DOCSLIB.ORG

Experience Report: the Next 1100 Haskell Programmers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Experience Report: the Next 1100 Haskell Programmers Experience Report: The Next 1100 Haskell Programmers Jasmin Christian Blanchette Lars Hupel Tobias Nipkow Lars Noschinski Dmitriy Traytel Fakultat¨ fur¨ Informatik, Technische Universitat¨ Munchen,¨ Germany Abstract mathematics, and linear algebra. The information systems students We report on our experience teaching a Haskell-based functional had only had a basic calculus course and were taking discrete programming course to over 1100 students for two winter terms. mathematics in parallel. The dramatis personae in addition to the students were lecturer The syllabus was organized around selected material from various 1 sources. Throughout the terms, we emphasized correctness through Tobias Nipkow, who designed the course, produced the slides, QuickCheck tests and proofs by induction. The submission archi- and gave the lectures; Masters of TAs Lars Noschinski and Lars tecture was coupled with automatic testing, giving students the pos- Hupel, who directed a dozen teaching assistants (TAs) and took sibility to correct mistakes before the deadline. To motivate the stu- care of the overall organization; furthermore the (Co)Masters of dents, we complemented the weekly assignments with an informal Competition Jasmin Blanchette (MC) and Dmitriy Traytel (CoMC), competition and gave away trophies in a award ceremony. who selected competition problems and ranked the solutions. Categories and Subject Descriptors D.1.1 [Programming Tech- 2. Syllabus niques]: Applicative (Functional) Programming; D.3.2 [Program- ming Languages]: Language Classifications—Applicative (func- The second iteration covered the following topics in order. (The tional) languages; K.3.2 [Computers and Education]: Computer first iteration was similar, with a few exceptions discussed below.) and Information Science Education—Computer science education Each topic was the subject of one 90-minute lecture unless other- wise specified. General Terms Algorithms, Languages, Reliability 1. Introduction to functional programming [0.5 lecture] Keywords Haskell, functional programming, induction, testing, 2. Basic Haskell: Bool, QuickCheck, Integer and Int, guarded monads, education, competition, QuickCheck, SmallCheck equations, recursion on numbers, Char, String, tuples 3. Lists: list comprehension, polymorphism, a glimpse of the Pre- 1. Introduction lude, basic type classes (Num, Eq, Ord), pattern matching, re- This paper reports on a mandatory Haskell-based functional pro- cursion on lists (including accumulating parameters and non- gramming course at the Technische Universitat¨ Munchen.¨ In the primitive recursion); scoping rules by example [1.5 lectures] first iteration (winter semester of 2012–2013), there were 619 stu- 4. Proof by structural induction on lists dents enrolled. In the following winter semester (2013–2014), there 5. Higher-order functions: map, filter, foldr, l-abstractions, were 553 students enrolled. The course ran for 15 weeks with extensionality, currying, more Prelude [2 lectures] one 90-minute lecture and one 90-minute tutorial each week. The weekly homework was graded, but the final grade was primarily 6. Type classes [0.5 lecture] determined by the examination. To make the homework more at- 7. Algebraic datatypes: data by example, the general case, Boolean tractive, we coupled it with an informal programming competition. formula case study, structural induction [1.5 lectures] The departmental course description does not prescribe a spe- 8. I/O, including files and web cific functional language but focuses on functional programming 9. Modules: module syntax, data abstraction, correctness proofs in general. In the previous two years, the course had been based on Standard ML. We have a strong ML background ourselves but 10. Case study: Huffman coding chose Haskell because of its simple syntax, large user community, 11. Lazy evaluation and infinite lists real-world appeal, variety of textbooks, and availability of Quick- 12. Complexity and optimization Check [3]. The one feature we could well have done without is lazy 13. Case study: parser combinators evaluation; in fact, we wondered whether it would get in the way. The course was mandatory for computer science (Informatik) Most topics were presented together with examples or smaller and information systems (Wirtschaftsinformatik) students. All had case studies, of which we have only mentioned Boolean formulas. learned Java in their first semester. The computer science students Moreover, two topics kept on recurring: tests (using QuickCheck) had also taken courses on algorithms and data structures, discrete and proofs (by induction). From day one, examples and case studies in class were accom- panied by properties suitable for QuickCheck. Rather than concen- Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed trate all inductive proofs in the lecture about induction, we dis- for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation tributed them over the entire course and appealed to them whenever on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the it was appropriate. A typical example: In a case study, a function author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or is first defined via map myg . map myf and then optimized to map republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]. (myg . myf), justified by a proof of map (g . f ) = map g . map f . Haskell’14, September 04–05, 2014, Gothenburg, Sweden. Much of the above material is uncontroversial and part of any Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM. Haskell introduction, but some choices deserve some discussion. ACM 978-1-4503-3041-1/14/09. $15.00. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2633357.2633359 1 www21.in.tum.de/teaching/info2/WS1314/slides.pdf Induction. Against our expectations, induction was well under- stood, as the examination confirmed (Section 5). What may have helped is that we gave the students a rigid template for inductions. We went as far as requiring them to prove equations l1 = r1 not by one long chain of equalities l1 = ··· = lm = rn = ··· = r1 but by two reductions l1 = ··· = lm and r1 = ··· = rn. This avoids the strange effect of having to shift to reverse gear halfway through the proof Figure 1. Status page with exercise points (where blue bars denote the student’s points and black markers denote the median of all of l1 = r1. It must be stressed that we considered only structural induction, that we generally did not expect the students to think students) up auxiliary lemmas themselves, and that apart from extensionality 100% and induction all reasoning was purely equational. 2012–2013 In Haskell, there is the additional complication that proofs by 80% 2013–2014 structural induction establish the property only for finite objects. 60% Some authors restrict the scope of their lemmas to finite lists of de- fined elements [15], while others prove reverse (reverse xs) 40% = xs without mentioning that it does not hold for partial or in- 20% finite lists [7]. Although some authors discuss finite partial ob- 0% jects and infinite objects [6, 15], we avoided them in our course— 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Sheet undefinedness alone is a can of worms that we did not want to open. Hence, we restricted ourselves to a total subset of Haskell in which Figure 2. Homework submissions relative to the number of en- “fast and loose reasoning” [4] is sound. rolled students Input/output and monads. In the first iteration, I/O was covered toward the end of the course because it is connected with the 3. Exercises advanced topic of monads. For much of the course, many students may have had the impression that Haskell is only a glorified pocket Each week we released an exercise sheet with group and homework calculator. Therefore we moved I/O to an earlier point in the course. assignments. The main objective of the homework was to have the We also dropped monads, since the majority had not grasped them. students actually program in Haskell. The submission infrastruc- This was not entirely satisfactory, because a minority of students ture periodically ran automatic tests, giving the students fast feed- had been excited by monads and expressed their disappointment. back and an opportunity to correct mistakes before the deadline. Abstraction functions. In the lecture on modules and data ab- 3.1 Assignments straction, we also showed how to prove correctness of data repre- sentations (e.g., the representation of sets by lists). This requires A typical assignment sheet contained between three and five group an abstraction function from the representation back to the abstract exercises and about as many homework exercises. The group exer- type that must commute with all operations on the type. As the cor- cises were solved in 90-minute tutorial groups. There were 25 or responding homework showed, we failed to convey this. In retro- 26 such groups, each with up to 24 students. Each exercise fo- spect, it is outside the core functional programming syllabus, which cused on a specific concept from the week’s lecture. Many were is why it is absent from all the textbooks. The topic still appeared programming exercises, but some required the students to write briefly in the lecture in the second iteration, but without exercises. QuickCheck tests, carry out proofs, or infer an expression’s type. The homework assignments, to be solved individually, covered Laziness. Haskell’s lazy evaluation strategy and infinite objects the same topics in more depth, sometimes in combination. They played only a very minor role and were introduced only toward were optional, but in the first iteration of the course, the students the end. Initially, we were worried that laziness might confuse who collected at least 40% of the possible points were awarded a students when they accidentally stumble across it before it has been bonus of 0.3 to the final grade, on a scale from 1.0 (≈ A+) to 5.0 introduced, but this was not reported as a problem by any of the (≈ F).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Processing an Intermediate Representation Written in Lisp
    Processing an Intermediate Representation Written in Lisp Ricardo Pena,˜ Santiago Saavedra, Jaime Sanchez-Hern´ andez´ Complutense University of Madrid, Spain∗ [email protected],[email protected],[email protected] In the context of designing the verification platform CAVI-ART, we arrived to the need of deciding a textual format for our intermediate representation of programs. After considering several options, we finally decided to use S-expressions for that textual representation, and Common Lisp for processing it in order to obtain the verification conditions. In this paper, we discuss the benefits of this decision. S-expressions are homoiconic, i.e. they can be both considered as data and as code. We exploit this duality, and extensively use the facilities of the Common Lisp environment to make different processing with these textual representations. In particular, using a common compilation scheme we show that program execution, and verification condition generation, can be seen as two instantiations of the same generic process. 1 Introduction Building a verification platform such as CAVI-ART [7] is a challenging endeavour from many points of view. Some of the tasks require intensive research which can make advance the state of the art, as it is for instance the case of automatic invariant synthesis. Some others are not so challenging, but require a lot of pondering and discussion before arriving at a decision, in order to ensure that all the requirements have been taken into account. A bad or a too quick decision may have a profound influence in the rest of the activities, by doing them either more difficult, or longer, or more inefficient.
    [Show full text]
  • Rubicon: Bounded Verification of Web Applications
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DSpace@MIT Rubicon: Bounded Verification of Web Applications Joseph P. Near, Daniel Jackson Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA, USA {jnear,dnj}@csail.mit.edu ABSTRACT ification language is an extension of the Ruby-based RSpec We present Rubicon, an application of lightweight formal domain-specific language for testing [7]; Rubicon adds the methods to web programming. Rubicon provides an embed- quantifiers of first-order logic, allowing programmers to re- ded domain-specific language for writing formal specifica- place RSpec tests over a set of mock objects with general tions of web applications and performs automatic bounded specifications over all objects. This compatibility with the checking that those specifications hold. Rubicon's language existing RSpec language makes it easy for programmers al- is based on the RSpec testing framework, and is designed to ready familiar with testing to write specifications, and to be both powerful and familiar to programmers experienced convert existing RSpec tests into specifications. in testing. Rubicon's analysis leverages the standard Ruby interpreter to perform symbolic execution, generating veri- Rubicon's automated analysis comprises two parts: first, fication conditions that Rubicon discharges using the Alloy Rubicon generates verification conditions based on specifica- Analyzer. We have tested Rubicon's scalability on five real- tions; second, Rubicon invokes a constraint solver to check world applications, and found a previously unknown secu- those conditions. The Rubicon library modifies the envi- rity bug in Fat Free CRM, a popular customer relationship ronment so that executing a specification performs symbolic management system.
    [Show full text]
  • HOL-Testgen Version 1.8 USER GUIDE
    HOL-TestGen Version 1.8 USER GUIDE Achim Brucker, Lukas Brügger, Abderrahmane Feliachi, Chantal Keller, Matthias Krieger, Delphine Longuet, Yakoub Nemouchi, Frédéric Tuong, Burkhart Wolff To cite this version: Achim Brucker, Lukas Brügger, Abderrahmane Feliachi, Chantal Keller, Matthias Krieger, et al.. HOL-TestGen Version 1.8 USER GUIDE. [Technical Report] Univeristé Paris-Saclay; LRI - CNRS, University Paris-Sud. 2016. hal-01765526 HAL Id: hal-01765526 https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01765526 Submitted on 12 Apr 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. R L R I A P P O R HOL-TestGen Version 1.8 USER GUIDE T BRUCKER A D / BRUGGER L / FELIACHI A / KELLER C / KRIEGER M P / LONGUET D / NEMOUCHI Y / TUONG F / WOLFF B D Unité Mixte de Recherche 8623 E CNRS-Université Paris Sud-LRI 04/2016 R Rapport de Recherche N° 1586 E C H E R C CNRS – Université de Paris Sud H Centre d’Orsay LABORATOIRE DE RECHERCHE EN INFORMATIQUE E Bâtiment 650 91405 ORSAY Cedex (France) HOL-TestGen 1.8.0 User Guide http://www.brucker.ch/projects/hol-testgen/ Achim D. Brucker Lukas Brügger Abderrahmane Feliachi Chantal Keller Matthias P.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Languages with Interpreters and Functional Programming Chapter 11
    Exploring Languages with Interpreters and Functional Programming Chapter 11 H. Conrad Cunningham 24 January 2019 Contents 11 Software Testing Concepts 2 11.1 Chapter Introduction . .2 11.2 Software Requirements Specification . .2 11.3 What is Software Testing? . .3 11.4 Goals of Testing . .3 11.5 Dimensions of Testing . .3 11.5.1 Testing levels . .4 11.5.2 Testing methods . .6 11.5.2.1 Black-box testing . .6 11.5.2.2 White-box testing . .8 11.5.2.3 Gray-box testing . .9 11.5.2.4 Ad hoc testing . .9 11.5.3 Testing types . .9 11.5.4 Combining levels, methods, and types . 10 11.6 Aside: Test-Driven Development . 10 11.7 Principles for Test Automation . 12 11.8 What Next? . 15 11.9 Exercises . 15 11.10Acknowledgements . 15 11.11References . 16 11.12Terms and Concepts . 17 Copyright (C) 2018, H. Conrad Cunningham Professor of Computer and Information Science University of Mississippi 211 Weir Hall P.O. Box 1848 University, MS 38677 1 (662) 915-5358 Browser Advisory: The HTML version of this textbook requires a browser that supports the display of MathML. A good choice as of October 2018 is a recent version of Firefox from Mozilla. 2 11 Software Testing Concepts 11.1 Chapter Introduction The goal of this chapter is to survey the important concepts, terminology, and techniques of software testing in general. The next chapter illustrates these techniques by manually constructing test scripts for Haskell functions and modules. 11.2 Software Requirements Specification The purpose of a software development project is to meet particular needs and expectations of the project’s stakeholders.
    [Show full text]
  • Beginner's Luck
    Beginner’s Luck A Language for Property-Based Generators Leonidas Lampropoulos1 Diane Gallois-Wong2,3 Cat˘ alin˘ Hrit¸cu2 John Hughes4 Benjamin C. Pierce1 Li-yao Xia2,3 1University of Pennsylvania, USA 2INRIA Paris, France 3ENS Paris, France 4Chalmers University, Sweden Abstract An appealing feature of QuickCheck is that it offers a library Property-based random testing a` la QuickCheck requires build- of property combinators resembling standard logical operators. For ing efficient generators for well-distributed random data satisfying example, a property of the form p ==> q, built using the impli- complex logical predicates, but writing these generators can be dif- cation combinator ==>, will be tested automatically by generating ficult and error prone. We propose a domain-specific language in valuations (assignments of random values, of appropriate type, to which generators are conveniently expressed by decorating pred- the free variables of p and q), discarding those valuations that fail icates with lightweight annotations to control both the distribu- to satisfy p, and checking whether any of the ones that remain are tion of generated values and the amount of constraint solving that counterexamples to q. happens before each variable is instantiated. This language, called QuickCheck users soon learn that this default generate-and-test Luck, makes generators easier to write, read, and maintain. approach sometimes does not give satisfactory results. In particular, We give Luck a formal semantics and prove several fundamen- if the precondition p is satisfied by relatively few values of the ap- tal properties, including the soundness and completeness of random propriate type, then most of the random inputs that QuickCheck generation with respect to a standard predicate semantics.
    [Show full text]
  • Quickcheck Tutorial
    QuickCheck Tutorial Thomas Arts John Hughes Quviq AB Queues Erlang contains a queue data structure (see stdlib documentation) We want to test that these queues behave as expected What is “expected” behaviour? We have a mental model of queues that the software should conform to. Erlang Exchange 2008 © Quviq AB 2 Queue Mental model of a fifo queue …… first last …… Remove from head Insert at tail / rear Erlang Exchange 2008 © Quviq AB 3 Queue Traditional test cases could look like: We want to check for arbitrary elements that Q0 = queue:new(), if we add an element, Q1 = queue:cons(1,Q0), it's there. 1 = queue:last(Q1). Q0 = queue:new(), We want to check for Q1 = queue:cons(8,Q0), arbitrary queues that last added element is Q2 = queue:cons(0,Q1), "last" 0 = queue:last(Q2), Property is like an abstraction of a test case Erlang Exchange 2008 © Quviq AB 4 QuickCheck property We want to know that for any element, when we add it, it's there prop_itsthere() -> ?FORALL(I,int(), I == queue:last( queue:cons(I, queue:new()))). Erlang Exchange 2008 © Quviq AB 5 QuickCheck property We want to know that for any element, when we add it, it's there prop_itsthere() -> ?FORALL(I,int(), I == queue:last( queue:cons(I, queue:new()))). This is a property Test cases are generasted from such properties Erlang Exchange 2008 © Quviq AB 6 QuickCheck property We want to know that for any element, when we add it, it's there int() is a generator for random integers prop_itsthere() -> ?FORALL(I,int(), I == queue:last( queue:cons(I, I represents one queue:new()))).
    [Show full text]
  • Branching Processes for Quickcheck Generators (Extended Version)
    Branching Processes for QuickCheck Generators (extended version) Agustín Mista Alejandro Russo John Hughes Universidad Nacional de Rosario Chalmers University of Technology Chalmers University of Technology Rosario, Argentina Gothenburg, Sweden Gothenburg, Sweden [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract random test data generators or QuickCheck generators for short. In QuickCheck (or, more generally, random testing), it is chal- The generation of test cases is guided by the types involved in lenging to control random data generators’ distributions— the testing properties. It defines default generators for many specially when it comes to user-defined algebraic data types built-in types like booleans, integers, and lists. However, when (ADT). In this paper, we adapt results from an area of mathe- it comes to user-defined ADTs, developers are usually required matics known as branching processes, and show how they help to specify the generation process. The difficulty is, however, to analytically predict (at compile-time) the expected number that it might become intricate to define generators so that they of generated constructors, even in the presence of mutually result in a suitable distribution or enforce data invariants. recursive or composite ADTs. Using our probabilistic formu- The state-of-the-art tools to derive generators for user- las, we design heuristics capable of automatically adjusting defined ADTs can be classified based on the automation level probabilities in order to synthesize generators which distribu- as well as the sort of invariants enforced at the data genera- tions are aligned with users’ demands. We provide a Haskell tion phase. QuickCheck and SmallCheck [27] (a tool for writing implementation of our mechanism in a tool called generators that synthesize small test cases) use type-driven and perform case studies with real-world applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundational Property-Based Testing
    Foundational Property-Based Testing Zoe Paraskevopoulou1,2 Cat˘ alin˘ Hrit¸cu1 Maxime Den´ es` 1 Leonidas Lampropoulos3 Benjamin C. Pierce3 1Inria Paris-Rocquencourt 2ENS Cachan 3University of Pennsylvania Abstract Integrating property-based testing with a proof assistant creates an interesting opportunity: reusable or tricky testing code can be formally verified using the proof assistant itself. In this work we introduce a novel methodology for formally verified property-based testing and implement it as a foundational verification framework for QuickChick, a port of QuickCheck to Coq. Our frame- work enables one to verify that the executable testing code is testing the right Coq property. To make verification tractable, we provide a systematic way for reasoning about the set of outcomes a random data generator can produce with non-zero probability, while abstracting away from the actual probabilities. Our framework is firmly grounded in a fully verified implementation of QuickChick itself, using the same underlying verification methodology. We also apply this methodology to a complex case study on testing an information-flow control abstract machine, demonstrating that our verification methodology is modular and scalable and that it requires minimal changes to existing code. 1 Introduction Property-based testing (PBT) allows programmers to capture informal conjectures about their code as executable specifications and to thoroughly test these conjectures on a large number of inputs, usually randomly generated. When a counterexample is found it is shrunk to a minimal one, which is displayed to the programmer. The original Haskell QuickCheck [19], the first popular PBT tool, has inspired ports to every mainstream programming language and led to a growing body of continuing research [6,18,26,35,39] and industrial interest [2,33].
    [Show full text]
  • Specification Based Testing with Quickcheck
    Specification Based Testing with QuickCheck (Tutorial Talk) John Hughes Chalmers University of Technology and QuviQ AB ABSTRACT QuickCheck is a tool which tests software against a formal specification, reporting discrepancies as minimal failing examples. QuickCheck uses properties specified by the developer both to generate test cases, and to identify failing tests. A property such as 8xs : list(int()): reverse(reverse(xs)) = xs is tested by generating random lists of integers, binding them to the variable xs, then evaluating the boolean expression under the quantifier and reporting a failure if the value is false. If a failing test case is found, QuickCheck “shrinks” it by searching for smaller, but similar test cases that also fail, terminating with a minimal example that cannot be shrunk further. In this example, if the developer accidentally wrote 8xs : list(int()): reverse(xs) = xs instead, then QuickCheck would report the list [0; 1] as the minimal failing case, containing as few list elements as possible, with the smallest absolute values possible. The approach is very practical: QuickCheck is implemented just a library in a host programming language; it needs only to execute the code under test, so requires no tools other than a compiler (in particular, no static analysis); the shrinking process “extracts the signal from the noise” of random testing, and usually results in very easy-to-debug failures. First developed in Haskell by Koen Claessen and myself, QuickCheck has been emulated in many programming languages, and in 2006 I founded QuviQ to develop and market an Erlang version. Of course, customers’ code is much more complex than the simple reverse function above, and requires much more complex properties to test it.
    [Show full text]
  • Webdriver: Controlling Your Web Browser
    WebDriver: Controlling your Web Browser Erlang User Conference 2013 Hans Svensson, Quviq AB [email protected] First, a confession... I have a confession to make... I have built a web system! In PHP! ... and it was painfully mundane to test It is all forgotten and forgiven... It was back in 2003! First DEMO DEMO A bit of history Proving program Erlang correctness Reality – a constant issue PhD Testing is studentPhD necessary A bit of history Proving program Erlang correctness Reality – a constant issue PhD Testing is studentPhD necessary • We like to write our properties in QuickCheck • How can we control ‘a browser’ from Erlang? • Doing it all from scratch seems hard, unnecessary, stupid, ... Selenium “Selenium automates browsers. That's it. What you do with that power is entirely up to you. Primarily it is for automating web applications for testing purposes, but is certainly not limited to just that. Boring web-based administration tasks can (and should!) also be automated as well.” Selenium • Basically you can create and run scripts • Supported by a wide range of browsers and operating systems • Run tests in: Chrome, IE, Opera, Firefox, and partial support also for other browsers. • Runs on: Windows, OS X, Linux, Solaris, and others. • Script recording using Selenium IDE (Firefox plugin). • Language support for: C#, Java, Python, Ruby, and partial support for Perl and PHP. • Widely used to create Unit-tests and regression testing suites for web services. Selenium 2 - WebDriver • In version 2, Selenium introduced the WebDriver API • Via WebDriver it is possible to drive the browser natively • The browser can be local or remote – possible to use a grid test • It is a compact Object Oriented API • Supports Chrome, Firefox, HtmlUnit, Opera, IE, and IPhone and Android • Languages implementing driver: C#, Java, Python, and Ruby.
    [Show full text]
  • Quickcheck - Random Property-Based Testing
    QuickCheck - Random Property-based Testing Arnold Schwaighofer QuickCheck - Random Property-based Haskell - A Truly (Cool) Functional Programming Testing Language Why Functional Programming And In Particular Quickcheck - A Truly Cool QuickCheck Is Cool Property Based Testing Tool Summary Custom Random Arnold Schwaighofer Data Generators Resources Institute for Formal Models and Verification References Johannes Kepler University Linz 26 June 2007 / KV Debugging QuickCheck - Random Outline Property-based Testing Arnold Schwaighofer Haskell - A Truly (Cool) Functional Programming Language Haskell - A Truly (Cool) Functional What - Functional Programming Programming Language How - Functional Programming Quickcheck - A Why - Functional Programming Truly Cool Property Based Testing Tool Quickcheck - A Truly Cool Property Based Testing Tool Summary Custom Random What - Random Property Based Testing Data Generators How - Random Property Based Testing Resources Why - Random Property Based Testing References Success Stories Related Work And Outlook Summary QuickCheck - Random Outline Property-based Testing Arnold Schwaighofer Haskell - A Truly (Cool) Functional Programming Language Haskell - A Truly (Cool) Functional What - Functional Programming Programming Language How - Functional Programming Quickcheck - A Why - Functional Programming Truly Cool Property Based Testing Tool Quickcheck - A Truly Cool Property Based Testing Tool Summary Custom Random What - Random Property Based Testing Data Generators How - Random Property Based Testing Resources
    [Show full text]
  • Hypothesis: a New Approach to Property-Based Testing
    Hypothesis: A new approach to property-based testing David R. MacIver1, Zac Hatfield-Dodds2, and many other contributors3 1 Imperial College London 2 Australian National University 3 Various DOI: 10.21105/joss.01891 Software • Review Summary • Repository • Archive Property-based testing is a style of testing popularised by the QuickCheck family of libraries, first in Haskell (Claessen & Hughes, 2000) and later in Erlang (Arts, Hughes, Johansson,& Editor: Daniel S. Katz Wiger, 2006), which integrates generated test cases into existing software testing workflows: Instead of tests that provide examples of a single concrete behaviour, tests specify properties Reviewers: that hold for a wide range of inputs, which the testing library then attempts to generate test • @luizirber cases to refute. For a general introduction to property-based testing, see (MacIver, 2019). • @djmitche Hypothesis is a mature and widely used property-based testing library for Python. It has over Submitted: 12 November 2019 100,000 downloads per week1, thousands of open source projects use it2, and in 2018 more Published: 21 November 2019 than 4% of Python users surveyed by the PSF reported using it3. It will be of interest both to License researchers using Python for developing scientific software, and to software testing researchers Authors of papers retain as a platform for research in its own right. copyright and release the work under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Hypothesis for Testing Scientific Software License (CC-BY). Python has a rich and thriving ecosystem of scientific software, and Hypothesis is helpful for ensuring its correctness. Any researcher who tests their software in Python can benefit from these facilities, but it is particularly useful for improving the correctness foundational libraries on which the scientific software ecosystem is built.
    [Show full text]