proptest VS miri

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.

>While we are many missing language features away from this being the case, the noalias case is also magic descended upon box itself, with no user code ever having access to it.

I'm not sure why the author thinks there's magic behind Box. Box is not a special case of `noalias`. Run this snippet with miri and you'll see the same issue: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

`Box` _does_ have an expectation that its inner pointer is not aliased to another Box (even if used for readonly operations). See: https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/1800#issuecomment-8...)

Miri [0] is an interpreter for the mid-level intermediate representation (MIR) generated by the Rust compiler. MIR is input for more processing steps of the compiler. However miri also runs MIR directly. This means miri is a VM. Of course it's not a bytecode VM, because MIR is not a bytecode AFAIK. I still think that miri is a interesting example.

And why does miri exist?

It is a lot slower. However it can check for some undefined behavior.

[0]: https://github.com/rust-lang/miri

Provenance is a dynamic property of pointer values. The actual underlying rules that a program must follow, even when using raw pointers and `unsafe`, are written in terms of provenance. Miri (https://github.com/rust-lang/miri) represents provenance as an actual value stored alongside each pointer's address, so it can check for violations of these rules.

Lifetimes are a static approximation of provenance. They are erased after being validated by the borrow checker, and do not exist in Miri or have any impact on what transformations the optimizer may perform. In other words, the provenance rules allow a superset of what the borrow checker allows.

There has been discussion of doing this with MIRI, which would be easier than all of rustc.

This issue has been fixed: https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/2964

Actually, I've done more advanced tests with MIRI (see https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/2920 for example) which allowed me to fix some issues. I've also made the code compatible with loom, but I didn't found the time yet to write and execute loom tests. That's on the TODO-list, and I need to track it with an issue too.

He is one of the big brains behind Miri, which is a interpreter that runs on the MIR (compiler representation between human code and asm/machine code) and detects undefined behavior. Super useful tool for language safety, pretty interesting on its own.

I would also run your tests in Miri (https://github.com/rust-lang/miri) to try to cover more bases.