photog.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A place for your photos and banter. Photog first is our motto Please refer to the site rules before posting.

Administered by:

Server stats:

240
active users

#unittesting

0 posts0 participants0 posts today
Property-based testing in Haskell with QuickCheck falsify

A few days ago, Edsko de Vries of Well-Typed published an in-depth article on property-based software testing, with a focus on the concept of “shrinking.”

In brief, property-based testing is sort-of like fuzz testing but for algorithms and protocols. Like fuzz testing, random test cases are procedurally generated, but unlike fuzz testing, the test cases are carefully designed to verify whether a software implementation of an algorithm satisfies a specific property of that algorithm, such as:

  • “this function always fails if the index is larger than the array”
  • “this function always returns a result in n*log(n) number of iterations for input dataset of size n
  • “the sequence of log messages is guaranteed to obey this rules of this particular finite-state automata: (connect | fail) -> (send X | fail) -> (receive Y | receive Z | fail) -> success .”

Shrinking is the process of simplifying a failed test case. If you have found some input that makes your function return a value when it should have thrown an exception, or produce a result that does not satisfy some predicate, then that input is a “counterexample” to your assertion about the properties of that function. And you may want to be able to “shrink” that counterexample input to see if you can cause the function to behave incorrectly again but with a simpler input. The “QuickCheck“ library provides a variety of useful tools to let you define property tests with shrinking.

Defining unit tests with such incredible rigor takes quite a lot of time and effort, so you would probably do not want to use property-based testing for your ordinary, every-day software engineering. If you are, for example, being scrutinized by the US Department of Government of Efficiency, you would likely be fired if you were to take so much time to write such high-quality software with such a strong guarantee of correctness.

But if you are, for example, designing a communication protocol that will be used in critical infrastructure for the next 10 or 20 years and you want to make sure the reference implementation of your protocol is without contradictions, or if you are implementing an algorithm where the mathematical properties of the algorithm fall within some proven parameters (e.g. computational complexity), property-based testing can give you a much higher degree of confidence in the correctness of your algorithm or protocol specification.

www.well-typed.comfalsify: Hypothesis-inspired shrinking for Haskell

Fedi friends, I have a physical #programming book about #UnitTesting to give away. This one really surprised me and changed my approach to writing tests. I read it at a time when I was on a big project with a big test suite and it helped me understand why making changes to the code were so painful. I know what to look out for now.

Vladimir Khorikov - Unit Testing

I can have it delivered to a German address free of charge, just let me know.

Boosts appreciated.

Quick heads up: I just deprecated @small-tech/tape-with-promises (for adding promise support to Tape 4.x).

npmjs.com/package/@small-tech/

Tape version 5.x supports promises so my little module is no longer necessary unless you’re stuck on v4.x.

What’s tape? A neat little JavaScript unit testing framework I like:

github.com/tape-testing/tape

Already use tape? Does your test runner need more monkeys and bananas? Try my tap-monkey module:

codeberg.org/small-tech/tap-mo

🙊🍌