[erlang-questions] Quickcheck'ing a protocol

Mark Allen <>
Thu Sep 22 21:30:57 CEST 2016


Josh,
Have you looked at Scribble? http://scribble.org/



 

    On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 10:45 PM, Josh Adams <> wrote:
 

 So I've been frustrated lately by the fact that Slack's IRC gateway isn't RFC 2812 compliant (https://github.com/bitwalker/exirc/issues/51)
In dealing with this I wondered why the crap they needed an engineer to go through the spec as a result of their server's response to figure out that this was an issue (they've added it to their bug tracker, so I have some amount of faith it might get fixed eventually - for now I'll paper over the issue in the client which reduces the stress on them to actually fix it though).
Should RFCs / protocols of this nature just come with something like a quickcheck model for their spec?  Is anyone aware of prior art around this sort of thing aside from Quvic/Volvo that I could draw from if I wanted to fiddle in this arena?
I'd think that the ideal situation involves an open source quickcheck implementation to test a given protocol implementation against at least some of the RFC, and a means to run the tests against potential servers/clients, with badges potentially showing the percentage of the test that passes.  This would allow economics to drive spec implementers towards correctness, which would save countless engineer-hours spent figuring out why the damn clients can't talk to the damn servers for a given spec.
Thoughts?  Pipe dream?  "Silly child, see A, B, and C for the many people who are already doing this?"

-- 
Josh Adams

_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list

http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20160922/d5bb30bc/attachment.html>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list