Comments on: How QuickNet Found 2 Bugs That You And I Didn’t

By: Davy Brion

Davy Brion — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 11:00:34 +0000

@Peter

the ambiguity of a test failure is almost always entirely up to you. you can get very ambiguous test failures with regular unit tests as well if you don’t put in a little bit of effort.

now, in the case of QuickNet… if a seemingly unrelated test starts failing because you’ve increased the set of sample data that you’re testing with then yes, you’re going to have to spend a little bit of time debugging what went wrong. Once you find it, you fix it and you can add another specific QuickNet spec (or multiple specs) to avoid any future ambiguity

i don’t really think there will be more maintenance overhead when using QuickNet… quite the opposite actually.

By: Peter Zsoldos

Peter Zsoldos — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:33:00 +0000

Sounds like QuickNet is pretty helpful when developing new functionality – it discovers edge cases for you. However, from a maintenance perspective, it does not sound promising – it does not give you unambiguous test failures. Do you create concrete test cases for such discovered special cases or how do you address this?

By: You’d Go West and I’d Go East « Search And Destroy

You’d Go West and I’d Go East « Search And Destroy — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 19:09:52 +0000

[...] out, as I’m tired of having to defend sincerity. In relation to the previous paragraph, this made one particular day slightly less grim. I wish I could stop myself from being such a smug [...]

By: The Morning Brew - Chris Alcock » The Morning Brew #504

The Morning Brew - Chris Alcock » The Morning Brew #504 — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:29:24 +0000

[...] How QuickNet Found 2 Bugs That You And I Didn’t – Davy Brion talks about his use of the QuickNet Property based testing library in his test for his Agatha Project, and how it help uncover some bugs that he doubts would be found using other testing strategies. [...]