I've managed to get something working. Very dirty and hardcoded most things
though, so not reusable at all. The key here is to parse the return of
spec/describe and retrieve the value for the :arg, convert it to real spec
with eval and retrieve its generator.
(defspec a-test
(let [args (nth (s/describe 'foo.core/bar) 2)
spec-code (map #(if (symbol? %) (symbol "clojure.spec.alpha"
(str %)) %) args)
spec (eval spec-code)
args-gen (s/gen spec)]
(prop/for-all [argz args-gen]
(s/valid? ::ret-spec (apply foo.core/bar argz)))))
In the end one shoot write a proper spec/describe parser ?
Or has someone a better idea ?
On Friday, September 29, 2017 at 12:08:57 PM UTC+2, Khalid Jebbari wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm struggling to find a way to to use the fdef specs I wrote in
> clojure.test tests. I can run them fine in the repl with spec/exercise-fn
> or spec.test/check, really nice when developping by the way. Now that I'm
> happy with the result I'd like to encode this knowledge in tests to prevent
> regressions. I don't need more tests that this, not specific property etc.
>
> I found no way to plug the spec.test/check in clojure.test or easily reuse
> fdef specs. test.check/defspec and quickcheck expect properties as their
> argument. spec/describe return a LazySeq that I found hard to exploit
> without a lot of manual wiring, parsing and trial-and-errors.
>
> If I had to write it by hand, it would look like :
>
> (defspec myspec 100 (prop/for-all [one (spec/gen ::first-arg)
> two (spec/gen
> ::second-arg)]
> (is (true? (spec/valid? ::ret-spec
> (myfunc one two))))
>
> The problem is that it's incomplete with regards to spec possibilities :
> spec/or, spec/nilable etc. and I use them. Also I the function changes (in
> any way) the test becomes irrelevant instantly.
>
> A colleague resorted to manually calling spec.test/check in clojure.test
> and manually verifying the output of the function (the :result boolean, the
> :num-tests etc.). Feels way too manual, and doesn't report the shrunk value
> as nicely as test.check does.
>
>
> Maybe I missed something completely. spec/describe seems the best bet to
> introspect the spec and use it in for-all calls. But still too manual.
>
> Any help much appreciated.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
