Bug? Strange set equality (r1075)
Achim Passen
user> (= #{1 4} #{2 3})
true
it's not, is it?
Kind regards,
achim
Chouser
>
> user> (= #{1 4} #{2 3})
> true
>
> it's not, is it?
I hope not!
Patch attached.
--Chouser
Stephen C. Gilardi
Hi,
user> (= #{1 4} #{2 3})
true
it's not, is it?
Rich Hickey
Rich
J. McConnell
> for the functions (and macros) shipped with the Clojure distribution. This
> seems like an ideal thing for members of the community to work together
> on--a large effort that can be done in parallel. Any work we do on it is to
> the good and it can grow over time to be more complete.
>
> Is there already a wiki page for it? Anybody want to sign up for writing
> tests for a range of lines in boot.clj? Stuart's clojure.contrib.test-is lib
> should provide a good framework to get started with.
I've been thinking the same thing for awhile now and I'd love to help
contribute to an effort like this. Thanks for getting the idea out
there.
- J.
Stephen C. Gilardi
On Oct 19, 2008, at 5:11 PM, J. McConnell wrote:
> I've been thinking the same thing for awhile now and I'd love to help
> contribute to an effort like this. Thanks for getting the idea out
> there.
You're welcome. It seems like clojure.contrib could be a more
convenient place to keep this than the wiki.
Direct or indirect contributions to clojure.contrib require that the
contributed code be written by the contributor and that the
contributor have a contributor agreement on file with Rich. Would that
be acceptable to people interested in participating? I appreciate the
care Rich showed and long view he took in coming up with the
Contributor Agreement process. I think it would be a good idea to
leverage that process for this effort as well.
Discussion of alternative proposals for a good way to do this and
place to keep it are welcome.
I made a start on this today. I started with the Reader page at
clojure.org and started making tests. I'm thinking of a structure like
this:
Run tests with:
(require 'clojure.contrib.test-clojure)
The definition of clojure.contrib.test-clojure requires subordinate
test namespaces like
'clojure.contrib.test-clojure.Reader
'clojure.contrib.test-clojure.Evaluation
'clojure.contrib.test-clojure.Special-Forms
...
with names that correspond to pages on the Clojure web site. After
requiring the individual test namespaces, test-clojure runs
"clojure.contrib.test-is/run-tests" on each one.
Here's a sample from clojure.contrib.test-clojure.
(ns clojure.contrib.test-clojure.Reader
(:use clojure.contrib.test-is))
(deftest t-Symbols
(is (= 'abc (symbol "abc")))
(is (= '*+!-_? (symbol "*+!-_?")))
(is (= 'abc:def:ghi (symbol "abc:def:ghi")))
(is (= 'abc/def (symbol "abc" "def")))
(is (= 'abc.def/ghi (symbol "abc.def" "ghi")))
(is (= 'abc/def.ghi (symbol "abc" "def.ghi")))
(is (= 'abc:def/ghi:jkl.mno (symbol "abc:def" "ghi:jkl.mno")))
(is (instance? clojure.lang.Symbol 'alphabet))
)
; additional tests to flesh out
(deftest t-Numbers)
(deftest t-Characters)
(deftest t-nil)
(deftest t-Booleans)
(deftest t-Keywords)
(deftest t-Lists)
(deftest t-Vectors)
(deftest t-Maps)
(deftest t-Sets)
(deftest t-Quote)
(deftest t-Character)
(deftest t-Comment)
(deftest t-Meta)
(deftest t-Deref)
(deftest t-Regex)
(deftest t-Metadata)
(deftest t-read)
and a run:
user=> (require 'clojure.contrib.test-clojure)
Testing #<Namespace: clojure.contrib.test-clojure.Reader>
Ran 18 tests with 10 assertions.
0 failures, 0 exceptions.
nil
user=>
(Currently the number of tests exceeds the number of assertions by so
much because of the placeholders.)
Tesing Clojure is a big project and will take a lot of work over time.
There many pieces and many interactions among them to test. The hope
is that having it available will allow Rich to make changes with an
even higher degree of confidence that they didn't have unintended
consequences and to support efforts like Chouser's ClojureScript to
bring Clojure to new platforms
Discussion and suggestions are welcome.
--Steve
Paul Barry
Michael Beauregard
happy to help out where I can.
J. McConnell
> contributed code be written by the contributor and that the
> contributor have a contributor agreement on file with Rich.
Just put mine in the mail :)
J. McConnell
> clojure.org and started making tests.
Unless I hear that someone else has started, I guess I'll take a shot
at the Evaluation page next time I get a chance.
- J.
Stephen C. Gilardi
J. McConnell
> be putting a page up in the next day or two.
Sounds good.
> Was the example I posted enough to get you started?
I think so, it made sense to me. If I'm stumped (I'm thinking of
load-file here) I'll be sure to ask questions here or on IRC.
Thanks,
- J.
Stuart Halloway
suite, I want to re-post the spike I did earlier on ClojureCheck.
It would be cool to use check-style tests for at least part of the
Clojure suite. If there is interest in this, I hope to have time to
work on this in late November, or would be delighted if someone else
picks up the idea and runs with it.
Original message follows:
---------------
At the JVM summit Clojure breakout someone suggested a Haskell
QuickCheck/ScalaCheck library for Clojure. I am attaching a small
spike in that direction below. A few questions:
(1) Is anybody interested?
(2) If the answer to (1) is yes, do you like the direction I am going
in the public API, e.g.
(for-all [x Integer y Integer] (some stuff that must be true))
(3) Any suggestions about implementation detail? (E.g. I like using a
multimethod for arbitrary--is there a prettier syntax for ignoring the
argument after using it for dispatch?)
Cheers,
Stuart
;;; clojure_check.clj: quick check framework for Clojure
;; Copyright (c) 2008 Stuart Halloway. All rights reserved.
;; Inspired by Scalacheck et al (http://code.google.com/p/scalacheck/)
;; Licensed under the same CPL as Clojure (http://clojure.org)
;; Uses clojure.contrib.test-is for assertions
;;
;; Example (passing)
;; (for-all [x Integer y Integer] (= (+ x y) (+ y x)))
;;
;; Example (failing)
;; (for-all [x Integer y Integer] (= (+ x y) (- y x)))
(ns clojure-check
(:import (java.util Random))
(:use clojure.contrib.test-is))
(defmulti arbitrary identity)
(def random (Random.))
(defn collection-size []
(.nextInt random 100))
(def *check-count* 50)
(defn choose [rng]
(nth rng (.nextInt random (count rng))))
(defmethod arbitrary Integer [_] (.nextInt random))
(defmethod arbitrary Character [_] (char (.nextInt random)))
(defmethod arbitrary :ascii-character [_] (char (choose (range 32
128))))
(defmethod arbitrary String [_]
(apply str (take (collection-size) (iterate (fn[_] (arbitrary
Character)) nil))))
(defmethod arbitrary :ascii-string [_]
(apply str (take (collection-size) (iterate (fn[_] (arbitrary :ascii-
character)) nil))))
(defmacro binding-values [& vars]
`(vector ~@(map (fn [v] `['~v ~v]) vars)))
(defmacro for-all [args & forms]
(let [vars (take-nth 2 args)
value-generators (map (fn [x] `(arbitrary ~x))(take-nth 2 (rest
args)))]
`(do
~@(map (fn [f]
`(dotimes i# *check-count*
(let ~(apply vector (interleave vars value-generators))
(is (true? ~f) (pr-str (binding-values ~@vars))))))
forms))))
J. McConnell
>
> (require 'clojure.contrib.test-clojure)
I don't see clojure.contrib.test-clojure. Are you going to be committing that?
Thanks,
- J.
mb
On 21 Okt., 16:37, Stuart Halloway <stuart.hallo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since there is now a movement afoot to write a comprehensive test
> suite, I want to re-post the spike I did earlier on ClojureCheck.
>
> It would be cool to use check-style tests for at least part of the
> Clojure suite. If there is interest in this, I hope to have time to
> work on this in late November, or would be delighted if someone else
> picks up the idea and runs with it.
would really like to have a ClojureCheck (as there is LectroTest
for Perl). And as stated in the original ClojureCheck thread
I will work on this.
Unfortunately, (not= de.kotka.tap clojure/test clojure.contrib.test-
is)
but I think the basic machinery like arbitrary definition etc. can
be reused. I will hopefully soon post a first draft of the
implementation.
Sincerely
Meikel
[1]: http://kotka.de/projects/clojure/tap.html (Not up-to-date, though)
Stephen C. Gilardi
Frantisek Sodomka
already.)
I have been thinking about it and going through some unit tests for
different language. I am proposing this syntax change to macro 'is':
Instead of writing:
(deftest test-+
(is (= (+) 0))
(is (= (+ 1) 1))
(is (= (+ 1 2) 3))
(is (= (+ 1 2 3) 6))
(is (number? (+ 1 2)))
(is (integer? (+ 1 2)))
(throws ClassCastException (+ "abc" 2)))
1) Take multiple expressions instead of just one
(deftest test-+
(is
(= (+) 0)
(= (+ 1) 1)
(= (+ 1 2) 3)
(= (+ 1 2 3) 6)
(number? (+ 1 2))
(integer? (+ 1 2)))
(throws ClassCastException (+ "abc" 2)))
2) Abstract equality tests (the most common tests):
(deftest test-+
(is
(:equal
(+) 0
(+ 1) 1
(+ 1 2) 3
(+ 1 2 3) 6 )
(number? (+ 1 2))
(integer? (+ 1 2)))
(throws ClassCastException (+ "abc" 2)))
I believe that this syntax change would make writing tests easier and less
tedious. Also, personally, I would prefer the name 'check' instead of
'is', but that's just me :-)
Greetings, Frantisek
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:43:44 +0200, Stephen C. Gilardi <sque...@mac.com>
wrote:
Frantisek Sodomka
(deftest t-Symbols
(is (= 'abc (symbol "abc")))
(is (= '*+!-_? (symbol "*+!-_?")))
(is (= 'abc:def:ghi (symbol "abc:def:ghi")))
(is (= 'abc/def (symbol "abc" "def")))
(is (= 'abc.def/ghi (symbol "abc.def" "ghi")))
(is (= 'abc/def.ghi (symbol "abc" "def.ghi")))
(is (= 'abc:def/ghi:jkl.mno (symbol "abc:def" "ghi:jkl.mno")))
(is (instance? clojure.lang.Symbol 'alphabet))
)
becomes:
(deftest t-Symbols
(check
(:equal
'abc (symbol "abc")
'*+!-_? (symbol "*+!-_?")
'abc:def:ghi (symbol "abc:def:ghi")
'abc/def (symbol "abc" "def")
'abc.def/ghi (symbol "abc.def" "ghi")
'abc/def.ghi (symbol "abc" "def.ghi")
'abc:def/ghi:jkl.mno (symbol "abc:def" "ghi:jkl.mno")
)
(instance? clojure.lang.Symbol 'alphabet)))
which is in my opinion much more readable. Any comments to this syntactic
enhancement?
Thank you, Frantisek
Dave Newton
> [...]
> becomes:
>
> (deftest t-Symbols
> (check
> (:equal
> 'abc (symbol "abc")
> '*+!-_? (symbol "*+!-_?")
> 'abc:def:ghi (symbol "abc:def:ghi")
> 'abc/def (symbol "abc" "def")
> 'abc.def/ghi (symbol "abc.def" "ghi")
> 'abc/def.ghi (symbol "abc" "def.ghi")
> 'abc:def/ghi:jkl.mno (symbol "abc:def" "ghi:jkl.mno")
> )
> (instance? clojure.lang.Symbol 'alphabet)))
>
> which is in my opinion much more readable. Any comments to
> this syntactic enhancement?
My first impression when I read that is that it's expecting each arg to be equal to each other, not the reality of being a list of (expected to be) equal pairs.
That's probably just me, I'm sure, but I find the original more readable and precise--something I think is key in tests, as tests are also documentation.
Dave
Frantisek Sodomka
wrote:
Yes, I am just trying to save on typing... ;-)
:equal could be also :equal-pairs. It introduces new (and maybe strange)
syntax...
Anyway, accepting multiple expressions would be nice.
Frantisek