coq VS Playwright

The page summarizing the considered new names and their pros/cons is interesting: https://github.com/coq/coq/wiki/Alternative-names

Naming is hard...

Are those more important than, say:

- Proven with Coq, a formal proof management system: https://coq.inria.fr/

See in the real world: https://aws.amazon.com/security/provable-security/

And check out Computer-Aided Verification (CAV).

To be ruthlessly, uselessly pedantic - after all, we're mathematicians - there's reasonable definitions of "academic" where logical unsoundness is still academic if it never interfered with the reasoning behind any proofs of interest ;)

But: so long as we're accepting that unsoundness in your checker or its underlying theory are intrinsically deal breakers, there's definitely a long history of this, perhaps more somewhat more relevant than the HM example, since no proof checkers of note, AFAIK, have incorporated mutation into their type theory.

For one thing, the implementation can very easily have bugs. Coq itself certainly has had soundness bugs occasionally [0]. I'm sure Agda, Lean, Idris, etc. have too, but I've followed them less closely.

But even the underlying mathematics have been tricky. Girard's Paradox broke Martin-Löf's type theory, which is why in these dependently typed proof assistants you have to deal with the bizarre "Tower of Universes"; and Girard's Paradox is an analogue of Russell's Paradox which broke more naive set theories. And then Russell himself and his system of universal mathematics was very famously struck down by Gödel.

But we've definitely gotten it right this time...

[0] https://github.com/coq/coq/issues/4294

Dafny and Whiley are two examples with explicit verification support. Idris and other dependently typed languages should all be rich enough to express the required predicate but might not necessarily be able to accept a reasonable implementation as proof. Isabelle, Lean, Coq, and other theorem provers definitely can express the capability but aren't going to churn out much in the way of executable programs; they're more useful to guide an implementation in a more practical functional language but then the proof is separated from the implementation, and you could also use tools like TLA+.

https://dafny.org/

https://whiley.org/

https://www.idris-lang.org/

https://isabelle.in.tum.de/

https://leanprover.github.io/

https://coq.inria.fr/

http://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/tla.html

Still, there are many useful tools based on these ideas, used by programmers and mathematicians alike. What you describe sounds rather like Datalog (e.g. Soufflé Datalog), where you supply some rules and an initial fact, and the system repeatedly expands out the set of facts until nothing new can be derived. (This has to be finite, if you want to get anywhere.) In Prolog (e.g. SWI Prolog) you also supply a set of rules and facts, but instead of a fact as your starting point, you give a query containing some unknown variables, and the system tries to find an assignment of the variables that proves the query. And finally there is a rich array of theorem provers and proof assistants such as Agda, Coq, Lean, and Twelf, which can all be used to help check your reasoning or explore new ideas.

What ever happened to the effort [1] to rename Coq in order to make it less offensive? There were a number of excellent proposals [2] that seemed to die on the vine.

[1] https://github.com/coq/coq/wiki/Alternative-names

[2] https://github.com/coq/coq/wiki/Alternative-names#c%E1%B5%A3...

Information about the Coq proof assistant: https://coq.inria.fr/ , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq

This type of thing can help you formally verify code.

So, if your proof is correct, and your description of the (language/CPU) is correct, you can prove the code does what you think it does.

Formal proof systems are still growing up, though, and they are still pretty hard to use. See Coq for an introduction: https://coq.inria.fr/

Most of the proof assistants out there: Lean, Coq, Dafny, Isabelle, F*, Idris 2, and Agda. And the main concepts are dependent types, Homotopy Type Theory AKA HoTT, and Category Theory. Warning: HoTT and Category Theory are really dense, you're going to really need to research them.

The consensus I could gather is either use playwright or use a workaround to solve it in the puppeteer layer. The root cause of the bug is a websocket size limitation on the CDP protocol for chromium.

With the advent of tools like Puppeteer and now Playwright, end-to-end testing has become much easier and more reliable. For anyone who's used Selenium in the past, you know what I'm talking about. Puppeteer has opened the way in terms of E2E tooling, but Playwright has taken it to the next level and made it easier to await for certain selectors or conditions to be fulfilled (via locators), thus making tests more reliable and less flaky. Also, it's a game changer that it introduced a test-runner - this made the integration between the headless browser and the actual test code much smoother.

In this tutorial, our main focus will be on Playwright web scraping. So what is Playwright? It’s a handy framework created by Microsoft. It's known for making web interactions more streamlined and works reliably with all the latest browsers like WebKit, Chromium, and Firefox. You can also run tests in headless or headed mode and emulate native mobile environments like Google Chrome for Android and Mobile Safari.

// playwright.config.ts import { defineConfig } from "@playwright/test"; /** * See https://playwright.dev/docs/test-configuration. */ export default defineConfig({ testDir: "./src/pages", reporter: "list", use: { baseURL: "http://localhost:5432/", }, timeout: process.env.CI ? 10000 : 4000, // ... more options });

Issues with Playwright

Fast and reliable end-to-end testing for modern web apps | Playwright

This means you cannot place test files outside of this directory, which was brought up as a question on Github some time ago. Initially, I thought it would be nice to add another folder in the repo called "scripts", but Playwright does not allow multiple testDir values.

4.Playwright: Playwright is a browser automation library by Microsoft. Key Features: Supports Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit. Provides cross-browser testing capabilities. Allows automating web, mobile, and desktop applications

HTML to PDF conversion is a common requirement in modern web applications. It allows users to save web pages, reports, and other content in a format that is easy to share and print. There are many libraries and services available for converting HTML to PDF, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. In this article, we will compare some of the most popular HTML to PDF renderers in Node.js, including Puppeteer, Playwright, node-html-pdf, and Onedoc.

Playwright [ https://playwright.dev/ ] ✅