3 ms·
Forall A: add(A, 0) == A Forall A B C: add(add(A,B), C) == add(A, add(B, C)) I think that’s sufficient. Rule 101 of useful testing is understandin
by cronin101 5y ago
Forall A:
add(A, 0) == A
Forall A B C:
add(add(A,B), C) == add(A, add(B, C))
I think that’s sufficient. Rule 101 of useful testing is understanding the actual constraints you rely on.
Maybe throw in add(A, B) == add(B, A) if you’re angling for a promotion…
- postalrat 5y agoadd(a, b) => a == 1 && b == 1 ? 1 : a + b Kinda disappointing your test would take so long to run and still catch a simple error.
- milkey_mouse 5y ago> your test would take so long to run I think GP's test would probably be implemented with property testing (or even better, symbolic execution). It wouldn't necessarily take super long to run.
- postalrat 5y agoHow difficult would it be to write a proper test with one of those systems for something more complex when even this trivial example doesn't have solution yet?