Generate fuzz tests using random values with a fixed seed, sure, but using random values in tests that run on CI seems like a recipe for hard-to-reproduce flaky builds unless you have really good logging.

> Always include some randomness in test values.

If this isn't a joke, I'd be very interested in the reasoning behind that statement, and whether or not there are some qualifications on when it applies.

Not a good idea for CI tests. It will just make things flaky and gum up your PR/release process. Randomness or any form of nondeterminism should be in a different set of fuzzing tests (if you must use an RNG, a deterministic one is fine for CI).

Are you joking? This is the kind of thing that leads to flaky tests. I was always counseled against the use of randomness in my tests, unless we're talking generative testing like quickcheck.

Interesting, haven't heard this before (I don't know much about testing). Is this kind of like fuzzing?