Skip to content

test: migrate stats/iter/mmeanabs2 to ULP-based assertions - #15440

Merged
kgryte merged 1 commit into
developfrom
kgryte/ulp-stats-iter-mmeanabs2
Sep 23, 2026
Merged

kgryte merged 1 commit into
developfrom
kgryte/ulp-stats-iter-mmeanabs2

Conversation

@kgryte

@kgryte kgryte commented Sep 23, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Resolves a part of #11352.

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

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 mean of squared absolute values test:

Test ULP Measured minimum
the function returns an iterator protocol-compliant object which iteratively computes a moving arithmetic mean of squared absolute values 1 1

Starting from 64 and tightening, 1 is the smallest bound which still passes. The first three window values (4.0, 6.5, 17/3) are returned bit-identically, while the remaining three (29/3, 29/3, 41/3) differ from the expected values by exactly one ULP (e.g., 9.666666666666668 vs. 9.666666666666666), owing to the incremental accumulation. Re-running the suite at 0 fails 3 of 185 assertions, confirming 1 is the minimum.

The suite was run twice at the final bound, passing 185/185 both times, and eslint against etc/eslint/.eslintrc.tests.js reports no findings.

For reference, the sibling package stats/incr/mmeanabs2 also settled on 1.

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.

Verified locally with make test TESTS_FILTER=".*/stats/iter/mmeanabs2/.*" and make lint-javascript-tests TESTS_FILTER=".*/stats/iter/mmeanabs2/.*".

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 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_01REEty7dbxKciFfLkvMt3K6


Generated by Claude Code

Ref: #11352

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01REEty7dbxKciFfLkvMt3K6

---
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. labels Sep 23, 2026
@stdlib-bot

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Coverage Report

Package Statements Branches Functions Lines
stats/iter/mmeanabs2 $\\color{green}206/206$
$\\color{green}+100.00\\%$
$\\color{green}21/21$
$\\color{green}+100.00\\%$
$\\color{green}4/4$
$\\color{green}+100.00\\%$
$\\color{green}206/206$
$\\color{green}+100.00\\%$

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

@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!

@kgryte kgryte added the Tests Pull requests specifically adding tests. label Sep 23, 2026
@kgryte
kgryte marked this pull request as ready for review September 23, 2026 05:46
@kgryte
kgryte requested a review from a team September 23, 2026 05:46
@stdlib-bot stdlib-bot added the Needs Review A pull request which needs code review. label Sep 23, 2026
@kgryte
kgryte merged commit 20cbd4f into develop Sep 23, 2026
82 checks passed
@kgryte
kgryte deleted the kgryte/ulp-stats-iter-mmeanabs2 branch September 23, 2026 05:47
@stdlib-bot stdlib-bot removed the Needs Review A pull request which needs code review. label Sep 23, 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