test: migrate stats/base/dists/bernoulli/kurtosis to ULP-based assertions

[kgryte]

Resolves a part of #11352.

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

• migrates the tests for stats/base/dists/bernoulli/kurtosis from relative tolerance testing to ULP difference testing, per [RFC]: Migrate math/base/special packages from relative tolerance testing to ULP difference testing (tracking issue) #11352.
• replaces the y === expected[i] / delta <= tol branch in the Julia fixture loops of test/test.js and test/test.native.js with t.strictEqual( isAlmostSameValue( y, expected[ i ], 0 ), true, 'returns expected value' );.
• adds the @stdlib/assert/is-almost-same-value require and drops the now unused @stdlib/math/base/special/abs and @stdlib/constants/float64/eps requires.

Final ULP constant: 0 (used in both test/test.js and test/test.native.js).

This is the measured minimum. The bound was found by measuring the per-fixture ULP difference with @stdlib/number/float64/base/ulp-difference across the full 1000-element Julia fixture set: the largest observed difference is 0, i.e., every returned value is bit-identical to its expected value, so no smaller bound exists. Starting from a high bound and lowering it therefore terminates at 0. The suite was run twice at the final value with identical results (1009/1009 passing), so there is no FMA/arch variation here.

A bound of 0 is consistent with already-migrated sibling packages whose fixtures also match exactly — e.g. stats/base/dists/binomial/kurtosis (a464e88), which likewise migrated to isAlmostSameValue( y, expected[ i ], 0 ) in both its JS and native test files. The implementation is a single expression, ( 1.0/pq ) - 6.0 where pq = p * ( 1.0-p ), and src/main.c evaluates the identical expression with the same operation order, so the native add-on is expected to return the same values; the same bound is therefore used in the native test file.

Only the two test files are changed.

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request has the following related issues:

• [RFC]: Migrate math/base/special packages from relative tolerance testing to ULP difference testing (tracking issue) #11352

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

No.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

• test/test.js → 1009 passing, 0 failing; test/test.native.js skips, as the native add-on is not built in this environment. Run twice at the final ULP value to confirm determinism.
• Linting was run with the repository's own ESLint configuration (etc/eslint/.eslintrc.tests.js, including the custom stdlib plugin rules) over both changed files and is clean; the pre-commit hook's JavaScript test lint also passed.
• Note on environment: make install-node-modules fails here because es-object-atoms@^1.1.2 is not published (the reachable registry has at most 1.1.1, while array-includes@3.2.0 and several string.prototype.* packages require ^1.1.2). This is a pre-existing dependency-resolution failure unrelated to this change; the dependency tree was installed with that transitive version pinned to 1.1.1 so that the project's own tooling could be used.
• The editorconfig-checker step could not execute (its binary is downloaded from GitHub releases, which is unavailable here); both files were verified manually against .editorconfig (LF line endings, tab indentation, no trailing whitespace, final newline).
• The production dependency license audit (make check-licenses-production) could not run either, as it requires the full node_modules tree that the failed install above would have produced. This change adds no dependencies.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

AI Assistance

When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of AI assistance?

• Yes
• No

If you answered "yes" above, how did you use AI assistance?

• Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
• Test/benchmark generation
• Documentation (including examples)
• Research and understanding

Disclosure

If you answered "yes" to using AI assistance, please provide a short disclosure indicating how you used AI assistance. This helps reviewers determine how much scrutiny to apply when reviewing your contribution. Example disclosures: "This PR was written primarily by Claude Code." or "I consulted ChatGPT to understand the codebase, but the proposed changes were fully authored manually by myself.".

This PR was authored by Claude Code, running as an unattended scheduled task. Claude studied #11352 and the already-migrated sibling packages to mirror the established idiom, applied the migration, and determined the ULP bound empirically by measuring the per-fixture ULP difference rather than guessing it.

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01FAk9ZwMqUXA4W8o4t7dbtQ

---

Generated by Claude Code

[stdlib-bot]

Hello! 👋

We've noticed that you've been opening a number of PRs addressing good first issues. Thank you for your interest and enthusiasm!

Now that you've made a few contributions, we suggest no longer working on good first issues. Instead, we encourage you to prioritize cleaning up any PRs which have yet to be merged and then proceed to work on more involved tasks.

Not only does this ensure that other new contributors can work on things and get ramped up on all things stdlib, it also ensures that you can spend your time on more challenging problems. 🚀

For ideas for future PRs, feel free to search the codebase for TODOs and FIXMEs and be sure to check out other open issues on the issue tracker. Cheers!

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
stats/base/dists/bernoulli/kurtosis	$\\color{green}167/167$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$	$\\color{green}9/9$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$	$\\color{green}2/2$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$	$\\color{green}167/167$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.

[Planeshifter]

⚠️ Issue Reference Review

An automated check found potentially unrelated issue/PR references in this PR:

Reference	Assessment	Reasoning
#11352	suspicious	Issue #11352 is an RFC explicitly scoped to migrating math/base/special packages from relative-tolerance to ULP-based testing (its own instructions say to search for a package "in math/base/special"). This PR migrates tests for stats/base/dists/bernoulli/kurtosis, which is outside the issue's stated scope.

Why this matters: GitHub automatically closes issues referenced with
closing keywords (Resolves, Closes, Fixes) when the PR is merged. Incorrect
references can accidentally close unrelated issues.

What to do:

• If the reference is correct, no action needed. This check may produce
  false positives.
• If the reference is incorrect, please update your PR description.

This assessment was generated by an AI model and is informational only.

---

Generated by Claude Code