Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implement something like choose_weighted for Gen #312

Open
DrSplinter opened this issue Sep 15, 2022 · 0 comments
Open

Implement something like choose_weighted for Gen #312

DrSplinter opened this issue Sep 15, 2022 · 0 comments

Comments

@DrSplinter
Copy link

Can we include something like frequency from Haskell's QuickCheck? It will generalize this pattern and make it more convenient to use, for example:

g.choose_weighted(&[
    (10, g.gen_range(0..0xB0) as u8 as char),
    (2, ...),
    (5, ...),
    (1, ...),
    (1, ...),
    (1, ...),
])

The implementation can be something like this:

impl Gen {

    pub fn choose_weighted<'a, T>(&mut self, slice: &'a [(u32, T)]) -> Option<&'a T> {
        slice.choose_weighted(&mut self.rng, |item| item.0).ok().map(|item| &item.1)
    }

}

I know that in this particular example can be problem with eager evaluation which is not problem in Haskell since it is lazy, however, we can solve it by adding another associated function which chooses from closures instead of values. In other words, do it exactly like it is done for Result with and/and_then and or/or_else functions.

What do you think?

dead-claudia added a commit to dead-claudia/journald-exporter that referenced this issue Jul 6, 2024
...and switch the 32-bit integer parser to just exhaustive checking.
(More on that later.)

Why move away from QuickCheck?

1. The maintainer appears to have little interest in actually
   maintaining it. BurntSushi/quickcheck#315

2. Its API is incredibly inefficient, especially on failure, and it's
   far too rigid for my needs. For one, I need something looser than
   `Arbitrary: Clone` so things like `std::io::Error` can be generated
   more easily. Also, with larger structures, efficiency will directly
   correlate to faster test runs. Also, I've run into the limitations
   of not being able to access the underlying random number generator
   far too many times to count, as I frequently need to generate random
   values within ranges, among other things.
   - BurntSushi/quickcheck#279
   - BurntSushi/quickcheck#312
   - BurntSushi/quickcheck#320
   - BurntSushi/quickcheck#267

3. It correctly limits generated `Vec` and `String` length, but it
   doesn't similarly enforce limits on test length.

4. There's numerous open issues in it that I've addressed, in some
   cases by better core design. To name a few particularly bad ones:
   - Misuse of runtime bounds in `Duration` generation, `SystemTime`
     generation able to panic for unrelated reasons:
     BurntSushi/quickcheck#321
   - Incorrect generation of `SystemTime`:
     BurntSushi/quickcheck#321
   - Unbounded float shrinkers:
     BurntSushi/quickcheck#295
   - Avoiding pointless debug string building:
     BurntSushi/quickcheck#303
   - Signed shrinker shrinks to the most negative value, leading to
     occasional internal panics:
     BurntSushi/quickcheck#301

There's still some room for improvement, like switching away from a
recursive loop: BurntSushi/quickcheck#285.
But, this is good enough for my use cases right now. And this code
base is structured such that such a change is *much* easier to do.
(It's also considerably simpler.)

As for the integer parser change, I found a way to re-structure it so
I could perform true exhaustive testing on it. Every code path has
every combination of inputs tested, except for memory space as a whole.
This gives me enough confidence that I can ditch the randomized
property checking for it.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant