Good point. What we have done in the past is run these tests many many
times, takings advantage of the random seed. For now, for the other tests,
I'd rather leave a random seed. If this one needs a fixed seed, use it.
Otherwise, random helps with the repeated tests.
On May 21, 2014 7:40 AM, "giogadi" <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In tests/geometric/2d/2dcircles_optimize.cpp:
>
> > @@ -212,6 +338,13 @@ class PlanTest
> >      template<typename T>
> >      void runAllTests(void)
> >      {
> > +        // A seed that we know to generate a particular edge case for
> > +        // Dubins
> > +        //
> > +        // TODO this is pretty ugly, especially since it gets called
>
> Actually, this brings up another issue. Shouldn't all randomized tests
> always use the same RNG seed? If we don't, this opens up the door to tests
> failing/succeeding nondeterministically (definitely a headache for me in
> reproducing the bug).
>
> Although I can also imagine that always using the same seed might cause
> other bugs to go undiscovered. Unit testing of smaller chunks of planner
> code is probably the answer here, I think.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/ompl/ompl/pull/1/files#r12899278>
> .
>