patch applied (ghc): Initial foundation for quickcheck tests.
lemmih at gmail.com
Fri Mar 10 08:03:50 EST 2006
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
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.
More information about the Cvs-ghc