[ANN] QCheck 0.90: The Great Renaming

Community
, ,
5

Thanks for you answer.

Can you show an example using it? I couldn’t find even a single usage in practice at
neither Sherlocode nor Code search results · GitHub

I just had a few instances of the following, where I simply replaced int_corners with its definition:

let to_of_int =
  QCheck_alcotest.to_alcotest ~colors:true ~verbose:true
    QCheck2.(
      Test.make ~count:200 ~name:"to_of_int" ~print:string_of_int
        Gen.(graft_corners int [ min_int; -2; -1; 0; 1; 2; max_int ] ())
        (fun n -> V.to_int (V.of_int n) = n))

This is not very important, and maybe this is not even the correct way to use it.

Please open an issue upstream on the repo with this GitHub - c-cube/qcheck: QuickCheck inspired property-based testing for OCaml. with a bit more detail. I don’t use QCheck_alcotest much myself, but we are certainly open to making the improving the integration.

Will do.

This is not entirely accurate. QCheck2 and QCheck both offer tup2, tup3, …, as well as pair, triple and quad:

Sorry, I didn’t see those. So, even if I preferred tup2, etc., I can at least use the same convention for both alcotest and qcheck.

FTR, I don’t find int_nonneg as a combinator name to necessarily be better, as it describes by complement (“doesn’t produce negatives”) in contrast to stating what is produced… :thinking:

I does describe what it produces: it produces nonnegative integers! Anyway, I don’t advocate any change in the code, but maybe the documentation Gen (qcheck-core.QCheck2.Gen) can be made a bit more consistent (e.g., the doc of int_pos_small says “positive integers (0 included)”, the doc of int_pos says “non-strictly positive”). But all of this is minor; overall I like QCheck very much.