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

Add more Char test coverage #129

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 22, 2015

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@jonathanhefner
Contributor

jonathanhefner commented Jan 22, 2015

Added more test coverage of Char functions. I would like these tests to be more DRY, but I was on the fence about the best (or most idiomatic) way to do that.

evancz pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 22, 2015

@evancz evancz merged commit 963f7df into elm:master Jan 22, 2015

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci The Travis CI build passed
Details
@evancz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@evancz

evancz Jan 22, 2015

Member

Thank you! I know there's a decent amount of interest in something like QuickCheck (which is essentially fuzz testing in which you say "this relationship should hold" and then throw a bunch of randomly generated values at it). Would that make this feel nicer?

Member

evancz commented Jan 22, 2015

Thank you! I know there's a decent amount of interest in something like QuickCheck (which is essentially fuzz testing in which you say "this relationship should hold" and then throw a bunch of randomly generated values at it). Would that make this feel nicer?

@jonathanhefner

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jonathanhefner

jonathanhefner Jan 22, 2015

Contributor

Fuzz testing is pretty cool, but because the relationship here is piecemeal and somewhat arbitrary (probably best defined by a small lookup table), I don't know if it would help.

I'm considering creating a package of test helper functions (on top of ElmTest) that might make such things easier.

Contributor

jonathanhefner commented Jan 22, 2015

Fuzz testing is pretty cool, but because the relationship here is piecemeal and somewhat arbitrary (probably best defined by a small lookup table), I don't know if it would help.

I'm considering creating a package of test helper functions (on top of ElmTest) that might make such things easier.

@evancz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@evancz

evancz Jan 22, 2015

Member

Cool, improving testing in general is a goal for us. This thread gives some context about how we can make progress, so I'd be curious if that aligns with what you want to do. My worry is committing too much to any particular testing strategy, so I'm curious to see what is needed by different approaches and how to support that in a minimal way.

Member

evancz commented Jan 22, 2015

Cool, improving testing in general is a goal for us. This thread gives some context about how we can make progress, so I'd be curious if that aligns with what you want to do. My worry is committing too much to any particular testing strategy, so I'm curious to see what is needed by different approaches and how to support that in a minimal way.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment