ohbarye

It's very basic content though, here's the slides of my presentation at RubyKaigi 2024. This also includes the PBT gems's explanations.

https://speakerdeck.com/ohbarye/unlocking-potential-of-prope...

Speaking of my personal story, I used the fast-check documentation and Fred Herbert's book (their links are in the README) to study.

I love seeing people suggest clever names I couldn't have thought of.

Good point. There's already such a project to run PBT based on RBS. I'm also keeping an eye on this.

https://github.com/ksss/raap

Wow, I didn't know about them. Thanks for letting me know!

Yeah, the easiest way is to generate attributes and instantiate any Rails model like the one below:

    Pbt.assert do
      Pbt.property(name: Pbt.printable_string, age: Pbt.integer(min: 0, max: 100)) do |name:, age:|
        user = User.new(name: name, age: age)
        # write your test here
      end
    end

I think there are usually three actions a programmer can take when PBT fails.

- Create a test case that doesn't depend on PBT as you suggest.

- Fix the production code being tested since its failure is an unexpected bug.

- Fix the PBT itself. This means that the programmer has had wrong assumption for the test target.

I think it's difficult for the tool to know which choice is the best on a failure. But if there's any good idea, I'd like to incorporate it. :)

>yes, because you're changing the order in which the random draws are interpreted. But this isn't a problem in practice because you generally aren't changing the generator in the middle of debugging a failure.

Correct. The test inputs are determined by a seed and generators (including the order of generators).

I can really empathize. Hope the Ruby ecosystem gets more compatible with Ractor.

Thank you.

In my opinion, PBT should be used in combination with example-based testing. Besides, since example-based testing cases account for the majority of tests, I think it's rare that PBT's execution time is dominant.

As for the combination and usages, refs: https://medium.com/criteo-engineering/introduction-to-proper...

Thank you. I hope the gem will make your testing life happier!

The answer to both questions is yes.

This gem doesn't aim to reimplement a testing framework. It can also be considered just an assertion. You can use this alongside any testing framework like RSpec, minitest, and etc.

Maybe not only 100 lines of code though, I think of Code Crafters. https://github.com/codecrafters-io/build-your-own-x

This comment describes well. https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/45553#issuecomment-11795...

That's new to me even though I'm Japanese. lol