Top Related Projects
Property based testing framework for JavaScript (like QuickCheck) written in TypeScript
Write powerful and concise tests. Property-based testing for JavaScript. Like QuickCheck.
Delightful JavaScript Testing.
tap-producing test harness for node and browsers
Fast, easy and reliable testing for anything that runs in a browser.
Quick Overview
TestCheck.js is a generative testing library for JavaScript, inspired by QuickCheck for Haskell. It allows developers to write property-based tests that automatically generate test cases, helping to uncover edge cases and unexpected behaviors in code.
Pros
- Automatically generates test cases, reducing the need for manual test writing
- Helps discover edge cases and unexpected behaviors that might be missed in traditional unit testing
- Supports both Node.js and browser environments
- Integrates well with popular testing frameworks like Jest and Mocha
Cons
- Requires a different approach to testing, which may have a learning curve for developers used to traditional unit testing
- Can be slower than traditional unit tests due to the generation of multiple test cases
- May not be suitable for all types of tests, especially those requiring specific, predetermined inputs
- Documentation could be more comprehensive for advanced use cases
Code Examples
- Basic property test:
import { check, gen } from 'testcheck';
const result = check(
gen.int,
(x) => x + 0 === x
);
console.log(result);
This example checks if adding zero to any integer always results in the same integer.
- Testing a custom function:
import { check, gen } from 'testcheck';
function isEven(n) {
return n % 2 === 0;
}
const result = check(
gen.int,
(x) => isEven(x * 2)
);
console.log(result);
This test verifies that multiplying any integer by 2 always results in an even number.
- Using custom generators:
import { check, gen } from 'testcheck';
const positiveIntGen = gen.posInt;
const negativeIntGen = gen.negInt;
const result = check(
[positiveIntGen, negativeIntGen],
(pos, neg) => pos > neg
);
console.log(result);
This example uses custom generators to test if a positive integer is always greater than a negative integer.
Getting Started
To use TestCheck.js in your project:
-
Install the library:
npm install testcheck
-
Import and use in your tests:
import { check, gen } from 'testcheck'; // Write your property-based tests const result = check( gen.string, (s) => s.length >= 0 ); console.log(result);
-
Run your tests using your preferred test runner (e.g., Jest, Mocha).
Competitor Comparisons
Property based testing framework for JavaScript (like QuickCheck) written in TypeScript
Pros of fast-check
- More active development and frequent updates
- Broader range of built-in generators and arbitraries
- Better TypeScript support and type inference
Cons of fast-check
- Steeper learning curve due to more advanced features
- Slightly more verbose API in some cases
- Less established in the JavaScript community compared to testcheck-js
Code Comparison
testcheck-js:
check(
property(gen.int, gen.int, (a, b) => a + b === b + a),
{times: 1000}
);
fast-check:
fc.assert(
fc.property(fc.integer(), fc.integer(), (a, b) => a + b === b + a),
{numRuns: 1000}
);
Both libraries provide similar functionality for property-based testing, but fast-check offers more advanced features and customization options. testcheck-js has a simpler API, which may be preferable for basic use cases. fast-check's extensive documentation and active development make it a strong choice for complex testing scenarios, especially in TypeScript projects. However, testcheck-js might be more suitable for developers looking for a straightforward, easy-to-use library with a smaller learning curve.
Write powerful and concise tests. Property-based testing for JavaScript. Like QuickCheck.
Pros of jsverify
- More extensive documentation and examples
- Wider range of built-in generators and combinators
- Better integration with popular testing frameworks like Mocha and Jasmine
Cons of jsverify
- Slightly more complex API, which may have a steeper learning curve
- Less focus on performance optimization compared to testcheck-js
Code Comparison
testcheck-js:
check(
gen.array(gen.int),
(arr) => arr.indexOf(Math.max(...arr)) === arr.lastIndexOf(Math.max(...arr))
);
jsverify:
jsc.property(
"array contains maximum value only once",
"array nat",
function (arr) {
return arr.indexOf(Math.max(...arr)) === arr.lastIndexOf(Math.max(...arr));
}
);
Both libraries provide similar functionality for property-based testing, but jsverify offers a more expressive API with built-in support for common data types. testcheck-js, on the other hand, has a simpler API that may be easier for beginners to grasp.
While jsverify provides more features and integrations, testcheck-js focuses on performance and simplicity. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of the project and the developer's preferences.
Delightful JavaScript Testing.
Pros of Jest
- Comprehensive testing framework with built-in assertion library, mocking, and code coverage
- Extensive documentation and large community support
- Seamless integration with popular JavaScript frameworks like React
Cons of Jest
- Heavier setup and potentially slower execution for small projects
- Less focus on property-based testing compared to TestCheck.js
- May require additional configuration for certain edge cases or complex scenarios
Code Comparison
TestCheck.js:
check.it('reverses arrays', [gen.array(gen.int)], function(arr) {
expect(reverse(arr)).toEqual(arr.slice().reverse());
});
Jest:
test('reverses arrays', () => {
const arr = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
expect(reverse(arr)).toEqual([5, 4, 3, 2, 1]);
});
Key Differences
- TestCheck.js focuses on property-based testing, generating multiple test cases automatically
- Jest provides a more traditional unit testing approach with predefined test cases
- TestCheck.js requires less boilerplate for generating test data, while Jest offers more flexibility in test structure
Use Cases
- TestCheck.js: Ideal for testing pure functions and algorithms with complex input requirements
- Jest: Well-suited for general-purpose JavaScript testing, particularly in larger projects and web applications
tap-producing test harness for node and browsers
Pros of tape
- Simpler and more lightweight testing framework
- Easier to get started with for basic testing needs
- Produces TAP-compliant output, which is widely supported
Cons of tape
- Lacks advanced features for property-based testing
- Limited built-in assertion methods compared to TestCheck.js
- May require additional plugins or libraries for more complex testing scenarios
Code Comparison
tape:
const test = require('tape');
test('basic arithmetic', (t) => {
t.equal(2 + 2, 4, 'addition works');
t.end();
});
TestCheck.js:
const { check, gen } = require('testcheck');
check(
(a, b) => a + b === b + a,
[gen.int, gen.int]
);
TestCheck.js focuses on property-based testing, allowing for more comprehensive and randomized test cases. It generates input data automatically, which can help uncover edge cases and unexpected behaviors. On the other hand, tape provides a straightforward approach to writing and running tests, making it easier to adopt for developers new to testing or those working on smaller projects.
While tape is excellent for basic unit testing, TestCheck.js shines in scenarios where you need to test complex properties and invariants of your code. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of your project and the level of testing sophistication required.
Fast, easy and reliable testing for anything that runs in a browser.
Pros of Cypress
- Comprehensive end-to-end testing framework with built-in GUI and real-time reloading
- Extensive documentation and active community support
- Simpler setup and configuration for web application testing
Cons of Cypress
- Limited to testing web applications, unlike TestCheck.js which can test any JavaScript code
- Heavier resource usage and slower test execution compared to TestCheck.js
- Less flexibility in generating test data compared to TestCheck.js's property-based testing approach
Code Comparison
TestCheck.js example:
check(
gen.int, gen.int,
(a, b) => a + b === b + a
);
Cypress example:
describe('Addition', () => {
it('should be commutative', () => {
cy.wrap(1 + 2).should('equal', 2 + 1);
});
});
Summary
Cypress is a powerful end-to-end testing framework specifically designed for web applications, offering a user-friendly interface and extensive features. TestCheck.js, on the other hand, is a lightweight property-based testing library that can be used for any JavaScript code. While Cypress excels in web application testing scenarios, TestCheck.js provides more flexibility in generating test data and can be applied to a broader range of testing situations.
Convert designs to code with AI
Introducing Visual Copilot: A new AI model to turn Figma designs to high quality code using your components.
Try Visual CopilotREADME
TestCheck.js
Generative property testing for JavaScript.
TestCheck.js
is a library for generative testing of program properties,
ala QuickCheck.
By providing a specification of the JavaScript program in the form of properties, the properties can be tested to remain true for a large number of randomly generated cases. In the case of a test failure, the smallest possible failing test case is found.
Getting started
Install testcheck
using yarn
yarn add --dev testcheck
Or using npm
npm install --save-dev testcheck
Then require it into your testing environment and start testing.
const { check, gen, property } = require('testcheck');
const result = check(
property(
gen.int,
x => x - x === 0
)
)
Have a favorite test framework?
TestCheck.js
is a testing utility and not a complete test-running framework. It
doesn't replace test frameworks like AVA, Jasmine, or Mocha.
If you use AVA then check out ava-check, a testcheck AVA plugin.
const test = require('ava')
const { check, gen } = require('ava-check')
test('addition is commutative', check(gen.int, gen.int, (t, numA, numB) => {
t.true(numA + numB === numB + numA)
}))
If you use Jasmine or Jest then check out jasmine-check, a testcheck Jasmine (or Jest) plugin.
require('jasmine-check').install()
describe('Maths', () => {
check.it('addition is commutative', gen.int, gen.int, (numA, numB) => {
expect(numA + numB).toEqual(numB + numA)
})
})
If you use Mocha then check out mocha-testcheck, a testcheck Mocha plugin.
require('mocha-testcheck').install();
const { expect } = require('chai');
describe('Maths', () => {
check.it('addition is commutative', gen.int, gen.int, (numA, numB) => {
expect(numA + numB).to.equal(numB + numA)
})
})
If you use Tape then check out tape-check, a testcheck Tape plugin.
const test = require('tape')
const { check, gen } = require('tape-check')
test('addition is commutative', check(gen.int, gen.int, (t, numA, numB) => {
t.plan(1)
t.equal(numA + numB, numB + numA)
}));
Type definitions
This module includes type definitions for Flow type and Typescript. Simply require or import this module and enjoy type suggestions and corrections.
Using TestCheck.js
See the complete API documentation for all available generators and utilities, or the Walkthrough Guide for a more thorough walkthrough.
Try it! Open the developer console while viewing the docs to follow along with the examples below.
Defining properties
A property is simply a function which is expected to always return true, we might also call these properties "assumptions" or "expectations".
For example, say we wanted to test the assumption that any number subtracted
from itself will be 0
, we could define this property as:
function (x) {
return x - x === 0
}
Or as another example, let's determine that sorting an array is stable and idempotent, which is to say that sorting a sorted array shouldn't do anything. We could write:
function (arr) {
var arrCopy = arr.slice()
return deepEqual(arrCopy.sort(), arr.sort().sort())
}
That's really it! The only thing special about this property function is that it is pure, e.g. it relies only on the provided arguments to determine its return value (no other reading or writing!).
If you can start to describe your program in terms of its properties, then
testcheck
can test them for you.
Generating test cases
Once we've defined some properties, we generate test cases for each properties by describing the types of values for each argument.
For testing our first property, we need numbers:
gen.int
For the second, we need arrays of numbers
gen.array(gen.int)
There are a wide variety of value generators, we've only scratched the surface.
We can generate random JSON with gen.JSON
, pick amongst a set of values with
gen.returnOneOf
, nested arrays with ints gen.nested(gen.array, gen.int)
and
much more. You can even define your own generators with generator.then()
,
and gen.sized
.
Checking the properties
Finally, we check our properties using our test case generator (in this case, up to 1000 different tests before concluding).
const result = check(
property(
// the arguments generator
gen.int,
// the property function to test
x => x - x === 0
),
{ numTests: 1000 }
)
check
runs through random cases looking for failure, and when it doesn't find
any failures, it returns:
{ result: true, numTests: 1000, seed: 1406779597155 }
Smallest failing test
Let's try another property: the sum of two integers is the same or larger than either of the integers alone.
check(
property(
gen.int, gen.int,
(a, b) => a + b >= a && a + b >= b
)
)
check
runs through random cases again. This time it found a failing case, so
it returns:
{ result: false,
failingSize: 2,
numTests: 3,
fail: [ 2, -1 ],
shrunk:
{ totalNodesVisited: 2,
depth: 1,
result: false,
smallest: [ 0, -1 ] } }
Something is wrong. Either:
- Our assumption is wrong (e.g. bug in our software).
- The test code is wrong.
- The generated test data is too broad.
In this case, our problem is that our generated data is too broad for our assumption. What's going on?
We can see that the fail
case 2, -1
would in fact not be correct, but it
might not be immediately clear why. This is where test case shrinking comes in
handy. The shrunk
key provides information about the shrinking process and
most importantly, the smallest
values that still fail: 0, -1
.
We forgot about an edge case! If one of the integers is negative, then the sum will not be larger. This shrunken test case illustrated this much better than the original failing test did. Now we know that we can either improve our property or make the test data more specific:
check(property(
gen.posInt, gen.posInt,
(a, b) => a + b >= a && a + b >= b
));
With our correction, our property passes all tests.
Thinking in random distributions
It's important to remember that your test is only as good as the data being
provided. While testcheck
provides tools to generate random data, thinking
about what that data looks like may help you write better tests. Also, because
the data generated is random, a test may pass which simply failed to uncover
a corner case.
"Testing shows the presence, not the absence of bugs"
â Dijkstra, 1969
Sampling Test Data
Visualizing the data check
generates may help diagnose the quality of a test.
Use sample
and sampleOne
to get a look at what a generator produces:
const { gen, sample, sampleOne } = require('testcheck')
sample(gen.int)
// [ 0, 0, 2, -1, 3, 5, -4, 0, 3, 5 ]
sampleOne(gen.int)
// -23
The Size of Test Data
Test data generators have an implicit size
property, which could be used to
determine the maximum value for a generated integer or the max length of a
generated array. testcheck
begins by generating small test cases and gradually
increases the size.
So if you wish to test very large numbers or extremely long arrays, running
check
the default 100 times with maxSize of 200, you may not get what
you expect.
Data relationships
Let's test an assumption that should clearly be wrong: a string split by another string always returns an array of length 1.
check(property(
gen.asciiString.notEmpty(), gen.asciiString.notEmpty(),
(str, separator) => str.split(separator).length === 1
))
Unless you got lucky, you probably saw this check pass. This is because we're
testing for a relationship between these strings. If separator
is not found
in str
, then this test passes. The second unrelated random string is very
unlikely to be found within the first random string.
We could change the test to be aware of this relationship such that the
separator
is always contained within the str
by using then()
.
check(property(
gen.asciiString.notEmpty().then(str =>
[ str, gen.substring(str).notEmpty() ]),
([ str, separator ]) => str.split(separator).length === 1
))
Now separator
is a random substring of str
and the test fails with the
smallest failing arguments: [ ' ', ' ' ]
.
We can test this example out ourselves, with the value ' '
generated for both
str
and separator
, we can run ' '.split(' ').length
to see that we in
fact get 2
, not 1
.
License
Copyright 2014-Present Lee Byron
TestCheck.js is distributed under the BSD-3-Clause license.
Atop the shoulders of giants
TestCheck.js
is based on Clojure's test.check
which is inspired by Haskell's QuickCheck. Many gracious thanks goes to all of the brilliance and hard work enabling this project to exist.
Clojure's test.check is Copyright Rich Hickey, Reid Draper and contributors and is distributed under the Eclipse Public License.
Top Related Projects
Property based testing framework for JavaScript (like QuickCheck) written in TypeScript
Write powerful and concise tests. Property-based testing for JavaScript. Like QuickCheck.
Delightful JavaScript Testing.
tap-producing test harness for node and browsers
Fast, easy and reliable testing for anything that runs in a browser.
Convert designs to code with AI
Introducing Visual Copilot: A new AI model to turn Figma designs to high quality code using your components.
Try Visual Copilot