4 ms·

I independently discovered PBT when I was a junior, and suggested we use it. My coworkers rejected it because tests should be predictable, and it's the programm

• skybrian 1y ago
  You do need to be able to reproduce a test failure, which can be done by printing the inputs or the random seed used in a way that makes it trivial to rerun it.
  • alkonaut 1y ago
    I think it goes without saying. PBT shouldn't be random-random (e.g. use a timestamp or cryptographic seed), it should be deterministically pseudorandom if it uses random values. You shouldn't be able to run it 10 times and get 9 pass and one failure. It's either 10 passes or 10 failures.
    • Akronymus 1y ago
      > You shouldn't be able to run it 10 times and get 9 pass and one failure. It's either 10 passes or 10 failures. With property based testing, it actually CAN be 9 passes and 1 failure, because that one single fail can be hitting an edge case the others just aren't. In fact, only a few failures are more likely than it being all failures
      • bluGill 1y ago
        That is the one thing about PBT that worries me. I can write code and all tests pass, then next week the edge case I missed randomly is hit by a coworker who now has to figure out why their change broke my code (it didn't). I can tell you from experience that random failures cause loss of trust. People learn to ignore failures and just keep hitting rebuild until the tests pass. People will not investigate test failures in code that they don't understand.
        • Akronymus 1y ago
          That's a fair concern. I can only really suggest upping the amount of test cases that are ran when merging so that you get a much more extensive run for that time, and later dial it back. Along with having the seed included in the failure case, so that you can bisect to check what actually broke that test. Also, implementing a standard test alongside the property based on, for all bugs you encounter over time (basically "hard coding" one of the failure cases) But yeah, probabilistic testing isn't perfect.
          • aswerty 1y ago
            Potentially using the git hash as a seed would make sense, so for a given snapshot of code it is always going to be deterministic. When the git hash changes (i.e. your code) then that would result in a different set of test inputs running. Allowing reproducibility for a given change set.
            • Akronymus 1y ago
              That's a pretty good idea, actually. Using the git hash as a seed to seed the rng for the different runs of the PB tests. Didn't even enter my mind.
            • chriswarbo 1y ago
              Using a git hash still has the problem of a co-worker's changes (which alter the git commit) causing an unrelated property to fail. Hypothesis has a nice option, to pick the seed for each property by hashing that property's code. It's a nice idea, but relies on Python's highly dynamic nature; so may not be easy/possible in other languages (especially compiled ones).
        • jononor 1y ago
          So lock the seed in that case?
          • bluGill 1y ago
            If you lock your seed you are worse than unit tests - odds are you are not testing some interesting cases ever. The whole point of PBT is there are some properties that hold in all cases (well technically in the domain of the function inputs), so try random examples to see if I missed something. Generally the domain of all possible function inputs is a very large set such that exhaustive testing is impossible. The more different random seeds we try the better the odds we eventually catch some case that we didn't handle correctly.
      • alkonaut 1y ago
        When would that be preferable to have nondeterministic random?
        • Akronymus 1y ago
          I don't think I have said anything about it being nondeterministic. You can have a prng seeded from something like the commit hash and have prngs generate the test cases. That still can fail on 1/10 tests for a particular run.
        • Jtsummers 1y ago
          With PBT you generate an arbitrary number of inputs, ideally they all pass. However it's entirely possible that you have an error in your program and the property only holds for some inputs, but not all. In that case, since each execution starts with a different seed (unless you provide a specific seed, in which case the generated inputs should be exactly the same each time), you may have some executions that always pass, some that always fail, and others that are in between (have a mix of passes and failures). This is expected.
    • aswerty 1y ago
      Just as an anecdotal experience. It doesn't necessarily go without saying. The most memorable discussion I had around PBT was with a colleague (a skip report) who saw "true" randomness as a net benefit and that reproducibility was not a critical characteristic of the test suite (I guess the reasoning was then it could catch things at a later date?). To be honest, it scared the hell out of me and I pushed back pretty hard on them and the broader team. I have no issue with a psuedo-random set of test cases that are declaratively generated. That makes sense if that is what is meant by PBT. Since it is just a more efficient way of testing (and you would assume this would allow you to cast a wider net).
      • senderista 1y ago
        This dilemma is of course trivially solvable by persisting a (presumably randomly generated) RNG seed with each test run. You just have to ensure that your RNG is configured once with the seed at the beginning of each test run.
      • IanCal 1y ago
        What's the issue you have? The idea is you have random testing and the test failures are added as explicit tests that then always get run. Is that so different from someone else testing? The main issue is you stumble across a new issue in an unrelated branch, but it's not wildly different from doing that while using your application.
  • crabbone 1y ago
    Nah. That's not what this is about. In any system worth testing, with property-based testing, the system will take so many steps before it encounters an error that even knowing what the steps were isn't going to be very helpful in reproducing the error. I've been there. It takes many hours to try to guess where the system went wrong to produce the undesirable result, and then you still might not be sure if you are looking at the right place, and then there are always environment issues, you aren't sure of. So, you don't know who to blame. Only very simple systems will reproduce pathological results 100% of the time given some initial conditions. The bane of complex systems is the timeouts. They are usually very hard to justify and are easy to blame for undesirable behavior.
    • jononor 1y ago
      Property based testing is incredibly useful for state-free systems/modules. Especially those that have a wide/complex input space. Simple examples would be a general (de)serialization library for something like JSON.
    • skybrian 1y ago
      Yes, timeouts are bad, but that’s true even for regular tests with determininistic input. You’ll get flakes running on different machines, depending on how much load is on them. To test an entire system with reproducable failures, you probably need something more heavyweight like Antithesis. Property tests are more useful for unit tests.
      • crabbone 1y ago
        Multiple-step unit tests are easier to modify to only slightly change the behavior, which is usually too hard to do with property-based testing where small changes to initial input cause huge changes downstream. But, in general, yes, unit test failure with many steps would've been just as difficult to interpret. My experience though was that once such a difficult failure is encountered during property-based testing, one has to write a unit test to reproduce the error anyways. But it's hard to assess the probability of the unexpected behavior of being an actual bug. Sometimes you discover that the system behavior was underspecified, or that you misunderstood how the system is supposed to behave after reading the specification.
• nottorp 1y ago
  It's unrelated to this article, but I suppose this motivation is why no one has a Gremlins-like feature any more. It seems to be almost totally forgotten, since the only link I could find is an excerpt from a PalmOS programming book: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/palm-programming-the/1565925254/ch10s07.html https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/palm-programming-the/15...
  • chriswarbo 1y ago
    That sounds like fuzz testing; which is similar to PBT, but (a) usually checks a single property ("the program doesn't crash") and (b) sends data via the program/system's ordinary input channels (whereas PBT has "white box" access to internals, like unit test do).
    • mrguyorama 1y ago
      Good fuzzing workflows and tools use the flow of code and which branches get taken to help find correlations between inputs and outcomes, and uses that extra context to more efficiently fuzz inputs. In bigger programs this is an outright necessity because pure random fuzzing would basically be a lottery. I've always felt that unit testing frameworks and libraries and even parameterized testing were missing this kind of functionality. Intellij is able to run my tests and figure out the code coverage, but why isn't it closing the loop and auto-fuzzing/auto-discovering how to mutate tests to cover more? And don't point me at AI, none of this requires AI and nothing should have to "think" to do this. It's crazy to me that the vast majority of code running all the time is not exhaustively tested through almost all of it's possible state space with most of it's possible input space. It's not like we are lacking the CPU bandwidth to do it. Why can't I write a new function and have something tell me within ten minutes "this input param causes an exception" without any effort from me? Instead all those extra cores in my CPU just run javascript trash and crowdstrike scanners
      • chriswarbo 1y ago
        > Good fuzzing workflows and tools use the flow of code and which branches get taken to help find correlations between inputs and outcomes, and uses that extra context to more efficiently fuzz inputs. Sure, but that's an optimisation/implementation-detail. Similar to how PBT frameworks tend to use random generation + shrinking: it's not fundamental to the approach, but turns out to be much more effective than e.g. enumerative testing (e.g. Smallcheck), or showing un-shrunk examples. > I've always felt that unit testing frameworks and libraries and even parameterized testing were missing this kind of functionality. Coverage-guided PBT seems to have been re-invented several times (e.g. using QuickCheck with HPC in Haskell), though all the examples I've seen are toys or experiments. Hypothesis has experimental support for generating data using an external fuzzer, which presumably uses coverage (though I've not tried that feature yet). > Why can't I write a new function and have something tell me within ten minutes "this input param causes an exception" without any effort from me? I agree. One piece of advice is to respect the options provided by PBT frameworks, e.g. for the number of tests to run, the maximum discard:success ratio, the maximum "size" to pass into generators, etc. These can be tweaked per property, e.g. if a particular property is slowing down our CI we might want to only test it 20 times instead of the default of 100. However, I always make sure to transform that default value (in this case dividing it by 5) rather than setting a particular number: that way the test suite can also be run with bigger options to get a more thorough search (e.g. locally in the background, or by another CI job that's run less often, etc.). Unfortunately I've not come across a framework that will keep on checking properties continuously (say, in a round-robin fashion). Sticking the test command in a loop should probably work though: `while runTests; do sleep 1; done; notify "Tests failed!"` PS: As for "AI", I think it's better to be more specific. LLMs certainly aren't needed for this; but fuzzers have been using GOFAI techniques like genetic algorithms for a long time!
• pfdietz 1y ago
  Tests should be optimized to find bugs. Tests that you have already run have a lower chance of doing that (they only find regressions); tests with novel inputs are preferred. And since writing tests manually is so expensive, this means automatic test input generation. How do you determine if such tests pass? Properties. In practice, property based testing fails because the organization is not actually interested in delivering correct code. "This bug will never happen in practice so we won't fix it." "If we fix this, we may change some incorrect behavior some customer is depending on." And once that happens, PBT is useless, because it will keep finding that "don't fix" bug over and over.
  • chriswarbo 1y ago
    Your last paragraph is using terms like "correct", "fix" and "bug" as if they're absolute, when they're actually relative to some sort of spec (whether formal or informal, written or vibes-based, etc.). If the organisation controls the spec, then it can be perfectly reasonable for them to update that spec to e.g. allow certain behaviours that previously would have been considered bugs. In that case, we update the properties to reflect the new spec.
    • pfdietz 1y ago
      The spec becomes "don't break important customers code". How could one possibly formalize that?
      • chriswarbo 1y ago
        The same way one formalises the implementation (AKA writing code): iteratively, on a best-effort basis, using one's own knowledge and experience, with input and feedback from colleagues and stakeholders, etc.
        • pfdietz 1y ago
          That makes no sense. How do you know what bugs the customer depends on, especially if you don't have access to their code? What's more PBT doesn't depend on having a spec, just on having some properties that hold. So you very possibly didn't have a spec to start with.