Advertisement

Experiences with QuickCheck: Testing the Hard Stuff and Staying Sane

  • John HughesEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9600)

Abstract

This is not a typical scientific paper. It does not present a new method, with careful experiments to evaluate it, and detailed references to related work. Rather, it recounts some of my experiences over the last 15 years, working with QuickCheck, and its purpose is as much to entertain as to inform.

QuickCheck is a random testing tool that Koen Claessen and I invented, which has since become the testing tool of choice in the Haskell community. In 2006 I co-founded Quviq, to develop and market an Erlang version, which we have since applied for a wide variety of customers, encountering many fascinating testing problems as a result.

This paper introduces Quviq QuickCheck, and in particular the extensions made for testing stateful code, via a toy example in C. It goes on to describe the largest QuickCheck project to date, which developed acceptance tests for AUTOSAR C code on behalf of Volvo Cars. Finally it explains a race detection method that nailed a notorious bug plaguing Klarna, northern Europe’s market leader in invoicing systems for e-commerce. Together, these examples give a reasonable overview of the way QuickCheck has been used in industrial practice.

Keywords

Controller Area Network Race Condition State Transition Function Input Index Fail Test Case 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work described here was partially supported by the EU FP7 project “PROWESS”, and by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research grant “RAWFP”.

References

  1. Arts, T., Hughes, J., Norell, U., Svensson, H.: Testing AUTOSAR software with QuickCheck. In: 2015 IEEE Eighth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW), pp. 1–4, April 2015Google Scholar
  2. Arts, T., Hughes, J.: How well are your requirements tested? In: Briand, L., Khurshid, S. (eds.) International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST), IEEE, April 2016Google Scholar
  3. Arts, T., Hughes, J., Johansson, J., Wiger, U.: Testing telecoms software with Quviq QuickCheck. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Erlang, ERLANG 2006, pp. 2–10. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  4. Claessen, K., Hughes, J.: QuickCheck: a lightweight tool for random testing of Haskell programs. In: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, ICFP 2000, pp. 268–279. ACM, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  5. DeCandia, G., Hastorun, D., Jampani, M., Kakulapati, G., Lakshman, A., Pilchin, A., Sivasubramanian, S., Vosshall, P., Vogels, W.: Dynamo: amazon’s highly available key-value store. In: Proceedings of Twenty-first ACM SIGOPS Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, SOSP 2007, pp. 205–220. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  6. Gerdes, A., Hughes, J., Smallbone, N., Wang, M.: Linking unit tests and properties. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Erlang, Erlang 2015, pp. 19–26. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  7. Godefroid, P., Klarlund, N., Sen, K.: DART: Directed Automated Random Testing. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2005, pp. 213–223. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  8. Hughes, J.: QuickCheck testing for fun and profit. In: Hanus, M. (ed.) PADL 2007. LNCS, vol. 4354, pp. 1–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hughes, J., Pierce, B., Arts, T., Norell, U.: Mysteries of dropbox: property-based testing of a distributed synchronization service. In: Briand, L., Khurshid, S. (eds.) International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST), IEEE, April 2016Google Scholar
  10. Hughes, J.M., Bolinder, H.: Testing a database for race conditions with quickcheck. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Erlang, Erlang 2011, pp. 72–77. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  11. Pacheco, C., Lahiri, S.K., Ernst, M.D., Ball, T.: Feedback-directed random test generation. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2007, pp. 75–84. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2007)Google Scholar
  12. Svenningsson, J., Svensson, H., Smallbone, N., Arts, T., Norell, U., Hughes, J.: An expressive semantics of mocking. In: Gnesi, S., Rensink, A. (eds.) FASE 2014 (ETAPS). LNCS, vol. 8411, pp. 385–399. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chalmers UniversityGöthenburgSweden
  2. 2.Quviq ABGöthenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations