On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 22:47:06 -0600 Abe Dillon <abedil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If we could figure out a cleaner syntax for defining invariants, > preconditions, and postconditions we'd be half-way to automated testing > UTOPIA! (ok, maybe I'm being a little over-zealous)
I think utopia is the word here. Fuzz testing can be useful, but it's not a replacement for manual testing of carefully selected values. Also, the idea that fuzz testing will automatically find edge cases in your code is idealistic. It depends on the algorithm you've implemented and the distribution of values chosen by the tester. Showcasing trivially wrong examples (such as an addition function that always returns 0, or a tail function that doesn't return the tail) isn't very helpful for a real-world analysis, IMHO. In the end, you have to be rigorous when writing tests, and for most non-trivial functions it requires that you devise the distribution of input values depending on the implemented algorithm, not leave that distribution to a third-party library that knows nothing about your program. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
