(www.well-typed.com)

90 points birdculture | 1 comments | 20 Apr 25 19:41 UTC | HN request time: 0.203s | source

Show context

mjw1007 ◴[20 Apr 25 22:51 UTC] No.43747119[source]▶

I've found in practice that shrinking to get the "smallest amount of detail" is often unhelpful.

Suppose I have a function which takes four string parameters, and I have a bug which means it crashes if the third is empty.

I'd rather see this in the failure report:

("ldiuhuh!skdfh", "nd#lkgjdflkgdfg", "", "dc9ofugdl ifugidlugfoidufog")

than this:

("", "", "", "")

1. chriswarbo ◴[21 Apr 25 06:09 UTC] No.43748889[source]▶

> I'd rather see this in the failure report:

> ("ldiuhuh!skdfh", "nd#lkgjdflkgdfg", "", "dc9ofugdl ifugidlugfoidufog")

I would prefer LazySmallcheck's result, which would be the following:

    (_, _, "", _)

Where `_` indicates that part of the input wasn't evaluated.

Falsify: Hypothesis-Inspired Shrinking for Haskell (2023)