Thanks for the link. It almost works ! The problem I have is that stest/check returns a map with [:failure false] when it fails, which seems weird and prevent stest/abbrev-result to add meaningful data to the reporting. Not sure if it's a bug in spec.
Just to make things clear : - Passing test : (-> (stest/check 'my.ns/my-fn) first :failure) => nil - Failing test : (-> (stest/check 'my.ns/my-fn) first :failure) => false ;; I expected true, and it seems stest/abbrev-result too Env : [org.clojure/clojure "1.9.0-beta1"] [org.clojure/spec.alpha "0.1.123"] [org.clojure/test.check "0.10.0-alpha2" :scope "test"] On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 8:00:55 PM UTC+2, avichalp wrote: > > Hi Khalid, > > Yes, you can get these details in the output. > I have found these > <https://gist.github.com/Risto-Stevcev/dc628109abd840c7553de1c5d7d55608> > helper functions useful for this purpose. > > On Friday, 29 September 2017 15:38:57 UTC+5:30, Khalid Jebbari wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I'm struggling to find a way to to use the fdef specs I wrote in >> clojure.test tests. I can run them fine in the repl with spec/exercise-fn >> or spec.test/check, really nice when developping by the way. Now that I'm >> happy with the result I'd like to encode this knowledge in tests to prevent >> regressions. I don't need more tests that this, not specific property etc. >> >> I found no way to plug the spec.test/check in clojure.test or easily >> reuse fdef specs. test.check/defspec and quickcheck expect properties as >> their argument. spec/describe return a LazySeq that I found hard to exploit >> without a lot of manual wiring, parsing and trial-and-errors. >> >> If I had to write it by hand, it would look like : >> >> (defspec myspec 100 (prop/for-all [one (spec/gen ::first-arg) >> two (spec/gen >> ::second-arg)] >> (is (true? (spec/valid? >> ::ret-spec (myfunc one two)))) >> >> The problem is that it's incomplete with regards to spec possibilities : >> spec/or, spec/nilable etc. and I use them. Also I the function changes (in >> any way) the test becomes irrelevant instantly. >> >> A colleague resorted to manually calling spec.test/check in clojure.test >> and manually verifying the output of the function (the :result boolean, the >> :num-tests etc.). Feels way too manual, and doesn't report the shrunk value >> as nicely as test.check does. >> >> >> Maybe I missed something completely. spec/describe seems the best bet to >> introspect the spec and use it in for-all calls. But still too manual. >> >> Any help much appreciated. >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
