Skip to content

test: migrate stats/base/dists/gamma/kurtosis to ULP-based assertions - #14524

Merged
kgryte merged 1 commit into
developfrom
kgryte/ulp-stats-base-dists-gamma-kurtosis
Aug 22, 2026
Merged

kgryte merged 1 commit into
developfrom
kgryte/ulp-stats-base-dists-gamma-kurtosis

Conversation

@kgryte

@kgryte kgryte commented Aug 22, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Resolves a part of #11352.

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

ULP bound: 0 (both test/test.js and test/test.native.js).

Starting from a high bound and tightening, the measured maximum ULP difference over the full 200-value Julia fixture set is 0 — i.e., every returned value is bit-identical to the expected value, so 0 is the minimum admissible bound and no further tightening is possible. The JS suite was run three times at the final bound with identical results (214/214 passing), so the bound is not sensitive to run-to-run variation.

The native addon is not built in this environment, so test/test.native.js is skipped locally. To confirm that 0 is also correct for the C implementation, src/main.c was compiled directly and evaluated against the same fixtures; its maximum ULP difference is likewise 0. This is expected, since both implementations reduce to a single IEEE-754 division (6.0 / alpha), which is correctly rounded and therefore not subject to FMA or architecture-dependent variation.

Only the two test files are modified; no implementation, fixture, or documentation changes are included.

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 running as an unattended scheduled task. It studied previously merged conversions under #11352 to match the established idiom, applied the migration, measured the minimum ULP bound empirically against the fixtures (including a direct compilation of the C source to cover the skipped native suite), and verified that the tests pass and lint cleanly.


@stdlib-js/reviewers


Generated by Claude Code

Replace the relative tolerance assertions in the test suites with
`@stdlib/assert/is-almost-same-value` ULP difference assertions. Both
the JavaScript and C implementations return bit-identical results for
every fixture value, so the assertions use the minimum ULP bound of 0.

Ref: #11352

Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>

---
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 Good First PR A pull request resolving a Good First Issue. Statistics Issue or pull request related to statistical functionality. and removed Good First PR A pull request resolving a Good First Issue. labels Aug 22, 2026
@stdlib-bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Hello! 👋

We've noticed that you've been opening a number of PRs addressing good first issues. Thank you for your interest and enthusiasm!

Now that you've made a few contributions, we suggest no longer working on good first issues. Instead, we encourage you to prioritize cleaning up any PRs which have yet to be merged and then proceed to work on more involved tasks.

Not only does this ensure that other new contributors can work on things and get ramped up on all things stdlib, it also ensures that you can spend your time on more challenging problems. 🚀

For ideas for future PRs, feel free to search the codebase for TODOs and FIXMEs and be sure to check out other open issues on the issue tracker. Cheers!

@stdlib-bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Coverage Report

Package Statements Branches Functions Lines
stats/base/dists/gamma/kurtosis $\\color{green}195/195$
$\\color{green}+100.00\\%$
$\\color{green}10/10$
$\\color{green}+100.00\\%$
$\\color{green}2/2$
$\\color{green}+100.00\\%$
$\\color{green}195/195$
$\\color{green}+100.00\\%$

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

@kgryte kgryte added the Tests Pull requests specifically adding tests. label Aug 22, 2026
@kgryte
kgryte marked this pull request as ready for review August 22, 2026 10:33
@kgryte
kgryte requested a review from a team August 22, 2026 10:33
@stdlib-bot stdlib-bot added the Needs Review A pull request which needs code review. label Aug 22, 2026
@kgryte
kgryte merged commit 759ca1c into develop Aug 22, 2026
83 checks passed
@kgryte
kgryte deleted the kgryte/ulp-stats-base-dists-gamma-kurtosis branch August 22, 2026 10:34
@stdlib-bot stdlib-bot added Good First PR A pull request resolving a Good First Issue. and removed Needs Review A pull request which needs code review. labels Aug 22, 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