Re: [basex-talk] Automatically generating test cases. Hidden feature?

[Marc van Grootel]

The compliment is well-deserved ;-)

Yes, after my mind settled down on what I wrote, I realized this too.
The annotation nor the anonymous function itself (a partial could have
served the same function) wasn't necessary. So it's just plain cool
instead of very cool.

It was mostly my sudden enthousiasm for the possibilities this
approach opens for an alternative testing approach. I always thought
about the unit module as having to write an explicit test suite with
the unit annotations and never realized that the unit:assert functions
can very well be used on their own. In my case in the context of
generative/property-based testing.


Cheers,
--Marc



On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Christian Grün
 wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
>> BaseX, the gift that keeps on giving, thanks to all that make it possible.
>
> One of the nicest compliments that we got so far… Thanks ;)
>
>> So, a bit to my amazement, the following works:
>>
>> let $equals :=
>>   %unit:test
>>   function($a,$b) {
>> unit:assert-equals($a,$b, 'Not equal')
>>   }
>> return
>>   $equals(4,3)
>
> Yes, it does, it will do so in the future. To add some more surprises:
> You can omit the %unit:test annotation, because it’s the
> unit:assert-equals function that raises the error in the XQUnit
> namespace.
>
> Cheers,
> Christian



-- 
--Marc

Re: [basex-talk] Automatically generating test cases. Hidden feature?

[Rob Stapper]

+1 on both topics: product/team and the unit-module.

I, too, discovered the power of unit-testing and the unit-module lately. Using 
the unit-module I build unit-tests to test the basic rules, the axioms, of my 
modules and it works great.
It is a big help in keeping the whole thing stable.
One minor thing: it is not very fast, so I've to think well with what and how 
much I want to test, especially in case of generated test-cases. Which actually 
is a good thing in this case.

Rob

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: basex-talk-boun...@mailman.uni-konstanz.de 
[mailto:basex-talk-boun...@mailman.uni-konstanz.de] Namens Marc van Grootel
Verzonden: woensdag 13 januari 2016 10:08
Aan: Christian Grün
CC: BaseX
Onderwerp: Re: [basex-talk] Automatically generating test cases. Hidden feature?

The compliment is well-deserved ;-)

Yes, after my mind settled down on what I wrote, I realized this too.
The annotation nor the anonymous function itself (a partial could have served 
the same function) wasn't necessary. So it's just plain cool instead of very 
cool.

It was mostly my sudden enthousiasm for the possibilities this approach opens 
for an alternative testing approach. I always thought about the unit module as 
having to write an explicit test suite with the unit annotations and never 
realized that the unit:assert functions can very well be used on their own. In 
my case in the context of generative/property-based testing.


Cheers,
--Marc



On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Christian Grün <christian.gr...@gmail.com> 
wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
>> BaseX, the gift that keeps on giving, thanks to all that make it possible.
>
> One of the nicest compliments that we got so far… Thanks ;)
>
>> So, a bit to my amazement, the following works:
>>
>> let $equals :=
>>   %unit:test
>>   function($a,$b) {
>> unit:assert-equals($a,$b, 'Not equal')
>>   }
>> return
>>   $equals(4,3)
>
> Yes, it does, it will do so in the future. To add some more surprises:
> You can omit the %unit:test annotation, because it’s the 
> unit:assert-equals function that raises the error in the XQUnit 
> namespace.
>
> Cheers,
> Christian



--
--Marc

Re: [basex-talk] Automatically generating test cases. Hidden feature?

[Christian Grün]

Hi Marc,

> BaseX, the gift that keeps on giving, thanks to all that make it possible.

One of the nicest compliments that we got so far… Thanks ;)

> So, a bit to my amazement, the following works:
>
> let $equals :=
>   %unit:test
>   function($a,$b) {
> unit:assert-equals($a,$b, 'Not equal')
>   }
> return
>   $equals(4,3)

Yes, it does, it will do so in the future. To add some more surprises:
You can omit the %unit:test annotation, because it’s the
unit:assert-equals function that raises the error in the XQUnit
namespace.

Cheers,
Christian

[basex-talk] Automatically generating test cases. Hidden feature?

[Marc van Grootel]

Hi,

Been a long time since posting. Work is very busy recently. Luckily
for me a lot of it involves XQuery ;-)

I am elaborating some examples [1] that show off the use of my Origami
[2] library. The most promising ones I will turn in to blog posts or a
wiki at some point.

Recently I've been reading a bit about generative testing (or
property-based testing) and libraries like Haskell's QuickCheck. I
hope to be able to show that we can use such techniques in combination
with RelaxNG and the concepts that Eric van der Vlist describes in
Examplotron [3] to mutate XML instances guided by a schema that I can
then turn into automatically generated tests.

It's still early days and time is limited but I did stumble onto
something interesting that I wanted to share here. If you already use
similar techniques I would be very interested to hear about it.

I was contemplating if it was possible to create anonymous unit test
functions that I can invoke with generated test input.

So, a bit to my amazement, the following works:

let $equals :=
  %unit:test
  function($a,$b) {
unit:assert-equals($a,$b, 'Not equal')
  }
return
  $equals(4,3)

This function raises the unit:UNIT0001 exception with the message
"Item 1: 3 expected, 4 returned". Cool!

So if this is possible can we also catch a failure and turn it into data?

let $equals :=
  %unit:test
  function($a,$b) {
unit:assert-equals($a,$b, 'Not equal')
  }
return
  try {
$equals(4,3)
  } catch * {

  { $err:code }
  { $err:description }
  { $err:value }
  { $err:module }
  { $err:line-number }
  { $err:column-number }

  }

This too works and produces an XML fragment recording the failure. Very cool!


  unit:UNIT0001
  Item 1: 3 expected, 4 returned.
  Not equal
  .../origami-examples/check/demo.xq
  23
  24


I am not sure if this a hidden or an intentional feature of the BaseX
unit module. I sure hope that it doesn't go away in future releases as
I intend to leverage this in an alternative testing module.

BaseX, the gift that keeps on giving, thanks to all that make it possible.

--Marc

[1] https://github.com/xokomola/origami-examples
[2] https://github.com/xokomola/origami
[3] http://examplotron.org/