As pin() has no inputs
I'll admit to using "black box" in a poorly defined way -- what I meant was that the function in question isn't really random -- it transforms well defined inputs into outputs. In this sense, pin() takes no arguments, but it does have inputs -- four calls to rand. In my view, the right approach is to vary the inputs and examine the outputs -- explicitly test boundary conditions of known inputs rather than trying to evaluate it probabalistically.
If you rely upon knowledge of the implementation to not bother checking for length 4, then a modification by someone not understanding the significance of "%04d" that omitted the zero would not be detected.
I was referring to the original loop version, actually. It will always concatenate 4 integers. That doesn't vary based on the input. So while it needs to be checked, it doesn't need to be checked everywhere, we only need to check a situation where an input might produce an integer of more than one digit.
-xdg
Code written by xdg and posted on PerlMonks is public domain. It is provided as is with no warranties, express or implied, of any kind. Posted code may not have been tested. Use of posted code is at your own risk.
In reply to Re^3: Testing Random Code
by xdg
in thread Testing Random Code
by Ovid
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |