Overview
Our current test suite has excellent mathematical property testing but lacks true property-based testing with random parameter generation. We should complement our existing example-based tests with property-based tests that use randomly generated inputs to catch edge cases.
Current State: Strong Foundation ✅
- Excellent test organization with dedicated
mathematical_property_test.gd files
- Testing the RIGHT mathematical properties (monotonicity, round-trip consistency, boundary conditions)
- Great coverage of numerical stability and edge cases
- Comprehensive scipy validation with data-driven approach
Missing: True Property-Based Testing ❌
Our tests currently use fixed test cases rather than generated random inputs:
Current Pattern (Example-Based):
func test_pareto_cdf_monotonicity() -> void:
# Fixed test points
var x1: float = 2.5
var x2: float = 3.0
var x3: float = 4.0
# Test specific cases...
Needed Pattern (Property-Based):
func test_pareto_cdf_monotonicity_property() -> void:
var rng = RandomNumberGenerator.new()
rng.seed = 12345 # Deterministic for CI
# Generate many random test cases
for i in range(100):
var scale = rng.randf_range(0.1, 10.0)
var shape = rng.randf_range(0.5, 5.0)
var x1 = rng.randf_range(scale, scale * 10.0)
var x2 = x1 + rng.randf_range(0.1, 5.0)
# Property: CDF should be monotonic
var cdf1 = StatMath.CdfFunctions.pareto_cdf(x1, scale, shape)
var cdf2 = StatMath.CdfFunctions.pareto_cdf(x2, scale, shape)
assert_float(cdf1).is_less_equal(cdf2)
Proposed Improvements
1. CDF Functions
- Random parameter generation for range validation (CDF ∈ [0,1])
- Random monotonicity testing across parameter spaces
- Random boundary condition validation
2. Basic Statistics
- Generated data property testing (variance ≥ 0)
- Random data transformation properties
- Scale/translation invariance with random data
3. PPF Functions
- Enhanced round-trip consistency with random parameters
- Random monotonicity validation
- Random boundary behavior testing
Implementation Strategy
- Keep existing tests: Current scipy validation and example-based tests are valuable
- Add complementary property-based tests: New test functions with
_property suffix
- Use deterministic seeds: Ensure CI reproducibility
- Reasonable test counts: Balance coverage vs execution time (50-200 iterations per property)
Success Criteria
Priority
Medium - This enhancement will improve test coverage and catch edge cases, but existing test suite already provides strong validation.
Overview
Our current test suite has excellent mathematical property testing but lacks true property-based testing with random parameter generation. We should complement our existing example-based tests with property-based tests that use randomly generated inputs to catch edge cases.
Current State: Strong Foundation ✅
mathematical_property_test.gdfilesMissing: True Property-Based Testing ❌
Our tests currently use fixed test cases rather than generated random inputs:
Current Pattern (Example-Based):
Needed Pattern (Property-Based):
Proposed Improvements
1. CDF Functions
2. Basic Statistics
3. PPF Functions
Implementation Strategy
_propertysuffixSuccess Criteria
Priority
Medium - This enhancement will improve test coverage and catch edge cases, but existing test suite already provides strong validation.