Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upAdd more Char test coverage #129
Conversation
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 22, 2015
evancz
merged commit 963f7df
into
elm:master
Jan 22, 2015
1 check passed
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
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?
|
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? |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
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.
|
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. |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
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.
|
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. |
jonathanhefner commentedJan 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.