3 ms·

Introducing Chaos Mode

• ibrahima 13y ago
  Hah, neat. The name reminds me of Netflix's Chaos Monkey[1] but this is a little different in that everything it does is supposed to be valid behavior. [1] http://techblog.netflix.com/2012/07/chaos-monkey-released-into-wild.html http://techblog.netflix.com/2012/07/chaos-monkey-released-in...
  • dexen 13y ago
    Also the Monkey [1] testing tool used on the original Macintosh. On the lower level, Jester [2] tests your Test Cases, by randomly chaning boolean conditionals in the code undergoing testing (mutation testing). [1] http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Monkey_Lives.txt http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story... [2] http://jester.sourceforge.net/ http://jester.sourceforge.net/
• girvo 13y ago
  So this seems cool, and is a great idea, similar to fuzzing I guess. But why would you write tests that assume something is complete before a setTimeout fires? I can't ever see a reason as to why that would be a good way of writing that particular test, but I'm aware that I might not have come across the reasons, so I thought I'd ask.
  • dbaupp 13y ago
    By accident?
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
• drodgers 13y ago
  C and C++ need this.
• mathattack 13y ago
  I like the term gorilla testing rather than monkey testing. Less offensive to the gorillas.
• voidmain 13y ago
  At FoundationDB we use this technique extensively (we call it "buggification"), along with deterministic simulation to make the results debuggable. Amusingly (and embarrassingly), some of our early alpha and beta releases shipped with buggification accidentally enabled! It hurt performance a little, but didn't break the database for anyone that we know of.