3 ms·
Very true. For me, fuzzers and property-based tests are two sides of the same coin. I'd just use whichever feels more natural.
by jgalt212 2y ago
Very true. For me, fuzzers and property-based tests are two sides of the same coin. I'd just use whichever feels more natural.
- pfdietz 2y agoThinking about the difference, I wonder if there is a PBT framework that would exploit feedback like fuzzing does, to improve coverage.
- chriswarbo 2y agoThe Choice Gradient Sampling algorithm shown in the paper could be used to integrate/exploit feedback (coverage, etc.). Hypothesis can use a fuzzer as its input source, but it's marked as experimental. It doesn't seem like "proper" fuzzers are used very often with Haskell (e.g. there's an example at https://www.tweag.io/blog/2023-06-15-ghc-libfuzzer/ https://www.tweag.io/blog/2023-06-15-ghc-libfuzzer/ ), though many people seem to have hooked up the HPC code coverage tool to property checkers, e.g. https://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/users/karkare/MTP/2011-12/subhash2012quickeval.pdf https://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/users/karkare/MTP/2011-12/subhash... https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~tora/irulan/issta.pdf https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~tora/irulan/issta.pdf https://github.com/shapr/kudzu https://github.com/shapr/kudzu