Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implemented reproducible random numbers #109

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Oct 14, 2017
Merged

Implemented reproducible random numbers #109

merged 6 commits into from
Oct 14, 2017

Conversation

wlandau
Copy link
Member

@wlandau wlandau commented Oct 14, 2017

@AlexAxthelm your thoughts on reproducible random numbers from August 25 turned out to be just the right thing to do. Clean, elegant, and easy, made easier with the testing code you already wrote. In this PR, I went ahead and finished up the work you started. The reproducible random number tests pass for all the different kinds of parallelism. I do not like closing other people's pull requests, but this one does replace #56.

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Oct 14, 2017

Codecov Report

Merging #109 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@          Coverage Diff          @@
##           master   #109   +/-   ##
=====================================
  Coverage     100%   100%           
=====================================
  Files          48     49    +1     
  Lines        2288   2302   +14     
=====================================
+ Hits         2288   2302   +14
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
R/make.R 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
R/random.R 100% <100%> (ø)
R/config.R 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️
R/build.R 100% <100%> (ø) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 3215bb1...853c1d6. Read the comment docs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants