULP allowance and lowering the value until the minimum passing integer was found. Lowering the second bound to 2 causes that test case to fail, and 0 is already minimal for the first test case. The test suite was run twice at the final bounds in order to confirm determinism (16/16 assertions passing).

Notes:

  • In the first test case, the expected value is null until a pair of non-NaN values has been provided. isAlmostSameValue( null, null, 0 ) returns true, as the function short-circuits on strict equality for non-zero values, and thus the previous actual === expected branch is no longer necessary.
  • The package does not provide a native implementation, and thus only test/test.js required updating.

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?

No.

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, which performed the test migration, measured the minimum passing ULP bounds, and ran the test and lint suites locally.


@stdlib-js/reviewers

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01HSMKAZJRGKSu3kBXT9hJYU


Generated by Claude Code

Migrate the test cases for `stats/incr/nanme` from relative tolerance
assertions to ULP-based assertions using
`@stdlib/assert/is-almost-same-value`.

The ULP bounds were tightened to the minimum passing integer values: `0`
for the incremental accumulation test case and `3` for the test case
asserting the current accumulated value.

Ref: #11352

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01HSMKAZJRGKSu3kBXT9hJYU

---
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 Oct 3, 2026
@stdlib-bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Coverage Report

Package Statements Branches Functions Lines
stats/incr/nanme $\\color{green}135/135$
$\\color{green}+100.00\\%$
$\\color{green}8/8$
$\\color{green}+100.00\\%$
$\\color{green}2/2$
$\\color{green}+100.00\\%$
$\\color{green}135/135$
$\\color{green}+100.00\\%$

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

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
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.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants