This repository was archived by the owner on Jan 10, 2024. It is now read-only.
Fix bug where NilChance(0) could still result in nil #47
+30
−1
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #46.
As discussed there, using
NilChance(0)
to prevent gofuzz from givingnil
s contained a very minor bug where it might still givenil
because a randomly sampled0
is not greater than the configured0
. This has been fixed by using>=
instead of>
when comparing the configurednilChance
against randomly sampled values.I also added a test case where a seeded RNG is used which will give
0
as it's first value in order to verify the bug is not reintroduced. Let me know if I should change anything about the test (or feel free to commit those changes yourself 🙂).