From daeae9a1d184d733d278857079c09af19add80c6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Carlo Zancanaro Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 15:04:45 +1000 Subject: Apparently bitbucket doesn't like org mode at all --- readme.md | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 82 insertions(+) create mode 100644 readme.md (limited to 'readme.md') diff --git a/readme.md b/readme.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2ae6bb7 --- /dev/null +++ b/readme.md @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +Property-based testing within the [JUnit](http://junit.org/) 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: + + @RunWith(Properties.class) + public class ExampleTest { + @DataSource + public static Generator> integerList = listOf(integer()); + + @Property + public void reverseIsInvolution(List list) { + List reversed = new ArrayList<>(list); + Collections.reverse(reversed); + // reverse(reversed); + + assertEquals(list, reversed); + } + } + +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: + + au.id.zancanaro.javacheck.junit.PropertyError: reverseIsInvolution([0, -1]) + Seed: 1433134487916 + + Expected :[0, -1] + Actual :[-1, 0] + + + 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) + +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`: + + 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> integerList = listOf(integer()); + + @Property + public void reverseIsInvolution(List list) { + List reversed = new ArrayList<>(list); + reverse(reversed); + reverse(reversed); + + assertEquals(list, reversed); + } + } -- cgit v1.2.3