
Hi everyone it seems to be the season for new variations on the "property testing" theme, so I would like to chime in... not to announce a new library, sadly, but with a rough idea how the existing ones could perhaps be improved, based on practical experience in Darcs. The problem I have is that there is a tension between (a) stating a property in a clear and simple way, so its code doubles as a formal specification and (b) writing the property in such a way that when it fails, the reported value(s) give enough information about the context to be useful for finding the cause of the problem. Let me give an example to demonstrate what I mean. There is a simple law that says if a sequential pair of patches A;B commutes to B';A' then B';A' commutes back to A;B. In code this looks (more or less) like this: prop_recommute :: Commute p => (p :> p) wA wB -> Bool prop_recommute (x:>y) | Just (y':>x') <- commute (x:>y) = case commute (y':>x')of Just (x'':>y'') -> x==x'' && y==y'' Nothing -> False | otherwise = True This is a bit more verbose than the informal spec but still quite readable. Now suppose this property fails. So quickcheck reports the counter example pair (X:>Y) for some X and Y. But that isn't too useful in itself. We'd like to know a bit more: * did the second commute fail? * or did it succeed but x/=x'' or y/=y''? * and in the latter case, which of the two? So in practice our property code looks more like this: prop_recommute :: (ShowPatch p, Commute p) => (p :> p) wA wB -> Bool prop_recommute (x :> y) | Just (y' :> x') <- commute (x :> y) = case commute (y' :> x') of Nothing -> failed (redText "failed, where x" $$ displayPatch x $$ redText ":> y" $$ displayPatch y $$ redText "y'" $$ displayPatch y' $$ redText ":> x'" $$ displayPatch x') Just (x'' :> y'') -> if y'' /= y then failed (redText "y'' =/\\= y failed, where x" $$ displayPatch x $$ redText ":> y" $$ displayPatch y $$ redText "y'" $$ displayPatch y' $$ redText ":> x'" $$ displayPatch x' $$ redText "x''" $$ displayPatch x'' $$ redText ":> y''" $$ displayPatch y'') else if x'' /= x then failed (redText "x'' /= x, where x" $$ displayPatch x $$ redText ":> y" $$ displayPatch y $$ redText "y'" $$ displayPatch y' $$ redText ":> x'" $$ displayPatch x' $$ redText "x''" $$ displayPatch x'' $$ redText ":> y''" $$ displayPatch y'') else True | otherwise = True Now this code tells us exactly what went wrong when the property fails but it is ugly and repetitive and the additional code obscures the simple logical content. So this is no longer quite as suitable for a (human readable) formal spec. I wonder if displaying (1) all relevant contextual variables and (2) "where in the code it fails" could be automated away, somehow. I guess this is not trivial and may require syntactic analysis, so perhaps expecting a /library/ to solve the problem is unrealistic, except perhaps by using Template Haskell. I'd also go with a separate tool that extracts properties from a module and enriches them with code that displays the additional information. Tackling this problem might be an interesting theme for a master thesis... ;-) Cheers Ben