Add Jarque-Bera

[bchen1116]

fix #2886

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2891 (1e526db) into main (93cfaf4) will increase coverage by 0.1%.
The diff coverage is 100.0%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##            main   #2891     +/-   ##
=======================================
+ Coverage   99.7%   99.7%   +0.1%     
=======================================
  Files        302     302             
  Lines      28388   28392      +4     
=======================================
+ Hits       28292   28296      +4     
  Misses        96      96             

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...alml/data_checks/target_distribution_data_check.py	100.0% <100.0%> (ø)
...hecks_tests/test_target_distribution_data_check.py	100.0% <100.0%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 93cfaf4...1e526db. Read the comment docs.

[bchen1116]

Setting the random state to avoid flaky tests since these distributions are randomly generated.

[angela97lin]

Can you explain this a bit more--I'm assuming random_state = 0 will not give us a distribution that would raise a warning? If that's true, I'm curious if there's a good way to make sure that this test is not relying on something flaky... or at the very least, we should comment on this so we don't come back 6 months from now wondering what this value is 😂

[bchen1116]

Yep! So something both @ParthivNaresh and I noticed was that when the sample gets smaller, the distribution can end up looking more normal compared to lognormal, especially after dropping values outside 3 st_devs. This can be seen here:

We are setting the random_state here so that the tests don't flake for our expected values. I can add a further comment in the file

[angela97lin]

Really cool that this didn't take too much to implement!! Left a comment about the flakiness but otherwise, LGTM 🥳

[angela97lin]

Can you explain this a bit more--I'm assuming random_state = 0 will not give us a distribution that would raise a warning? If that's true, I'm curious if there's a good way to make sure that this test is not relying on something flaky... or at the very least, we should comment on this so we don't come back 6 months from now wondering what this value is 😂

[chukarsten]

This looks good to me. I am also a little concerned that there might be some flakiness with the random seed, but I think we'll find out over time and it is documented enough that I think we'd easily find out why it's failing. I think the docstring could probably use a little info to let someone reading it know what's happening with the switching of tests at a glance, but nice work!