I'm just starting out using ZIO in Scala. I've written some Scalacheck-style tests using ZIO's Gen type, and they appear to work, but I'd like to manually test the generators in the REPL to ensure that they're actually producing the data I expect them to.
The problem: everything in ZIO is wrapped in the ZIO monad, and I need to pass the right data into this monad to unwrap it and view the results. And there's no documentation explaining how to do this in the REPL.
I think I understand how to do it for a basic program with no environment dependencies: call zio.Runtime.default.unsafeRun. But the Gen objects expect an environment of type Random with Sized, and I don't know how to produce an instance of this.
Given a Gen[Random with Sized, T], what is the quickest way to execute it on the REPL and get a List[T] of generated values?
I think I've found a partial solution, but I'm not completely satisfied with it.
For just printing some samples from a Gen on the REPL, this works:
zio.Runtime.default.unsafeRun(
yourGenerator
.runCollectN(50)
.provideLayer(zio.random.Random.live +!+ zio.test.Sized.live(100))
) foreach println
But I don't think this is how it's supposed to be done. provideLayer doesn't typecheck unless I provide both Random and Sized, even though Random should be part of zio.Runtime.default. I think there's something about ZLayer that I still don't understand.
Related
Is the reason a val variable can be used to contain a function definition is because functions are first class citizens where they can be contained in variables?
In Scala damn near everything is an expression. From a practical perspective what that means is pretty much every bit of syntactically correct Scala code that you can write evaluates to an object that can you can do more Scala on. Examples of things you can do to these objects are: call a method on it, pass it to a function, or store it in a val. Expressions can be thought of in contrast to statements, which are just instructions to the computer to do something. An example of the use of statements in Scala are import commands. The heavy prevalence of expressions in Scala are a deliberate design choice intended to make the language more flexible and extensible.
I am going through the coursera functional programming and have an assignment where the scalatest is written using FunSuite and Checkers.
This test framework is new to me but I have some basic idea of using assertion, as I have developed pigunit for an user defined function using assert.
As google didn't give me clear usage of Checkers and how it is different from assert, could anyone clarify where Checkers can be used and why not assert be used.
Thanks
As you know, an assertion is a way of testing that a certain condition holds. These are pretty simple in ScalaTest, as you only need to use assert. For example:
assert(List(1, 2, 3).length == 3)
"Checkers," or, as they are more often called, properties, are a bit different. They are a way to assert that a condition holds for all possible inputs instead of for a single case. For example, here is a property that tests that a list always has a nonnegative length:
check((ls: List[Int]) => ls.length >= 0)
At this point, ScalaTest defers to ScalaCheck to do the heavy lifting. ScalaCheck generates random values for ls in an effort to find one that fails the test. This concept is called property-based testing. You can read more about how to use it in ScalaTest here.
In ScalaTest configuration.scala, methods are taking PosInt rather than Int. eg: MinSuccessful(value: PosInt) What's the difference among them?
My research on line shows that they belong to Anyvals. How does that benefit the scala test process?
They are just small wrappers around ints that verify at compile-time that the value is positive (or non-negative for PosZInt). See the documentation here.
The purpose is to prevent you from doing, for example, MinSuccessful(-1).
Im working with scalatest and scalacheck, alsso working with FeatureSpec.
I have a generator class that generate object for me that looks something like this:
object InvoiceGen {
def myObj = for {
country <- Gen.oneOf(Seq("France", "Germany", "United Kingdom", "Austria"))
type <- Gen.oneOf(Seq("Communication", "Restaurants", "Parking"))
amount <- Gen.choose(100, 4999)
number <- Gen.choose(1, 10000)
valid <- Arbitrary.arbitrary[Boolean]
} yield SomeObject(country, type, "1/1/2014", amount,number.toString, 35, "something", documentTypeValid, valid, "")
Now, I have the testing class which works with FeatureSpec and everything that I need to run the tests.
In this class I have scenarios, and in each scenario I want to generate a different object.
The thing is from what I understand is that to generate object is better to use forAll func, but for all will not sure to bring you an object so you can add minSuccessful(1) to make sure you get at list 1 obj....
I did it like this and it works:
scenario("some scenario") {
forAll(MyGen.myObj, minSuccessful(1)) { someObject =>
Given("A connection to the system")
loginActions shouldBe 'Connected
When("something")
//blabla
Then("something should happened")
//blabla
}
}
but im not sure exactly what it means.
What I want is to generate an invoice each scenario and do some actions on it...
im not sure why i care if the generation work or didnt work...i just want a generated object to work with.
TL;DR: To get one object, and only one, use myObj.sample.get. Unless your generator is doing something fancy that's perfectly safe and won't blow up.
I presume that your intention is to run some kind of integration/acceptance test with some randomly generated domain object—in other words (ab-)use scalacheck as a simple data generator—and you hope that minSuccessful(1) would ensure that the test only runs once.
Be aware that this is not the case!. scalacheck will run your test multiple times if it fails, to try and shrink the input data to a minimal counterexample.
If you'd like to ensure that your test runs only once you must use sample.
However, if running the test multiple times is fine, prefer minSuccessful(1) to "succeed fast" but still profit from minimized counterexamples in case the test fails.
Gen.sample returns an option because generators can fail:
ScalaCheck generators can fail, for instance if you're adding a filter (listingGen.suchThat(...)), and that failure is modeled with the Option type.
But:
[…] if you're sure that your generator never will fail, you can simply call Option.get like you do in your example above. Or you can use Option.getOrElse to replace None with a default value.
Generally if your generator is simple, i.e. does not use generators that could fail and does not use any filters on its own, it's perfectly safe to just call .get on the option returned by .sample. I've been doing that in the past and never had problems with it. If your generators frequently return None from .sample they'd likely make scalacheck fail to successfully generate values as well.
If all that you want is a single object use Gen.sample.get.
minSuccessful has a very different meaning: It's the minimal number of successful tests that scalacheck runs—which by no means implies
that scalacheck takes only a single value out of the generator, or
that the test runs only once.
With minSuccessful(1) scalacheck wants one successful test. It'll take samples out of the generator until the test runs at least once—i.e. if you filter the generated values with whenever in your test body scalacheck will take samples as long as whenever discards them.
If the test passes scalacheck is happy and won't run the test a second time.
However if the test fails scalacheck will try and produce a minimal example to fail the test. It'll shrink the input data and run the test as long as it fails and then provides you with the minimized counter example rather than the actual input that triggered the initial failure.
That's an important property of property testing as it helps you to discover bugs: The original data is frequently too large to lend itself for debugging. Minimizing it helps you discover the piece of input data that actually triggers the failure, i.e. corner cases like empty strings that you didn't think of.
I think the way you want to use Scalacheck (generate only one object and execute the test for it) defeats the purpose of property-based testing. Let me explain a bit in detail:
In classical unit-testing, you would generate your system under test, be it an object or a system of dependent objects, with some fixed data. This could e.g. be strings like "foo" and "bar" or, if you needed a name, you would use something like "John Doe". For integers and other data, you can also randomly choose some values.
The main advantage is that these are "plain" values—you can directly see them in the code and correlate them with the output of a failed test. The big disadvantage is that the tests will only ever run with the values you specified, which in turn means that your code is also only tested with these values.
In contrast, property-based testing allows you to just describe how the data should look like (e.g. "a positive integer", "a string of maximum 20 characters"). The testing framework will then—with the help of generators—generate a number of matching objects and execute the test for all of them. This way, you can be more sure that your code will actually be correct for different inputs, which after all is the purpose of testing: to check if your code does what it should for the possible inputs.
I never really worked with Scalacheck, but a colleague explained it to me that it also tries to cover edge-cases, e.g. putting in a 0 and MAX_INT for a positive integer, or an empty string for the aforementioned string with max. 20 characters.
So, to sum it up: Running a property-based test only once for one generic object is the wrong thing to do. Instead, once you have the generator infrastructure in place, embrace the advantage you then have and let your code be checked a lot more times!
In groovy one can do:
class Foo {
Integer a,b
}
Map map = [a:1,b:2]
def foo = new Foo(map) // map expanded, object created
I understand that Scala is not in any sense of the word, Groovy, but am wondering if map expansion in this context is supported
Simplistically, I tried and failed with:
case class Foo(a:Int, b:Int)
val map = Map("a"-> 1, "b"-> 2)
Foo(map: _*) // no dice, always applied to first property
A related thread that shows possible solutions to the problem.
Now, from what I've been able to dig up, as of Scala 2.9.1 at least, reflection in regard to case classes is basically a no-op. The net effect then appears to be that one is forced into some form of manual object creation, which, given the power of Scala, is somewhat ironic.
I should mention that the use case involves the servlet request parameters map. Specifically, using Lift, Play, Spray, Scalatra, etc., I would like to take the sanitized params map (filtered via routing layer) and bind it to a target case class instance without needing to manually create the object, nor specify its types. This would require "reliable" reflection and implicits like "str2Date" to handle type conversion errors.
Perhaps in 2.10 with the new reflection library, implementing the above will be cake. Only 2 months into Scala, so just scratching the surface; I do not see any straightforward way to pull this off right now (for seasoned Scala developers, maybe doable)
Well, the good news is that Scala's Product interface, implemented by all case classes, actually doesn't make this very hard to do. I'm the author of a Scala serialization library called Salat that supplies some utilities for using pickled Scala signatures to get typed field information
https://github.com/novus/salat - check out some of the utilities in the salat-util package.
Actually, I think this is something that Salat should do - what a good idea.
Re: D.C. Sobral's point about the impossibility of verifying params at compile time - point taken, but in practice this should work at runtime just like deserializing anything else with no guarantees about structure, like JSON or a Mongo DBObject. Also, Salat has utilities to leverage default args where supplied.
This is not possible, because it is impossible to verify at compile time that all parameters were passed in that map.