Hi Frank, This sounds cool. But, how do you decide how many data you generate per test run ?
Noury On 23 sept. 2013, at 11:19, Frank Shearar wrote: > I played around with a combination of data driven testing and random > data generation a while back: > * http://www.lshift.net/blog/2011/09/13/checking-squeak-quickly > * http://www.squeaksource.com/SqueakCheck/ > > There is a ConfigurationOf there. It integrates with SUnit by adding a > new kind of TestCase that knows how to run theories, identified by > pragmas. It also features the recording of a counterexample to your > theory by generating a normal test method on the relevant TestCase > subclass. > > I haven't touched the code in a while, but if there's interest I'd be > happy to hack on it once more. > > frank > > On 22 September 2013 21:43, laurent laffont <laurent.laff...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> in phpunit there's a @dataProvider annotation, so one method returns a >> several data sets for a test method. I'm not sure that's the best design but >> it's nice to have one unit test result per data set. See >> http://phpunit.de/manual/current/en/writing-tests-for-phpunit.html#writing-tests-for-phpunit.data-providers >> >> >> Translating the example to Pharo that should give something like: >> >> TestCase subclass: #DataTest >> >> DataTest>>testAdd: a to: b shouldAnswer: c >> <dataProvider: #provider> >> self assert: c equals: a + b >> >> DataTest>>provider >> ^ { {0. 0. 0}. >> {1. 0. 1}. >> {0. 1. 1}. >> {1. 2. 3} } >> >> It may not be to difficult to implement in SUnit. What do you think about >> this ? >> >> Laurent >> >> >> On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Jan Vrany <jan.vr...@fit.cvut.cz> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I actually already thought on this as I have similar problems. >>> So far I just create a bunch of tests, passing the actual set of >>> parameters to a common test method as message arguments. >>> >>> For different framework (not SUnit, but similar spirit), I introduced a >>> notion of "parameter", each having a domain. When running test, the runner >>> computes all possible combinations of parameter values and run the test on >>> each such combination. I would like to have something similar >>> in SUnit, but there are some issues. This is the feature I would like to >>> see in SUnit 6.x, but I/we have to finish 5.0 first - I wonder if I ever >>> find a time to do push it :-( >>> >>> >>> On 21/09/13 11:06, Noury Bouraqadi wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Last ESUG I attended the cool katas session organized by Stephan >>>> Eggermont and Laurent Laffont. >>>> That was a good opportunity to step back and think about my TDD practices >>>> . >>>> >>>> To experiment with the style proposed by Laurent, I started writing tests >>>> for a pong. >>>> I ended up having groups of nearly identical tests: >>>> -they use exactly the same objects, send the same messages, >>>> -but they differ only by values. >>>> >>>> An example, is testing the motion of the ball towards different >>>> directions or collisions with obstacles at different locations or speeds. >>>> >>>> Now, I wonder what is the best way to express those similar tests? >>>> >>>> In a short discussion before I leave, Stephane told me about tables of >>>> values. It seem that there is such a support in the ruby world in the >>>> cucumber framework. Do we have anything similar in Smalltalk world? >>>> >>>> BTW, the full ESUG conference was great. Thanx to local organizers, and >>>> all people that contributed to make it a success. >>>> >>>> Thanx, >>>> Noury >>>> Ecole des Mines de Douai >>>> http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > Noury -- http://twitter.com/#!/NouryBouraqadi http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury Noury Bouraqadi Ecole des Mines de Douai http://car.mines-douai.fr/noury -- Afin de contribuer au respect de l'environnement, merci de n'imprimer ce courriel qu'en cas de necessite Please consider the environment before you print
