3 ms·
Interesting. I've used gopter a lot for property-based testing, though it's very complex (and impressive), and can get slow or require hacks for complex types.
by diegs 5y ago
Interesting. I've used gopter a lot for property-based testing, though it's very complex (and impressive), and can get slow or require hacks for complex types.
I'm glad this is being made, but like many other things that have been added to Go, it shows the limitations of the language that you can't just build this inside the language. (I might be wrong, as I haven't had a chance to look at the design docs/implementation yet, but the installation instructions imply that's the case).
- icholy 5y ago> it shows the limitations of the language that you can't just build this inside the language. Not sure why you'd make that assumption. https://github.com/dvyukov/go-fuzz https://github.com/dvyukov/go-fuzz
- nemo1618 5y agogo-fuzz requires an instrumented binary. It's essentially a forked Go compiler. So I think it's fair to call this a limitation of the language. But I don't see that as a negative. :)
- stevekemp 5y agoYeah go-fuzz is an awesome tool, which I've used extensively on some of my own projects. When writing parsers and compilers it has proven eerily good at identify corner-cases (panics, and infinite loops). I'm looking forward to trying the new approach out. Anything that makes fuzz-testing easier to configure/maintain and spreads awareness is a good thing in my book.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]