From e5c4dfdfc02b91027ba58816546d28499b0581cc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:06:43 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Make the rand tests determinstic. (fixes #2714) This avoids spurious errors with the old tests but still tests enough that if the rng is replaced with a totally broken one it should still fail. --- src/test/util_tests.cpp | 34 +--------------------------------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 33 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/test/util_tests.cpp b/src/test/util_tests.cpp index 64bd3a1b..fd936517 100644 --- a/src/test/util_tests.cpp +++ b/src/test/util_tests.cpp @@ -263,28 +263,10 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(util_IsHex) BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(util_seed_insecure_rand) { - // Expected results for the determinstic seed. - const uint32_t exp_vals[11] = { 91632771U,1889679809U,3842137544U,3256031132U, - 1761911779U, 489223532U,2692793790U,2737472863U, - 2796262275U,1309899767U,840571781U}; - // Expected 0s in rand()%(idx+2) for the determinstic seed. - const int exp_count[9] = {5013,3346,2415,1972,1644,1386,1176,1096,1009}; int i; int count=0; - seed_insecure_rand(); - - //Does the non-determistic rand give us results that look too like the determinstic one? - for (i=0;i<10;i++) - { - int match = 0; - uint32_t rval = insecure_rand(); - for (int j=0;j<11;j++)match |= rval==exp_vals[j]; - count += match; - } - // sum(binomial(10,i)*(11/(2^32))^i*(1-(11/(2^32)))^(10-i),i,0,4) ~= 1-1/2^134.73 - // So _very_ unlikely to throw a false failure here. - BOOST_CHECK(count<=4); + seed_insecure_rand(true); for (int mod=2;mod<11;mod++) { @@ -307,20 +289,6 @@ BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE(util_seed_insecure_rand) BOOST_CHECK(count<=10000/mod+err); BOOST_CHECK(count>=10000/mod-err); } - - seed_insecure_rand(true); - - for (i=0;i<11;i++) - { - BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(insecure_rand(),exp_vals[i]); - } - - for (int mod=2;mod<11;mod++) - { - count = 0; - for (i=0;i<10000;i++) count += insecure_rand()%mod==0; - BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(count,exp_count[mod-2]); - } } BOOST_AUTO_TEST_SUITE_END()