| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
By using System.nanoTime() instead of currentTimeMillis(), the flakiness
even with the original 10,000 rounds is significantly lower than before.
Making my IDE repeat the test until failure, it took on average 150 runs
to make it fail. So, the more accurate timing helps. With 100,000
rounds, it was even more stable, but eventually I could make it fail.
With 1,000,000 rounds however, even running the test 500x could not make
it fail. So for all practical purposes, I think the test is reasonably
stable now.
Closes #83.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kriegisch <Alexander@Kriegisch.name>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
By increasing from 10,000 to 1,000,000 rounds, the times compared for
performance become considerably longer (but still in the tens or
hundreds or milliseconds), decreasing the probability of the test
failing due to CPU load or some other random effect.
Closes #83.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kriegisch <Alexander@Kriegisch.name>
|
