[erlang-questions] QuickCheck/PropEr

Edmond Begumisa <>
Thu May 26 14:24:38 CEST 2011

Thanks again,

You've both been a big help. I now have the starting point I was looking  

- Edmond -

On Thu, 26 May 2011 03:54:34 +1000, Scott Lystig Fritchie  
<> wrote:

> Edmond Begumisa <> wrote:
> eb> This looks like a good case-study. I will analyse it fully. Quick
> eb> one: are there any properties on gen_servers in here?
> Specifically for gen_server, hrm, probably not.  But it isn't all that
> difficult to do.
> prop_server_doesnt_crash(InitArgs) ->
>     ?FORALL(Commands, gen_my_servers_commands(),
>             begin
>                 {ok, Pid} = my_server:start(InitArgs),
>                 [_ = apply(Mod, Func, Args) || {Mod, Fun, Args} <-  
> Commands],
>                 Result = erlang:is_process_alive(Pid),
>                 catch my_server:please_stop_now(Pid),
>                 Result
>             end).
> If you want to check if the server is really sane, add a
> testing-use-only command to fetch the server's internal state and
> replace the last 3 lines with:
>     FinalState = my_server:get_internal_state(Pid),
>     my_server:please_stop_now(Pid),
>     verify_sanity(FinalState)  %% returns boolean()
> The hassle of cleaning up after each test (killing the process under
> test) is a pain(*).  As Joe Norton pointed out, there's nothing that
> prevents you from testing calls directly against your behavior's
> callback module, i.e. calling my_server:handle_call/3 directly; you'll
> have to do something more fold-like than the simple list-comprehension-
> with-apply in the above example, but it's easy enough to do.
> When testing via behavior callback functions, you'll only be testing the
> server-side code and not any client-side code (e.g. calculations done
> before a gen_server:call(), gen_server:cast(), or '!').  That might be
> good, might be not good enough, depends on the purpose of the tests.
> -Scott
> (*) Testing code with any side-effects at all can cause difficulty.  In
> the example below, just creating a new process is certainly a
> side-effect.  Many gen_servers register a process name; if your test
> framework doesn't clean up those processes 100% correctly(**), then
> later tests can fail because a call to erlang:register/2 fails.
> (**) Of course, that's also a problem when using EUnit, or your own test
> tools, etc.

Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list