tricorder
LazySmallCheck2012
tricorder | LazySmallCheck2012 | |
---|---|---|
5 | 2 | |
53 | 4 | |
- | - | |
5.6 | 0.0 | |
11 months ago | 8 months ago | |
Rust | Haskell | |
MIT 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.
tricorder
-
Show HN: A new open-source automation tool as an alternative to Ansible/Salt
There is https://pyinfra.com/
As a sidenote, I also made a small experiment a while ago : https://github.com/linkdd/tricorder/
But it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem. Without users, I don't know how it should be used, without features I won't get any users. So for now, it's in a state of "I'll address bug reports and feature requests, but I won't actively develop it".
-
Ask HN: What's your favorite software testing framework and why?
Thank you. Your library seems nice.
Unfortunately, I have to say it... I hate YAML with a passion, k8s, github actions/gitlab ci, ansible, etc... When I'm doing ops jobs, I feel like I'm coding in YAML.
Btw, this hate for YAML birthed https://linkdd.github.io/tricorder/ :P
-
Created a simple tool for task automation in Rust
Another one in the same vein is tricorder, which has one of the coolest websites ever. AFAIK it doesn't do dependencies, though. But it's got a RUST API!
- Show HN: Automation the KISS way. No YAML involved
LazySmallCheck2012
-
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
[3] https://hackage.haskell.org/package/smallcheck
[4] https://hackage.haskell.org/package/QuickCheck
-
Ask HN: What's your favorite software testing framework and why?
I tend to use anything that offers property-testing, since tests are much shorter to write and uncover lots more hidden assumptions.
My go-to choices per language are:
- Python: Hypothesis https://hypothesis.readthedocs.io/en/latest (also compatible with PyTest)
- Scala: ScalaCheck https://scalacheck.org (also compatible with ScalaTest)
- Javascript/Typescript: JSVerify https://jsverify.github.io
- Haskell: LazySmallCheck2012 https://github.com/UoYCS-plasma/LazySmallCheck2012/blob/mast...
- When I wrote PHP (over a decade ago) there was no decent property-based test framework, so I cobbled one together https://github.com/Warbo/php-easycheck
All of the above use the same basic setup: tests can make universally-quantified statements (e.g. "for all (x: Int), foo(x) == foo(foo(x))"), then the framework checks that statement for a bunch of different inputs.
Most property-checking frameworks generate data randomly (with more or less sophistication). The Haskell ecosystem is more interesting:
- QuickCheck was one of the first property-testing frameworks, using random genrators.
- SmallCheck came later, which enumerates data instead (e.g. testing a Float might use 0, 1, -1, 2, -2, 0.5, -0.5, etc.). That's cute, but QuickCheck tends to exercise more code paths with each input.
- LazySmallCheck builds up test data on-demand, using Haskell's pervasive laziness. Tests are run with an error as input: if they pass, we're done; if they fail, we're done; if they trigger the error, they're run again with slightly more-defined inputs. For example, if the input is supposed to be a list, we try again with the two forms of list: empty and "cons" (the arguments to cons are both errors, to begin with). This exercises even more code paths for each input.
- LazySmallCheck2012 is a more versatile "update" to LazySmallCheck; in particular, it's able to generate functions.
What are some alternatives?
z-run - z-run -- scripting library lightweight Go-based tool
jsverify - Write powerful and concise tests. Property-based testing for JavaScript. Like QuickCheck.
testy - test helpers for more meaningful, readable, and fluent tests
php-easycheck - Mirror of http://chriswarbo.net/git/php-easycheck
datadriven - Data-Driven Testing for Go
ospec - Noiseless testing framework
automate - Native bash script for automate tasks in a multiple servers
venom - 🐍 Manage and run your integration tests with efficiency - Venom run executors (script, HTTP Request, web, imap, etc... ) and assertions
lorikeet - A Parallel test runner for DevOps