smallcheck-series
smallcheck
Our great sponsors
| smallcheck-series | smallcheck | |
|---|---|---|
| - | 3 | |
| 4 | 133 | |
| - | - | |
| 0.0 | 4.2 | |
| about 3 years ago | 11 months ago | |
| Haskell | Haskell | |
| BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License | BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
smallcheck-series
We haven't tracked posts mentioning smallcheck-series yet.
Tracking mentions began in Dec 2020.
smallcheck
-
Generating Well-Typed Terms that are not "Useless" [pdf]
Using laziness to avoid generating parts of an expression until it's needed is a really nice idea. The LazySmallCheck package[1] took this approach, but was limited in the types of data it could produce (e.g. it couldn't generate functions). This was extended by LazySmallCheck2012[2], but that seems to be unmaintained and doesn't work with more recent GHC versions.
(Note that these are named in reference to SmallCheck[3], which takes the approach of enumerating concrete values in order of "size"; as an alternative to the more widely-used QuickCheck[4], which generates concrete values at random, and tries to "shrink" those which trigger a failure)
[1] https://hackage.haskell.org/package/lazysmallcheck
[2] https://github.com/UoYCS-plasma/LazySmallCheck2012
-
[ANN] LeanCheck v1.0.0 – Enumerative Property Testing
Could you compare with https://hackage.haskell.org/package/smallcheck in particular the smallcheck ability "to verify properties for all test cases up to some depth"?
-
Property-based testing #1: What is it anyway?
Another strategy is exhaustive generation. There, all possible values for some type are generated in some well-defined order - typically from "small" to "large" values, and with some upper bound, as once you go past booleans the number of values for most types are (countably) infinite. For example, trying all the integers between -20 and 20 in "zig zag" order 0,1,-1,2,-2,.... SmallCheck for Haskell and SciFe for Scala do this, but this approach is not so well-known. It's a shame as random and exhaustive generation are complementary - if you think of generating values as exploring some large space to find failing tests, random generation is a serendipitous type of exploration, while exhaustive generation is diligently mapping out all the paths in some area.
What are some alternatives?
smallcheck-laws - Property testing for common type classes
hedgehog - Release with confidence, state-of-the-art property testing for Haskell.
QuickCheck - Automatic testing of Haskell programs.
leancheck - enumerative property-based testing for Haskell
hspec - A Testing Framework for Haskell
genvalidity - Validity and validity-based testing
tasty - Modern and extensible testing framework for Haskell
http-test - Tests for HTTP APIs
fixie - 🚴 Opininated testing framework for mtl style (spies, stubs, and mocks)
tasty-groundhog-converters - Testing Harness for groundhog and groundhog converters.
ghc-prof-flamegraph