It is at very initial stage. Getting this reviewed can speed up things with lesser mistakes.
Diff Detail
- Repository
- R262 LabPlot
- Lint
Lint Skipped - Unit
Unit Tests Skipped
Changed model to data driven model so that, we can tests on multiple sets without writing multiple compare functions.
src/backend/hypothesisTest/HypothesisTest.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
1073 ↗ | (On Diff #60916) | fabs instead of abs. |
tests/stats/ttest/TTestTest.cpp | ||
41 ↗ | (On Diff #60856) | add comment: "first sample" |
49 ↗ | (On Diff #60856) | add comment "second sample" |
54 ↗ | (On Diff #60856) | add space before |
87 ↗ | (On Diff #60856) | Can you use the DEBUG() macro instead of qDebug()? |
92 ↗ | (On Diff #60856) | using an absolute error of 0.01 depends heavily on tValue. Why is the error so big? Can you use relative errors instead? |
139 ↗ | (On Diff #60856) | DEBUG()? |
144 ↗ | (On Diff #60856) | see above |
159 ↗ | (On Diff #60856) | check comment |
191 ↗ | (On Diff #60856) | DEBUG()? |
196 ↗ | (On Diff #60856) | see above |
tests/stats/ttest/TTestTest.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
54 ↗ | (On Diff #60856) | Sorry, I didn't get. Add space before? |
87 ↗ | (On Diff #60856) | QDEBUG and DEBUG macro are not working in my pc, may be due to some setting. I have to check for it. I will use the macro, once I will fix the setting. |
92 ↗ | (On Diff #60856) | I tried using relative error. But, I am not getting what value of delta to use. If I use as small as 0.1 also then the test is not passing for values: actual: 1.51815e-05 which is very more accurate than expected. |
tests/stats/ttest/TTestTest.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
54 ↗ | (On Diff #60856) | I meant to add an empty line to make it more readable. |
87 ↗ | (On Diff #60856) | I thought that you already fixed it for you. If it's not working for you, please add a TODO-comment when using qDebug(). |
92 ↗ | (On Diff #60856) | the problem here is that the expected value is not known more precise? An absolute error of 0.01 make not much sense here. |