nostr:nprofile1qqswwud0pvzu362lehm0av6sq4zd97cue5uy0z8f7jgtk0hz368dvmcprdmhxue69uhhw6r9v96zu6rpwpc8jarpwejhym3wvdhj7qgawaehxw309ak82mnrdp3x77pwwdskuerhd93kstnxv9ex6tcfwvfpm has his thing that does something conceptually similar

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

The tests I have aren't random because then its difficult to meaningfully communicate the outcome. Instead it each NIP had a test suite, and then each test in the suite attempts to obtain samples from relays and then uses the uses those samples to construct filters than satisfy the respective test.

I picked the word “conceptually” very carefully 😉

They are conceptually much different 😂

Both useful on different ways. Randomness is great in fuzz testing and finding edge cases that are difficult to find without randomness, the auditor I wrote is better for unit testing known vectors to validate expected behaviors.

And to be clear, they are complimentary and so is relevant. Just wanted to clarify the functionality.