Getting closer to understanding why test coverage appears so poor, part 2
This commit is contained in:
Scott Lystig Fritchie
parent
342a972543
commit
da2bad564f
1 changed files with 48 additions and 25 deletions
|
|
@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
|
|||
-include("machi.hrl").
|
||||
|
||||
-define(MGR, machi_chain_manager).
|
||||
-define(D(X), io:format(user, "~s ~p\n", [??X, X])).
|
||||
|
||||
-export([]).
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -129,11 +130,20 @@ extract_upi_transitions([P1, P2|T]) ->
|
|||
Trans = {P1#projection.upi, P2#projection.upi},
|
||||
[Trans|extract_upi_transitions([P2|T])].
|
||||
|
||||
find_common_prefix([], _) ->
|
||||
[];
|
||||
find_common_prefix(_, []) ->
|
||||
[];
|
||||
find_common_prefix([H|L1], [H|L2]) ->
|
||||
[H|find_common_prefix(L1, L2)];
|
||||
find_common_prefix(_, _) ->
|
||||
[].
|
||||
|
||||
calc_projection_test_() ->
|
||||
{timeout, 60,
|
||||
fun() ->
|
||||
%% Nodes = [a,b,c,d],
|
||||
Nodes = [a,b],
|
||||
Nodes = [a,b,c],
|
||||
Cs = combinations(Nodes),
|
||||
Combos = lists:sort([{UPI1, UPI2} || UPI1 <- Cs, UPI2 <- Cs]),
|
||||
timer:sleep(500),
|
||||
|
|
@ -143,14 +153,14 @@ calc_projection_test_() ->
|
|||
[], PsUPI1, Nodes -- PsUPI1, []),
|
||||
P2 = ?MGR:make_projection(3, 2, <<>>, HdNd, Nodes,
|
||||
[], PsUPI2, Nodes -- PsUPI2, []),
|
||||
Res = case (catch projection_transition_is_sane(P1, P2)) of
|
||||
Res = case projection_transition_is_sane(P1, P2) of
|
||||
true -> true;
|
||||
_ -> false
|
||||
end,
|
||||
{Res, UPI1, UPI2}
|
||||
{Res, PsUPI1, PsUPI2}
|
||||
end || HdNd <- Nodes,
|
||||
{UPI1,UPI2} <- Combos,
|
||||
%% We assume that the author appears in any
|
||||
%% We assume that the author appears in any UPI list
|
||||
UPI1 /= [],
|
||||
UPI2 /= [],
|
||||
%% HdNd is the author for all of these
|
||||
|
|
@ -159,30 +169,24 @@ calc_projection_test_() ->
|
|||
lists:member(HdNd, UPI2),
|
||||
PsUPI1 <- perms(UPI1),
|
||||
PsUPI2 <- perms(UPI2)],
|
||||
%% HeadNode = hd(Nodes),
|
||||
OKs = [begin
|
||||
{UPI1,UPI2}
|
||||
end || {true, UPI1, UPI2} <- Rs],
|
||||
%% not sets:is_disjoint(sets:from_list(UPI1),
|
||||
%% sets:from_list(UPI2))
|
||||
%% orelse UPI1 == [] orelse UPI2 == []],
|
||||
io:format(user, "OKs = ~p\n", [lists:usort(OKs)]),
|
||||
%% OKs = [{UPI1,UPI2} || {true, UPI1, UPI2} <- Rs,
|
||||
%% not sets:is_disjoint(sets:from_list(UPI1),
|
||||
%% sets:from_list(UPI2))],
|
||||
Tab = ets:new(count, [public, set, {keypos, 1}]),
|
||||
[ets:insert(Tab, {Transition, 0}) || Transition <- OKs],
|
||||
true = eqc:quickcheck(
|
||||
eqc:numtests(500, ?QC_OUT(prop_calc_projection(Nodes, Tab)))),
|
||||
eqc:numtests(3500,
|
||||
?QC_OUT(prop_calc_projection(Nodes, Tab)))),
|
||||
NotCounted = [Transition || {Transition, 0} <- ets:tab2list(Tab)],
|
||||
Counted = [X || {_, N}=X <- ets:tab2list(Tab),
|
||||
_Counted = [X || {_, N}=X <- ets:tab2list(Tab),
|
||||
N > 0],
|
||||
timer:sleep(100),
|
||||
io:format(user, "OKs length = ~p\n", [length(OKs)]),
|
||||
io:format(user, "Transitions hit = ~p\n", [length(OKs) - length(NotCounted)]),
|
||||
io:format(user, "Transitions = ~p\n", [lists:sort(Counted)]),
|
||||
io:format(user, "NotCounted length = ~p\n", [length(NotCounted)]),
|
||||
io:format(user, "NotCounted = ~p\n", [NotCounted]),
|
||||
io:format(user, "\tNotCounted = ~p\n", [NotCounted]),
|
||||
io:format(user, "\tOKs length = ~p\n", [length(OKs)]),
|
||||
io:format(user, "\tTransitions hit = ~p\n", [length(OKs) - length(NotCounted)]),
|
||||
%% io:format(user, "\tTransitions = ~p\n", [lists:sort(_Counted)]),
|
||||
io:format(user, "\tNotCounted length = ~p\n", [length(NotCounted)]),
|
||||
ok
|
||||
end}.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -265,16 +269,15 @@ projection_transition_is_sane(
|
|||
true = lists:member(AuthorServer2, UPI_list2 ++ Repairing_list2),
|
||||
|
||||
%% Additions to the UPI chain may only be at the tail
|
||||
UPI_common_prefix =
|
||||
lists:takewhile(fun(X) -> sets:is_element(X, UPIS2) end, UPI_list1),
|
||||
UPI_common_prefix = find_common_prefix(UPI_list1, UPI_list2),
|
||||
if UPI_common_prefix == [] ->
|
||||
if UPI_list1 == [] orelse UPI_list2 == [] ->
|
||||
%% If the common prefix is empty, then one of the inputs
|
||||
%% must be empty.
|
||||
%% If the common prefix is empty, then one of the
|
||||
%% inputs must be empty.
|
||||
true;
|
||||
true ->
|
||||
%% Otherwise, we have a case of UPI changing from one
|
||||
%% of these two situations:
|
||||
%% Otherwise, we have a case of UPI changing from
|
||||
%% one of these two situations:
|
||||
%%
|
||||
%% UPI_list1 -> UPI_list2
|
||||
%% [d,c,b,a] -> [c,a]
|
||||
|
|
@ -380,6 +383,26 @@ fail2_smoke_test() ->
|
|||
|
||||
true.
|
||||
|
||||
fail3_smoke_test() ->
|
||||
Nodes = [a,b],
|
||||
UPI1 = [a,b],
|
||||
UPI2 = [b,a],
|
||||
[begin
|
||||
PsUPI1 = UPI1,
|
||||
PsUPI2 = UPI2,
|
||||
P1 = ?MGR:make_projection(2, 1, <<>>, HdNd, Nodes,
|
||||
[], PsUPI1, Nodes -- PsUPI1, []),
|
||||
P2 = ?MGR:make_projection(3, 2, <<>>, HdNd, Nodes,
|
||||
[], PsUPI2, Nodes -- PsUPI2, []),
|
||||
Res = case projection_transition_is_sane(P1, P2) of
|
||||
true -> true;
|
||||
_ -> false
|
||||
end,
|
||||
{Res, HdNd, PsUPI1, PsUPI2} = {false, HdNd, PsUPI1, PsUPI2}
|
||||
end || HdNd <- Nodes],
|
||||
|
||||
true.
|
||||
|
||||
%% aaa_smoke_test() ->
|
||||
%% L = [a,b,c,d],
|
||||
%% Cs = combinations(L),
|
||||
|
|
@ -391,7 +414,7 @@ fail2_smoke_test() ->
|
|||
%% [], X, L -- X, []),
|
||||
%% P2 = ?MGR:make_projection(3, 2, <<>>, a, L,
|
||||
%% [], Y, L -- Y, []),
|
||||
%% Res = case (catch projection_transition_is_sane(P1, P2)) of
|
||||
%% Res = case projection_transition_is_sane(P1, P2) of
|
||||
%% true -> true;
|
||||
%% _ -> false
|
||||
%% end,
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue