On Thursday, March 16, 2017 at 6:52:04 PM UTC, Pedro Castilho wrote: > > I believe Elm lends itself best to property-based testing > <http://blog.jessitron.com/2013/04/property-based-testing-what-is-it.html> > of pure code rather than unit testing. Property-based testing can make > stronger assertions than unit testing, as long as your code is pure (yet > another reason for why you should keep the part of your code that interacts > with the "real world" minimal) > > In general, you do not need to test whether a constructor creates an item > of a given type - that's what the type system is for (and a small part of > the beauty of using a strongly-typed language) >
Hi, elm-test provides Fuzzers for property based testing. Is it missing something though compared with Scala Check (and possibly QuickCheck, but never used that)? That would be automatic test case minimization, is that in elm-test or some other testing library for Elm? The idea is that if you present say a list to a test case, and that list fails the test, the test code will then try the same list again but with one element missing, and it will continue repeating that and report the smallest list that fails the test. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
