Closed firesofmay closed 8 years ago
Looking into this now.
hey @lackita would the implementation for checking
be easier if test.check
provided callbacks for all the different events of the test-running process?
@gfredericks Maybe a little bit, the code currently assumes that the reports from the final failure are the smallest example, but I think I remember noticing minor discrepancies in practice. I might be able to eliminate those if I had a callbacks around successes, failures, and done shrinking.
Okay cool; I was working on such a thing at one point, so might be able to get it into the 0.9.0
release.
Alright, the specific trigger I'd find useful is one fired when a smaller example of a failure is identified. On Aug 10, 2015 8:35 AM, "Gary Fredericks" notifications@github.com wrote:
Okay cool; I was working on such a thing at one point, so might be able to get it into the 0.9.0 release.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/gfredericks/test.chuck/issues/17#issuecomment-129427866 .
I'm curious if that's because you would print something on each smaller failure?
I'm wondering because I've done such a thing myself in a test.check fork, and it ends up being very verbose, which makes me want to have a way to control verbosity.
Actually, quite the opposite. I only want to report the smallest failure and I need a way of determining if this new failure is the new smallest. On Aug 10, 2015 11:14 AM, "Gary Fredericks" notifications@github.com wrote:
I'm wondering because I've done such a thing myself in a test.check fork, and it ends up being very verbose, which makes me want to have a way to control verbosity.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/gfredericks/test.chuck/issues/17#issuecomment-129487995 .
why can't you do that just by waiting for the whole quick-check
call to return and just examining the :shrunk
key?
I wanted to present the actual failure report from those values, not the value leading to the failure. On Aug 10, 2015 12:59 PM, "Gary Fredericks" notifications@github.com wrote:
why can't you do that just by waiting for the whole quick-check call to return and just examining the :shrunk key?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/gfredericks/test.chuck/issues/17#issuecomment-129526344 .
oh right, and you need to distinguish it from the subsequent hundreds of test runs that passed before the test runner gave up. Got it.
@lackita Any updates on this one?
Sorry, I've been on vacation and haven't had much time to investigate. That's over tomorrow so I'll be looking at it some more on the commute home. On Aug 16, 2015 4:24 AM, "Mayank Jain" notifications@github.com wrote:
@lackita https://github.com/lackita Any updates on this one?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/gfredericks/test.chuck/issues/17#issuecomment-131503474 .
Sure, no problem :)
It looks like what happened is the spurious line was necessary when it was written, but then I later started capturing and propagating reports in another way and it became redundant.
@lackita Thanks will check it out. :) @gfredericks Any idea when are we releasing the next version?
Apparently this created a new issue (#23) so I will probably release when that gets figured out
Reopening this since it caused test failures.
@lackita Any updates on this?
Sorry, I'll try to take a look on the commute home today.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Mayank Jain notifications@github.com wrote:
@lackita https://github.com/lackita Any updates on this?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/gfredericks/test.chuck/issues/17#issuecomment-135748547 .
@lackita Hey any update on this?
@firesofmay Sorry, this got conflated with a conversations in #25, I believe the issue should be fixed now.
No problem. Thanks for all your help :) On Sep 3, 2015 2:06 AM, "lackita" notifications@github.com wrote:
@firesofmay https://github.com/firesofmay Sorry, this got conflated with a conversations in #25 https://github.com/gfredericks/test.chuck/pull/25, I believe the issue should be fixed now.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/gfredericks/test.chuck/issues/17#issuecomment-137237146 .
@firesofmay if you can confirm this fixes the problem I can make a release for it
@gfredericks LGTM! :+1:
Okay, this is released with 0.1.22
Hi,
I was trying out checking macro and I found the output a little weird. Here's a sample test:
And here's the output:
Why does it print this?