1 files changed, 91 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/readme.org b/readme.org
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0022329
--- /dev/null
+++ b/readme.org
@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+#+TITLE: java-check
+
+Property-based testing within the [[http://junit.org/][JUnit]] test framework.
+
+Using ~java-check~ you can write ~@Property~ tests. These tests will
+have any parameters randomly generated (using generators marked with
+~@DataSource~). This allows you to write tests which assert general
+properties rather than specific cases.
+
+As an example, let's test the ~Collections.reverse~ function. One
+simple property of ~Collections.reverse~ is that reversing a list
+twice results in the original list (ie. ~reverse(reverse(x)) = x)~).
+
+Let's write a property for this:
+
+#+BEGIN_SRC java
+  @RunWith(Properties.class)
+  public class ExampleTest {
+      @DataSource
+      public static Generator<List<Integer>> integerList = listOf(integer());
+
+      @Property
+      public void reverseIsInvolution(List<Integer> list) {
+          List<Integer> reversed = new ArrayList<>(list);
+          Collections.reverse(reversed);
+  //        reverse(reversed);
+
+          assertEquals(list, reversed);
+      }
+  }
+#+END_SRC
+
+Oh no! The test above is incorrect! I've accidentally commented out
+the second ~reverse(reversed)~ line, which means I'm trying to test
+whether ~reverse(x) = x~. That means this test should fail:
+
+#+BEGIN_EXAMPLE
+  au.id.zancanaro.javacheck.junit.PropertyError: reverseIsInvolution([0, -1])
+          Seed: 1433134487916
+
+  Expected :[0, -1]
+  Actual   :[-1, 0]
+    <Click to see difference>
+
+          at au.id.zancanaro.javacheck.junit.Properties$GenerativeTester.evaluate(Properties.java:217)
+          ...  (extra stack trace entries have been removed for clarity)
+  Caused by: java.lang.AssertionError: expected:<[0, -1]> but was:<[-1, 0]>
+          at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:88)
+          ...  (extra stack trace entries have been removed for clarity)
+#+END_EXAMPLE
+
+The test has failed, and it's managed to reduce the failing case to
+the smallest possible failing case: a two-element list with both
+elements being different.
+
+It's easy for us to fix the test, and here is the complete file for
+~ExampleTest.java~:
+
+#+BEGIN_SRC java
+  package com.example;
+
+  import au.id.zancanaro.javacheck.Generator;
+  import au.id.zancanaro.javacheck.annotations.DataSource;
+  import au.id.zancanaro.javacheck.annotations.Property;
+  import au.id.zancanaro.javacheck.junit.Properties;
+  import org.junit.runner.RunWith;
+
+  import java.util.ArrayList;
+  import java.util.List;
+
+  import static au.id.zancanaro.javacheck.Generators.integer;
+  import static au.id.zancanaro.javacheck.Generators.listOf;
+  import static java.util.Collections.reverse;
+  import static org.junit.Assert.assertEquals;
+
+  @RunWith(Properties.class)
+  public class ExampleTest {
+      @DataSource
+      public static Generator<List<Integer>> integerList = listOf(integer());
+
+      @Property
+      public void reverseIsInvolution(List<Integer> list) {
+          List<Integer> reversed = new ArrayList<>(list);
+          reverse(reversed);
+          reverse(reversed);
+
+          assertEquals(list, reversed);
+      }
+  }
+
+#+END_SRC