test: migrate stats/incr/mrmse to ULP-based assertions

[kgryte]

Resolves a part of #11352.

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

• migrates the tests for @stdlib/stats/incr/mrmse from relative tolerance (EPS-scaled) assertions to ULP-based assertions using @stdlib/assert/is-almost-same-value, per [RFC]: Migrate math/base/special packages from relative tolerance testing to ULP difference testing (tracking issue) #11352.
• removes the now unused @stdlib/math/base/special/abs and @stdlib/constants/float64/eps requires, along with the associated delta/tol bookkeeping.

Only test/test.js is modified; the package has no test/test.native.js. No implementation, fixture, documentation, or benchmark changes are included.

ULP bounds

The package has a single relative tolerance assertion, in the moving RMSE accumulator test:

Test	ULP	Measured minimum
the accumulator function computes a moving root mean squared error incrementally	0	0

Starting from 64 and tightening, 0 still passes: the accumulator returns bit-identical results to the expected values (sqrt( 17/2 ), sqrt( 26/3 ), sqrt( 89/3 ), sqrt( 82/3 ), sqrt( 154/3 ), and 1.0) for every case, so no looser bound is warranted. The suite was run twice at the final bound, passing 98/98 both times, and eslint against etc/eslint/.eslintrc.tests.js reports no findings.

For reference, the sibling package stats/incr/rmse also settled on 0.

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request has the following related issues:

• [RFC]: Migrate math/base/special packages from relative tolerance testing to ULP difference testing (tracking issue) #11352

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.

Verified locally with make test TESTS_FILTER=".*/stats/incr/mrmse/.*".

Checklist

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

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

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 selected the package, studied already-migrated packages to match the established idiom, performed the migration, and searched for the minimum passing ULP bound by measurement.

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01HQgrpZaysJsUnYF5azzXaB

---

Generated by Claude Code

[stdlib-bot]

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]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
stats/incr/mrmse	$\\color{green}149/149$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$	$\\color{green}10/10$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$	$\\color{green}2/2$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$	$\\color{green}149/149$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$

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