Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

10
  • For 3., do allow for some rounding errors here. It's possible that your total amount to 100,000001% or similarly close-but-not-exact figures. Commented Oct 8, 2018 at 6:23
  • 2
    I'm not quite sure about 4. If you're able to generate the optimal outcome for all possible input combinations (which you then use for testing confirmation), then you're inherently already capable of calculating the optimal outcome and therefore don't need this second pece of code that you're trying to test. At that point, you'd be better off using your existing optimal outcome generator as it's already proven to work. (and if it's not yet proven to work, then you can't rely on its outcome to fact-check your tests to begin with). Commented Oct 8, 2018 at 6:25
  • 6
    @flater usually you have other requirements as well as correctness that brute force doesnt meet. eg performance. Commented Oct 8, 2018 at 10:37
  • 1
    @flater I'd hate to use your sort, shortest path, chess engine, etc if you believe that. But id totally gamble in your rounding error allowed casino all day Commented Oct 8, 2018 at 10:55
  • 3
    @flater do you resign when you get to a king pawn end game? just because the entire game cant be brute forced doesnt mean an indiviual position cant. Just because you brute force the correct shortest path to one network doesnt mean you know the shortest path in all networks Commented Oct 8, 2018 at 11:09