Follow-up from #86 - rename bs_seed and think about additional tests

In #86, @mattwthompson made some good comments. We should

[ ] Rename bs_seed to something more descriptive
[ ] Think whether we want to add a test (end-to-end or unit) to check that different seeds yield different results

LGTM, to the extent that I can check code by eye. Might be worth tackling #89 first, then add a test to ensure that the seed is actually propagaged through to results? i.e. run twice with the same seed and then twice with the different seed, compare results

This was added as a prerequisite of #89, because the tests introduced in #89 won't pass without having the bootstrap seed properly used. Introducing #89 first would require to change the test to ignore the output affected by the bootstrapping (such that it still passes CI), and then change them back when introducing this. In hindsight, this might have been a better way to go about it, but it seems like overkill now. Testing locally, I can confirm, however, that #89 fails without the current change.

We could still add additional tests as a follow-up to #89. We'll have to be careful in deciding what we want to test using end-to-end tests, however - they are relatively slow, so anything that can be unit-tested rather than regression tested would be better.

As a matter of taste, I may suggest a more descriptive variable name like bootstrap_seed

I'd agree. Maybe a follow-up?

_Originally posted by @ptmerz in https://github.com/shirtsgroup/physical_validation/issues/86#issuecomment-769624996_

shirtsgroup / physical_validation

Follow-up from #86 - rename bs_seed and think about additional tests #100