proptest VS just

proptest: Property-based testing with random input generation.

Isn't proptest something that could handle this?

https://github.com/proptest-rs/proptest

Proptest is a Rust crate for property-based testing. Recently I wanted/needed to manually implement a proptest strategy for my own type, and I realized that there is not that much material on how to do it. So I wrote a post where I tried to describe what I learned. It's a bit niche, but I hope that someone at some point will find it useful.

Take a look at proptest.

Yes exactly, you can also add to this fuzzing and property based testing.

proptest is great! It generates random input data according to some rules, and if the input fails it saves random seed into a file so that failing inputs are guaranteed to be tested on the subsequent runs (as well as new random inputs). It also doesn't immediately stop on fail but tries to find a minimal failing input first.

The only other crate I could find is proptest, but it looks a lot more complicated, and I don't know if lets you skip the shrinking step as quickcheck does. I've been reading the book and going through the docs, but a quick answer would be appreciated.

We just released proptest 1.1.0, a property-testing framework for Rust. Proptest has recently found new maintainers, and this marks the first new release of proptest in ~2 years.

Hi, I'm working on a fuzzer, that fuzzes APIs based on OpenAPI specification. I'd like to implement shrinking. It means that when an interesting input (for the API) is found, I'd like to create the smallest possible input that still causes the same behaviour of the API. I'd like to implement a payload generation via proptest, because it already has the shrinking ability. I'm having issues implementing the JSON object as a proptest strategy. Here is what I tried so far. I explained it in a detail in stackoverflow question but it did not reach many people. Thanks for your help!

Third, if you're opting out of a compile-time safety guarantee in the name of performance, test heavily (high-coverage unit tests, property testing, fuzzing, differential fuzzing, etc.) and make use of tools like Loom and Miri's runtime data race detector for unsafe code, which can catch stuff that is beyond the scope of the compiler's guarantees.

just - https://github.com/casey/just

Welp there is absolute chaos in that thread -- guess it's not an April Fools joke.

I wonder if relying on CI for anything other than provisioning machines is a mistake -- maybe we should have never moved from doing things from local scripts written in $LANGUAGE.

That said, I'm probably biased since I'm a massive fan of things like `make` and more appropriately for the current age, `just`[0]

[0]: https://github.com/casey/just

> When a command has some cognitive requirements I create a script with some ${1:-default} values and I store them all in $PATH enabled local/bin

I would consider using just for this:

https://github.com/casey/just

Your coworker's experience is more principled: Make is a mediocre tool for executing commands. It wasn't ever designed for that. Although it is pretty common to see what you are mentioning in projects because it doesn't require installing a dependency.

For a repo where an easy to install (single binary) dependency is a non-issue, consider using just. [1] You get `just -l` where you can see all the command available, the ability to use different languages, and overall simpler command writing.

[1] https://github.com/casey/just

This is fantastic, but I'd say that this solution is somewhat in response to this open issue from 2019:

https://github.com/casey/just/issues/429

I really wish just was included as a package in distributions.

So far, I didn't work on new features at all but on stabilizing the ground for further development: 1. CMake lists and modules were rewritten a lot, now managing builds and their configurations is much lesser pain. 2. Brought in Justfile for regular tasks, and it's great, no less. 3. Linters, formatters, analyzers for almost all the code (except for Janet for now, as because of it being a niche and young technology, it didn't get enough attention yet). 4. ECS stub. Now runtime class doesn't look like a god object. 5. Started writing unit tests which didn't happen with my personal projects before and maybe indicates how serious am I about this one :D 6. Some of previously hardcoded data has been moved to INI files. Now, if I release the game in 10 years, and in 10 more years some eccentric person decides to make a variant of it, it will be slightly simpler.

i've grown to like this for my personal projects. https://github.com/casey/just

Reminds me of `just`. Which I love.

https://github.com/casey/just

In my example above, I installed the developer tool "Just" as a Dev Container feature. I could also install it by adding the install script to my Dockerfile. However, I would have to build my own Dockerfile and would have to maintain this piece of code myself. This Dev Container Feature works on different architectures and base images, which makes them convenient to use.

One primary design goal togomak had from the beginning was concurrency. All tasks run concurrently, unless a `depends_on` argument is mentioned. `just` didn't support that when I was initially building togomak, but there is a feature coming in soon which I am looking forward to: https://github.com/casey/just/pull/1562 .

While I was building togomak, I read through Dagger [1], Earthly [2], Concourse CI [3], Jest and Make along with the stuff I was already working with - Jenkins, GitHub actions and GitLab CI. Dagger [1] is really great, I like its design - it supports writing pipelines in Python, Typescript, Go and a few more languages. togomak tries to abstract away a lot of it. Such as dependency management (in the case of python, the requirement of a python interpreter, and its package managers, etc). togomak is just a single statically-linked binary.

[1]: https://dagger.io/