I get the bracing point, but how does this translate to my unit testing (quickcheck) problem?

On 08/10/14 23:37, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
> Lately, I find myself wondering, if I should add parameterized unit
> tests to std.string, because the last few bugs I fixed where not caught
> by tests, as the test-data was not good enough. I know random data is
> not perfect either, but it would be good addition IMO.
>
> Additionally, I thought these unit tests could be used to benchmark the
> performance of the functions and the compilers. Thus allowing continues
> monitoring of performance changes.
>
> I'm thinking of something like:
>
> version(unittest_benchmark) {
> unittest {
>      auto ben = Benchmark("bench_result_file", numberOfRuns);
>      auto values = ValueGen!(StringGen(0, 12), IntGen(2, 24))(ben);
>
>      foreach(string rStr, int rInt; values) {
>          auto rslt = functionToTest(rStr, rInt);
>          // some asserts
>      }
> }
> }
>
> The bench_result_file would be a csv with e.g. date,runtime,...
>
> ideas, suggestions?

I think you should use a UDA's instead. The a unit test framework can, hopefully, handle this automatically.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Friday, 10 October 2014 at 06:39:25 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

>
> I think you should use a UDA's instead. The a unit test framework can, hopefully, handle this automatically.

This will work for me private project, but I want this in std.string.

On 10/10/14 10:09, Robert burner Schadek wrote:

> This will work for me private project, but I want this in std.string.

Why wouldn't this working std.string?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Friday, 10 October 2014 at 14:20:39 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 10/10/14 10:09, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
>
>> This will work for me private project, but I want this in std.string.
>
> Why wouldn't this working std.string?

because, this would require changing the phobos unittester, doing it non intrusive inside the unittest is way more likely to succeed. add is more flexible IMO.

On 10/08/2014 11:37 PM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
> Lately, I find myself wondering, if I should add parameterized unit
> tests to std.string, because the last few bugs I fixed where not caught
> by tests, as the test-data was not good enough. I know random data is
> not perfect either, but it would be good addition IMO.
>

https://github.com/MartinNowak/qcheck
Haven't used it for quite a while, file a bug report if anything doesn't work.

On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 06:54:42 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On 10/08/2014 11:37 PM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
>> Lately, I find myself wondering, if I should add parameterized unit
>> tests to std.string, because the last few bugs I fixed where not caught
>> by tests, as the test-data was not good enough. I know random data is
>> not perfect either, but it would be good addition IMO.
>>
>
> https://github.com/MartinNowak/qcheck
> Haven't used it for quite a while, file a bug report if anything doesn't work.

well quite a nice and big library. You add the benchmark feature, get a merged into phobos and I will gladly use it to test std.string.

On 10/14/2014 10:38 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
> well quite a nice and big library. You add the benchmark feature, get a
> merged into phobos and I will gladly use it to test std.string.

Not sure whether a random testing library belongs into phobos.

On Tuesday, 14 October 2014 at 12:17:05 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
> On 10/14/2014 10:38 AM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
>> well quite a nice and big library. You add the benchmark feature, get a
>> merged into phobos and I will gladly use it to test std.string.
>
> Not sure whether a random testing library belongs into phobos.

After taking a look at the bug I found in std.string, I think that this is a good first step.