3 ms·
You might find the approach used in UnitTestDesign.jl [1] to be useful. If I understand it correctly, the package tests combinations where more than one paramet
by sidpatil 5y ago
You might find the approach used in UnitTestDesign.jl [1] to be useful. If I understand it correctly, the package tests combinations where more than one parameter changes, since it assumes this is when breakage is more likely to occur, versus the exhaustive testing you're trying to avoid.
Disclaimer: I haven't actually tried this approach yet.
[1] https://github.com/adolgert/UnitTestDesign.jl https://github.com/adolgert/UnitTestDesign.jl
- quacked 5y agoThanks, this looks interesting and I may investigate it further. Side question--are you aware of any notation methodologies for tracking "forbidden pairings" in multi-variable input situations? For instance, the project you linked lists an example test_set generation as: > test_set = all_pairs( > [1, 2, 3], ["low", "mid" ,"high"], [1.0, 3.7, 4.9], [:greedy, :relax, :optim] > ) How might I use mathematical or code notation to store the fact that "low" is an invalid pairing with "1.0" and ":greedy", which then invalidates all combinations including that pairing and reduces my total scope?
- sidpatil 5y agoThe Wikipedia page on all-pairs testing [1] features a mathematical representation of the valid and invalid parameter permutations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-pairs_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-pairs_testing