Replies: 3 comments 6 replies
-
I think we should proceed with my proposal and merge "fuzz" and "unit" into a single directory "integration" (or something else, e.g. "standard"). On top of my rationale above, I would now argue that it is a tad misleading to have "fuzz" as a testing category. It's more like an attribute, since the fork and the invariant tests fuzz the inputs, too. Any thoughts, @andreivladbrg? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Sorry for my late response on this. Interesting idea, but I am not sure of this idea being the right choice. While I understand the appeal of this idea, especially given the improved code structure and reduction in lines of code, I remain uncertain about its suitability. My concern lies in the theoretical correctness of the approach. Conceptually, I'm not convinced that consolidating these elements under the same umbrella is the appropriate choice.
What we can do, and I agree with, is renaming the unit tests to integration. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@andreivladbrg - we need to make a decision about this. Could you please read my arguments above, and either accept them (and change your mind) or refute them? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
A random idea just came to me.
What if we merged the "unit" and "fuzz" tests under a new umbrella category "integration"?
I know we used this name before, and we ended up separating them because we couldn't run them differently in CI. But that was before we started using the "test_" and "testFuzz" naming convention.
The current tests are not actually and rightfully "unit", as per my explanation here.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions