4 ms·

Isn’t this basically fuzzing? Making sure it works at the business domain level is another thing entirely.

• matsemann 5y ago
  Not exactly fuzzing, no. Most tests are written with a fixed date, or now(). Instead, using now()+delta can help discover future bugs and give you some time to remedy the issue. Often annoying to write tests like that, though, without them breaking for unrelated/timing issues compared to a fixed value.
• fragmede 5y ago
  not especially. Fuzzing would be running the software with an API to test all of the possible dates.
  • jacquesm 5y ago
    No, that's exhaustive testing. This is fuzzing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzing
    • azernik 5y ago
      A date 6 months in the future is not invalid or off; it is a normal input that the program is expected to receive in the future. Fuzzing would be testing the date parser by passing it '25-44-2021' to see what breaks.
      • jacquesm 5y ago
        Indeed. But you probably meant to address the parent, rather than my comment.
        • azernik 5y ago
          Blerp
      • pimlottc 5y ago
        Fuzzing inputs don’t necessarily have to be invalid, just dynamically generated in order to probe program states not normally exercised by manually generated test data. Per Wikipedia: “providing invalid, unexpected or random data as inputs”
        • hughrr 5y ago
          Exactly my original point. Invalid input is invalid input
          • 0x0000000 5y ago
            Valid, random inputs is still fuzzing, which is what the person you are replying to was sharing with the quote from Wikipedia. Inputs don't have to be invalid for it to be fuzzing.
• chmod600 5y ago
  If you expect your software to exist in 6 months, then the input is entirely expected, and therefore not fuzzing. It's a nice early-warning system for Y2K or Y2038-like problems.