Replies: 1 comment
-
|
It's possible that what you are trying to do could be better expressed using You could also perhaps keep a single model and have your Also, I don't understand why you would need different |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I have experience with q-s-m, and I'm just starting with q-d. Let's say I have different frequency distributions for a couple of tests on the same state machine, depending on whether the SUT will be an on-disk implementation or an in-memory implementation.
In q-s-m, as
generatoris a function field of the state machine, we can provide arguments to it. This allows us to use the same test definition for different distributions of commands.In q-d, as
arbitraryActionis a method ofStateModel, it doesn't seem to be a way of providing this depending on what test we want to run. Is one forced now to define twoStateModelinstances with different generators on each? This is not ideal as we would have to replicate all the rest of the machinery. Maybe using a newtype wrapper over theModelsuch that we forward all methods in the class to the ones of the realModelexcept the generator? This looks like a lot of code, but perhaps it is the only way to do it? Notice one would have to replicateRunModeltoo.Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions