randomness_demo recipe fixed

[ahmedrns]

Description

Closes: #XXXX

---

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

• included the correct type prefix in the PR title
• added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
• provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
• followed the guidelines for building modules
• included the necessary unit and integration tests
• added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
• included comments for documenting Go code
• updated the relevant documentation or specification
• reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
• confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

• confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
• confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
• reviewed state machine logic
• reviewed API design and naming
• reviewed documentation is accurate
• reviewed tests and test coverage
• manually tested (if applicable)

[afti-githobo]

if that's a fix to the recipe itself, that's great. i don't think we need to have a duplicate recipe folder, though?

[faisalnaveedRNS]

once it, is merged, you can pull from main branch, and delete from you pr

[faisalnaveedRNS]

@MikeSofaer Please review

[afti-githobo]

ok, i fixed this pr. all it does is change the rand_int calls to rand in the randomness demo, which... cool, i'm glad that works, i'm happy to have that correct. the duplicate recipe folder was sloppy but whatever, it's not a big deal and it was easy to fix.

it does not, however, even attempt to address the dynamic-cel-vars-at-recipe-creation thing. which is fine for what it is, but i'm not happy w/ faisal telling me this is a fix to that when he's seen exactly what's wrong w/ the code running on the chain there and this pr is quite obviously not attempting to address that.