Rest assured - I do not know the big magic behind PropEr so I will explain
things in a way that allows us to get you on the train... my only fear is
that after getting on you will put the train into a gear where I fall off!!!
;-)
Kostis thinks it is a good idead for a user of the tool instead of one of
the implementers to explain how to use it and I think he is right.
More later,
Torben
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 01:54, Martin Logan <martinjlo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I too would like to understand proper. I am looking forward to
> property based nirvana!
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Eric Merritt <ericbmerr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I am looking forward to being excited about it! As soon as I get my
> > mind around proper and the rest.
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Torben Hoffmann
> > <torben.leh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Gentlemen,
> >>
> >> Between the two of you you have provided the perfect combination of
> >> explanations that will allow me to speak to and from your input and
> straight
> >> into property based testing Nirvana!
> >>
> >> I am stuck with day job tasks tonight, so I will get back in the saddle
> >> tomorrow and I am so looking forward to completing this.
> >>
> >> A heads up: I talked to Kostis who is on the PropEr team and they are
> coming
> >> out with something this week that allows for stateful testing - I know
> it
> >> does not mean much to you, but that feature is so golden that you
> wouldn't
> >> believe it!
> >> When we are done with erlware_commons we can find a piece of code that
> is
> >> best tested with this approach and then we document how that is done.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Torben
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 17:43, Martin Logan <martinjlo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That last sentence should be:
> >>>
> >>> As the code is tried in further exploratory testing and in production
> >>> new input parameter sets for which the given function does not meet
> >>> the stated contract are discovered and added to the test case once a
> >>> fix has been put into place.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Martin Logan <martinjlo...@gmail.com
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > For me unit testing is about contracts. I think about the same things
> >>> > I think about when I write statements like {ok, Resp} =
> >>> > Mod:Func(Args). Unit testing and writing specs are very close for me.
> >>> > Hypothetically speaking lets say a function should return return {ok,
> >>> > string()} | {error, term()} for all given input parameters then my
> >>> > unit tests should be able to show that for a representative set of
> >>> > input parameters that those contracts are honored. The art comes in
> >>> > thinking about what that set is.
> >>> >
> >>> > The trap in writing all your own tests can often be that we think
> >>> > about the set in terms of what we coded for and not what may indeed
> be
> >>> > asked of our function. As the code is tried in further exploratory
> >>> > testing and in production new input parameter sets that don't meet
> the
> >>> > contract are discovered and added to the test case once a fix has
> been
> >>> > put into place.
> >>> >
> >>> > Cheers,
> >>> > Martin
> >>> >
> >>> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Torben Hoffmann
> >>> > <torben.leh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> Eric,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> And if you could send me some words about the thinking that you put
> >>> >> into the
> >>> >> creation of those unit tests it would make it so much evident where
> the
> >>> >> two
> >>> >> approaches are similar and where they differ.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I can fabulate on the reasoning, but I'd rather have the thought
> >>> >> process
> >>> >> described by some one who has actually done a lot of unit tests.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> TO ALL: **** Anyone can chip in and describe the way they think when
> >>> >> doing
> >>> >> unit testing, it does not have to be Eric.***
> >>> >>
> >>> >> It is not going to be used to point fingers, but to make it easy to
> >>> >> understand what you have to do differently when changing to property
> >>> >> based
> >>> >> testing.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I can promise you this: if you jump on the property based testing
> wagon
> >>> >> you
> >>> >> will experience fun with testing like never before.
> >>> >> A new and better you will emerge on the other side.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Cheers,
> >>> >> Torben aka The ErlangPriest
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 23:59, Eric Merritt <ericbmerr...@gmail.com
> >
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Torben,
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I will put together an eunit test for add in ec_dictionary by
> >>> >>> tomorrow. And then we can move from there.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Eric
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Torben Hoffmann
> >>> >>> <torben.leh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >>> > Hi again,
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > Manolis helped me debug a very stupid thing on my side, so now we
> >>> >>> > have a
> >>> >>> > running property based test suite for ec_dictionary that tests
> >>> >>> > ec_gb_trees
> >>> >>> > for now.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > Action plan - not necessarily in strict order, but close and some
> >>> >>> > items
> >>> >>> > can
> >>> >>> > be repeated as desired...
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > receive a description of how to do a unit test of
> >>> >>> > ec_dictionary:add/2.
> >>> >>> > write a description of how a property based test of
> >>> >>> > ec_dictionary:add/2
> >>> >>> > looks like and how it differs from unit testing.
> >>> >>> > receive suggestions for new properties from the group - I will
> help
> >>> >>> > turn
> >>> >>> > them into correct properties.
> >>> >>> > make it possible to test different ec_dictionary implementations.
> >>> >>> > figure out (with the help of Manolis) how to use the Auto-ADT
> >>> >>> > functionality.
> >>> >>> > enhance the description with how to use Auto-ADT.
> >>> >>> > support others in applying PropEr on selected modules in the
> Erlware
> >>> >>> > suite.
> >>> >>> > be happy.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > Cheers,
> >>> >>> > Torben
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 20:57, Torben Hoffmann
> >>> >>> > <torben.leh...@gmail.com>
> >>> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 16:11, Eric Merritt
> >>> >>> >> <ericbmerr...@gmail.com>
> >>> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>> I went a bit nuts over the weekend and pulled Robert Virding's
> >>> >>> >>> rbtree
> >>> >>> >>> implementation and changed it to be a native implementation of
> our
> >>> >>> >>> dictionary. I wanted something a bit more complex then the
> assoc
> >>> >>> >>> list
> >>> >>> >>> stuff.
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> Walking on fire... but that is also where the fun is!!
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>> Most of us don't have much experience with quick check, proper
> or
> >>> >>> >>> property based testing. We are using this opportunity to go
> >>> >>> >>> through
> >>> >>> >>> and figure it all out so we can start using it. Is there any
> >>> >>> >>> chance
> >>> >>> >>> you could go through this first test and give some specific
> >>> >>> >>> documentation of what is going on in each case? Then I will try
> to
> >>> >>> >>> add
> >>> >>> >>> some tests to it myself and see how it goes.
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> I have given a bit of thought to this too, and I think that if I
> >>> >>> >> get
> >>> >>> >> get a
> >>> >>> >> good explanation of how one of you guys would test the
> >>> >>> >> ec_dictionary:add/2
> >>> >>> >> function then I could explain what the differences are when
> doing
> >>> >>> >> it
> >>> >>> >> with
> >>> >>> >> property based testing. I think that would be a good context for
> >>> >>> >> understanding how the two approaches differ and how property
> based
> >>> >>> >> testing
> >>> >>> >> provides more value.
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> Does this make sense?
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>> More inline:
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 10:53:04PM +0100, Torben Hoffmann
> wrote:
> >>> >>> >>> > Hi,
> >>> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >>> > I have added more properties to test/ec_dictionary_proper
> -
> >>> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >>> > [1]
> https://github.com/lehoff/erlware_commons/blob/master/test/ec_dictionary_proper.erl
> >>> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >>> > I would encourage you all to go a and look and them and
> send
> >>> >>> >>> > me
> >>> >>> >>> > suggestions to new thing to be tested for a dictionary.
> >>> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >>> > I have run into a problem where it seems that PropEr is
> able
> >>> >>> >>> > to
> >>> >>> >>> > create a
> >>> >>> >>> > dictionary based on gb_trees where the same key is present
> >>> >>> >>> > more
> >>> >>> >>> > than
> >>> >>> >>> > once.
> >>> >>> >>> > That is bad(tm).
> >>> >>> >>> > Unfortunately I have not been able to work well enough
> with
> >>> >>> >>> > PropEr
> >>> >>> >>> > to get
> >>> >>> >>> > a sequence of operations out that shows how it actually
> >>> >>> >>> > created
> >>> >>> >>> > such
> >>> >>> >>> > an
> >>> >>> >>> > instance of gb_trees, but when I do I will explain the
> >>> >>> >>> > finding in
> >>> >>> >>> > details.
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>> Our 'add' maps to the gb_trees enter function. According to the
> >>> >>> >>> docs
> >>> >>> >>> it should insert if the key doesn't exist or update if the key
> >>> >>> >>> exists. Could this be a key equality problem. That is =:= vs
> ==, I
> >>> >>> >>> suspect not since you are using integers for the keys but it
> >>> >>> >>> doesn't
> >>> >>> >>> hurt to ask the obvious questions.
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> Hmmm, that is actually something that I did not pay attention
> to.
> >>> >>> >> It
> >>> >>> >> won't
> >>> >>> >> do any harm with the integers I am using now, but for others it
> >>> >>> >> could
> >>> >>> >> be an
> >>> >>> >> issue, so I will think about how this is tested the best.
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> Cheers,
> >>> >>> >> Torben
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>> > The failing property is called prop_to_list_mathes_get()
> and
> >>> >>> >>> > it
> >>> >>> >>> > tries to
> >>> >>> >>> > compare the output of ec_dictionary:to_list to the output
> of
> >>> >>> >>> > using
> >>> >>> >>> > ec_dictionary:get/2 on all the keys in the to_list output.
> >>> >>> >>> > They are not the same in some cases due to the gb_trees
> thing
> >>> >>> >>> > above.
> >>> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >>> > Most likely I am doing something extremely stupid, but it
> >>> >>> >>> > could
> >>> >>> >>> > be
> >>> >>> >>> > fun if
> >>> >>> >>> > there was a subtle bug in gb_trees... or maybe the right
> word
> >>> >>> >>> > is
> >>> >>> >>> > scary...
> >>> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >>> > Cheers,
> >>> >>> >>> > Torben
> >>> >>> >>> > --
> >>> >>> >>> > [2]http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann
> >>> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >>> > References
> >>> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >>> > Visible links
> >>> >>> >>> > 1.
> >>> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >>> >
> https://github.com/lehoff/erlware_commons/blob/master/test/ec_dictionary_proper.erl
> >>> >>> >>> > 2. http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>> --
> >>> >>> >>> Eric Merritt
> >>> >>> >>> Erlang & OTP in Action (Manning) http://manning.com/logan
> >>> >>> >>> http://twitter.com/ericbmerritt
> >>> >>> >>> http://erlware.org
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>> --
> >>> >>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google
> >>> >>> >>> Groups
> >>> >>> >>> "erlware-dev" group.
> >>> >>> >>> To post to this group, send email to
> erlware-dev@googlegroups.com.
> >>> >>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>> >>> >>> erlware-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >>> >>> >>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>> >>> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/erlware-dev?hl=en.
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> --
> >>> >>> >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > --
> >>> >>> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann
> >>> >>
> >>> >> --
> >>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>> >> Groups
> >>> >> "erlware-dev" group.
> >>> >> To post to this group, send email to erlware-dev@googlegroups.com.
> >>> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >>> >> erlware-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >>> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >>> >> http://groups.google.com/group/erlware-dev?hl=en.
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Martin Logan
> >>> > Erlang & OTP in Action (Manning) http://manning.com/logan
> >>> > http://twitter.com/martinjlogan
> >>> > http://erlware.org
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Martin Logan
> >>> Erlang & OTP in Action (Manning) http://manning.com/logan
> >>> http://twitter.com/martinjlogan
> >>> http://erlware.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Martin Logan
> Erlang & OTP in Action (Manning) http://manning.com/logan
> http://twitter.com/martinjlogan
> http://erlware.org
>
--
http://www.linkedin.com/in/torbenhoffmann
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"erlware-dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to erlware-dev@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
erlware-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/erlware-dev?hl=en.
