I just need a random uint, better ranging from 0-6, but there is no enumeration type in openGL. I learned that I can get a random float ranging 0-1 from the code below:
frac(sin(dot(uv, float2(12.9898, 78.233))) * 43758.5453123)
I tried to do 1/above and get floor(), but it doesn't work. Then how can I get a random int? or is there a way to get the last digit of the float(so presumably still random)?
First, let's define what we mean by "random". In the context of this answer, a "random" variable is a variable whose values are unpredictable. That is, there is no function that determines/computes an outcome for the random variable when being evaluated (with any possible inputs). Or at least, no such function has been found (yet).
Obviously, when we are talking about computing here, there is no such thing as a true random variable as described above, because anything we do in computing (and by extension in a shader) is necessarily bound to the set of functions that are computable.
Your proposed function in the question:
f(uv) = frac(sin(dot(uv, float2(12.9898, 78.233))) * 43758.5453123)
is just a computable function. It takes as input a vector uv, which itself is a deterministic/computable value - such as derived from a built-in or custom varying variable giving you the "coordinates" of the current fragment.
After evaluation, the function's result itself was computable/deterministic and happens to be a value (which the input vector uv maps to). Taking different IEEE 754 rules and precisions aside (which may vary between different GPUs such as desktop ones and mobile ones), the function itself is purely deterministic/computable and therefore does not give you a random value.
We humans may think that the output is random, because we lack the intuition for the functions used to compute the result, such that when we "see" a number 0.623513632 followed by another number 0.9734126 for only slight variations in the input vector, we could draw the conclusion that "yeah, that looks pretty random", when it fact it obviously isn't. It is just what that function computed, given two input values.
So, when you already have a deterministic function like the above and wanted to obtain values in the closed range [0, 6] from it as a GLSL uint, you can simply scale the output of said function by multiplying the function's result with 7.0 and truncating the result:
g(uv) = uint(f(uv) * 7.0)
If you wanted to obtain true random numbers drawn from a random variable (whose deterministic function simply hasn't been found yet), you can obtain such values from universe background radiation (such as from random.org) and use that as an input to your shader (such as via textures or buffer objects).
But, from a computational perspective, a shader is just a function taking in values (ints, floats, ...) and computing (by means of computable functions) a deterministic result. All we can do is to shuffle/scramble/diffuse the input bits in such a way, that the result "looks" like random to us. We then call these "pseudo-random" values.
Taking this a step further, we could now ask the question of the distribution quality of the obtained pseudo-random values. This has two qualities:
how evenly distributed are the pseudo-random values in their domain/interval? I.e. do all possible values have the same probability of occurring? Or: Do you even want to have uniformly-distributed values or should the values follow another distribution (like Guassian?)
how well are two values drawn from two sequential input values spaced apart? I.e. what is the frequency of the pseudo-random values?
There are different (deterministic) algorithms/functions depending on which distribution and which frequency spectrum your values should have. But first, you should define an answer to the two questions for your use-case. And by the way, the commonly used function in your question to obtain pseudo-random numbers in a shader has a terrible distribution quality.
Last but not least, it should also be mentioned that true randomness (i.e. non-determinism), like when you do use an entropy source as input values, is oftentimes an undesirable property in computation, because it:
makes it difficult to repeat the same computation / output when needed, which is useful in various algorithms in the context of path tracing
makes it difficult to reproduce/debug/inspect your function for a particular run when every following execution/run will yield a different output