Fwd: [Haskell-cafe] Data.Tree.Zipper in the standard libraries
dons at galois.com
Sat May 31 13:12:12 EDT 2008
It's not wasted work. As far as I know, only Ian advocates against
Having worked on several data structure libraries, I've found that
QuickCheck regularly catches errors that appear, and ensure over the
long term that code remains stable.
> In this case the recommendation to write QuickCheck tests should be
> removed from the library submission procedure. I don't want to do
> wasted work again!
> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Ian Lynagh <igloo at earth.li> wrote:
> > So just to check, this proposal is to add Data.Tree.Zipper to containers
> > and the QC tests to the testsuite, right?
> > As I've explained before, I don't think that QuickCheck tests are a
> > good way to test libraries: They tend to test the same inputs (e.g. )
> > or equivalent inputs (e.g. "insert 2 " and "insert 3 ") many
> > times, meaning it takes much longer to get the same level of testing as
> > a few well-chosen unit tests. When you multiply this by all the
> > libraries the testsuite is meant to test, this is a significant amount
> > of time.
> > I also don't think that adding the tests but not running them
> > automatically is a good idea, as they will most likely just bitrot.
> > Adding a unit test for the bug you found is certainly a good idea,
> > though!
> >  http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/2008-April/009594.html
> > Thanks
> > Ian
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
More information about the Libraries