Improve the deprecation of crypto:rand_uniform/2

[RaimoNiskanen]

This PR improves the documentation to clarify how to use the crypto plug-in generator(s) in rand in a safe manner.

While at it I also (hopefully) improved the overview section in the rand documentation a bit.

[github-actions]

CT Test Results

    3 files    100 suites   1h 17m 11s ⏱️
2 308 tests 2 243 ✅  65 💤 0 ❌
2 969 runs  2 774 ✅ 195 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit 88dda01.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

To speed up review, make sure that you have read Contributing to Erlang/OTP and that all checks pass.

See the TESTING and DEVELOPMENT HowTo guides for details about how to run test locally.

Artifacts

• Complete CT logs (Download Logs)
• HTML Documentation (Download HTML Docs)
• Windows Installer

// Erlang/OTP Github Action Bot

[RaimoNiskanen]

Updated after feedback. Thank you all!

I also changed the module doc examples to be parsed and test run in our test suites.

[RaimoNiskanen]

Moved all the rand functions to a dedicated documentation group, and rephrased the deprecation reason for `crypto:rand_uniform/2.

[RaimoNiskanen]

Changed track a bit to exporting and documenting crypto:strong_rand_range/1, and point the deprecation of crypto:rand_uniform/2 to it instead.

All other improvements remain.

[Maria-12648430]

I found some more that I missed earlier. Sorry 😓

[RaimoNiskanen]

@Maria-12648430 wrote:

I found some more that I missed earlier. Sorry 😓

This is a bit like vacuum cleaning. You can always do another run and find dust in the corners. That has allegedly been used by some vacuum cleaner salesman to discreetly complain about how much his cleaner found after his competitors had demonstrated their cleaners...

Thank you very much for your thorough grammar and spelling review. It is invaluable!

Now I don't want to pester you with "Re-request review" forever, which I pressed in an attempt to do away with the unsatisfying red "1 requested change". I am not sure about using that again, or go for the other button "Dismiss review", which I think sounds a bit harsh...

[Maria-12648430]

This is a bit like vacuum cleaning. You can always do another run and find dust in the corners.

That rings so true 😆

Thank you very much for your thorough grammar and spelling review. It is invaluable!

Glad when I can help 🫡

Now I don't want to pester you with "Re-request review" forever, which I pressed in an attempt to do away with the unsatisfying red "1 requested change". I am not sure about using that again, or go for the other button "Dismiss review", which I think sounds a bit harsh...

Heh... 😅 No worries, I'll give it another skim.

[Maria-12648430]

Close! 😅😁

[Maria-12648430]

👍 🥳

[RaimoNiskanen]

Squashed a few commits. No content changes. Ready for merge, just awaits a review approval from @rickard-green...