I see that the hard-coded tolerance has been increased by a factor 10 in the meantime.
Would it make sense to change the tolerance in the first assertion from a hard-coded 1e-11 to eps (muHat) or -- to be on the safe side -- to 2*eps (muHat) instead? And similarly for the second assertion, would it make sense to use 5*eps (sigmaHat)?
No big deal. But it might make it a bit clearer that the expected tolerances are indeed in the order of the machine precision for those numbers.
One of the tests of the statistics package is currently failing on the GitHub runner that checks if the Windows nightly builds are working correctly: https://github.com/gnu-octave/octave-buildbot/actions/runs/5708727265/job/15466671014#step:14:13432
This is the following test afaict: https://github.com/gnu-octave/statistics/blob/main/inst/dist_fit/normfit.m#L428-L434
I see that the hard-coded tolerance has been increased by a factor 10 in the meantime.
Would it make sense to change the tolerance in the first assertion from a hard-coded 1e-11 to
eps (muHat)
or -- to be on the safe side -- to2*eps (muHat)
instead? And similarly for the second assertion, would it make sense to use5*eps (sigmaHat)
?No big deal. But it might make it a bit clearer that the expected tolerances are indeed in the order of the machine precision for those numbers.