patch applied (ghc): Initial foundation for quickcheck tests.

[Lemmih]

On 3/10/06, Simon Marlow <simonmarhaskell at gmail.com> wrote:
> David Himmelstrup wrote:
> > Thu Mar  9 18:05:14 PST 2006  Lemmih <lemmih at gmail.com>
> >   * Initial foundation for quickcheck tests.
> >
> >   I have no idea how to use the testsuite so I'll start
> >   making QuickCheck tests instead.
> >   I've included tests for 'HeaderInfo.getOptions'.
> >
> >     A ./ghc/quickcheck/
> >     A ./ghc/quickcheck/HeaderInfoTests.hs
> >     A ./ghc/quickcheck/README
> >     A ./ghc/quickcheck/RunTests.hs
> >     A ./ghc/quickcheck/run.sh
>
> Having no idea how to use the testsuite is not an excuse for not using
> it!  There's a pretty good README.

The README is 400 lines long! How can that be good?

> We don't need another place for
> putting tests, and quickcheck tests work fine in the testsuite (there
> are already some).

There are no serious quickchecks in the testsuite. I found just one
entry that didn't test the standard libraries: "prop_silly xs = head
xs == head xs". Now how can that be when QuickCheck is so incredibly
useful?

I want to test the core of GHC and I want a neat interface. Running
'make' in the testsuite sprays garbage like a broken fire hose and
doesn't die when I hit C-c.

> I recently put some effort into making the testsuite run fast, so now
> 'make fast' in testsuite/tests/ghc-regress takes less than 5 minutes on
> a decent machine.
>
> Putting tests in the testsuite ensures they get run every night, and get
> included in the summary, etc. etc.

I don't really want that (how can people spot important failures among
the hundreds of tests that fail every day?).

I think QuickCheck is a great tool and I'd love to continue using it
in the way it was intended.

--
Friendly,
  Lemmih