Skip to content
Permalink
Branch: master
Find file Copy path
Find file Copy path
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
285 lines (197 sloc) 9.6 KB

Introduction to property-based testing (with LeanCheck)

This document introduces property-based testing. The reader only needs to be familiar with Haskell. No previous knowledge of property-based testing is assumed. This document focuses on LeanCheck, but skills are transferable to other property-based testing tools.

(If you are already familiar with property-based testing and just want to learn how to use LeanCheck, you might be best served by reading LeanCheck's README file.

The learning outcomes of each section are:

What is property-based testing?

In property-based testing, properties are defined as Haskell functions returning a boolean value which should be True for all possible choices of argument values. These properties are applied enumerated or random argument values in search for a counterexample. This is perhaps better illustrated in an example (see Example 1).

Terminology

Property-based testing might be known with other names:

Example 1: testing a sort implementation

Lets imagine that we want to test an implementation of a (not-so-quick) sort function:

sort :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
sort []     = []
sort (x:xs) = sort lesser ++ [x] ++ sort greater
  where
  lesser  = filter (< x) xs
  greater = filter (> x) xs

In contrast --- unit testing

We can unit test the above implementation:

testsPass  ::  Bool
testsPass = and
  [ []       == sort ([]::[Int])
  , [1]      == sort [1]
  , [1,2,3]  == sort [1,2,3]
  , [1,2,3]  == sort [3,2,1]
  , [1..100] == sort [100,99..1]
  ]

If we evaluate testsPass on ghci, we will get True --- our implementation of sort passes all our unit tests.

Declaring properties

Alternatively, we use property-based testing to test the above implementation. We first declare a few properties:

prop_elem :: Ord a => a -> [a] -> Bool
prop_elem x xs =  elem x (sort xs) == elem x xs

prop_ordered :: Ord a => [a] -> Bool
prop_ordered xs =  ordered (sort xs)
  where
  ordered (x:y:xs) = x <= y && ordered (y:xs)
  ordered _        = True

prop_length :: Ord a => [a] -> Bool
prop_length xs =  length (sort xs) == length xs

Those properties are similar to unit tests, but are parameterized. Instead of defining the behavior of sort for specific values, each property defines the behavior of sort for a range of values.

Testing properties

By binding those properties to specific types and passing those properties as arguments to the check function, we get:

$ ghci
> import Test.LeanCheck

> check (prop_elem :: Int -> [Int] -> Bool)
+++ OK, passed 200 tests.

> check (prop_ordered :: [Int] -> Bool)
+++ OK, passed 200 tests.

Internally, the function check enumerates arguments to those functions and test whether properties hold.

Finding and fixing bugs

But what happens when the function does not follow the properties?

> check (prop_length :: [Int] -> Bool)
*** Failed! Falsifiable (after 3 tests):
[0,0]

The check function reports a failing counterexample. We get a False value when evaluating prop_length [0,0]. We can investigate on GHCi:

> prop_length [0,0]
False
> length (sort [0,0]) == length [0,0]
False
> length (sort [0,0])
1
> sort [0,0]
[0]

If we look back at our definition of sort, we can see that we forgot to account for repeated elements. We should change > to >=:

greater = filter (>= x) xs

After fixing that bug, prop_length will pass:

> check (prop_length :: [Int] -> Bool)
+++ OK, passed 200 tests.

A little challenge: After sorting a list, the number of occurrences of any element does not change. Can you define a prop_count :: Eq a => a -> [a] -> Bool property that checks this? Hint: start by defining an auxiliary function count :: a -> [a] -> Int.

Example 2: testing conditional properties

The boolean operator ==> can be used to construct conditional properties.

The function insert defined in Data.List inserts an element into a list at the first position where it is less than or equal to the next element. If the list is already ordered, the resulting list will still be ordered:

prop_insertOrd x xs =  ordered xs ==> ordered (insert x xs)

Example 3: testing user-defined datatypes

Consider the following implementation of a Stack:

data Stack a = Stack a (Stack a)
             | Empty
  deriving (Show,Eq)

push :: a -> Stack a -> Stack a
push x s = Stack x s

pop :: Stack a -> (a, Stack a)
pop (Stack x s) = (x,s)

We might want to test the following property:

prop_popush :: a -> Stack a -> Bool
prop_popush x s =  pop (push x s) == (x,s)

However, if we provide this property on ghci, we get an error:

> check (prop_popush :: Int -> Stack Int -> Bool)
<interactive>:x:1:
  No instance for (Listable (Stack Int))

Our Stack type should be made an instance of the Listable typeclass. This way LeanCheck will have a way to know how to list values to be tested by the property. See Listable documentation for more. In this case, the instance is:

instance Listable a => Listable (Stack a) where
  tiers = cons2 Stack
       \/ cons0 Empty

Now:

> check (prop_popush :: Int -> Stack Int -> Bool)
+++ OK, passed 200 tests.

LeanCheck also provides the function deriveListable to automatically derive Listable instances for types that do not follow a data invariant (precondition). The above Listable instance could be replaced by simply:

{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}
...
...

deriveListable ''Stack

Advantages of property-based testing

Property-based testing has a few advantages over unit-testing:

  • (+) scalability: after making a small change to a program, we might checkFor 50 tests; before making a major release, we may checkFor 1000 tests. A continuous integration system can be configured to run more test than what is usual on the development environment.

  • (+) documentation: properties serve as a clear documentation of behaviour;

  • (+) tool support: in Haskell there are several different property-based testing tools to choose from.

The disadvantage is:

  • (-) Properties are comparatively harder to write than simple input and output test cases. (+) However, it might be easier to define good properties than a good selection of unit test cases. See "Ranking programs using Black-Box testing (2010)".

If you are unsure, you can always use both PBT and UT.

Other property-based testing tools for Haskell

Further reading

You can’t perform that action at this time.