NOTE: **use Perl;** is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

##
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.

## I've had this problem too ... (Score:2)

## Re:I've had this problem too ... (Score:1)

## Example: Tie::Hash::Cannaboli (Score:2)

If its the latter, say you're developing Crypt::Random or checking that

The former is more common. How do I test non-deterministic behavior?

Seeing as how Dave Cross bought my testing services for Tie::Hash::Cannabinol at a YAPC auction way back when, let's use that as an example.

Tie::Hash::Cannabinol is a completely useless demonstration of how to

use Tie::StdHash to pervert the behaviour of Perl hashes. Once a hash

has been "tie"d to Tie::Hash::Cannabinol, there is a 25% chance that it

will forget anything that you tell it immediately and a further 25%

chance that it won't be able to retrieve any information you ask it

for. Any information that it does return will be pulled at random from

its keys.

Oh, and the return value from "exists" isn't to be trusted either

We have to test:

1) Set doesn't work 25% of the time

2) Retrieval loses values 25% of the time

3) Retrieval can return any value in the hash

First thing to do: what can we test that's not random? Alternatively, can we cancel out the randomness by testing the data against itself?

Do keys(), values() and each() all return the same number of elements?

my $each_cnt;

$each_cnt++ while each %stoned_hash;

is $each_cnt, keys %stoned_hash;

is $each_cnt, values %stoned_hash;

Is keys() static? Once its set it shouldn't change.

my @keys = keys %hash;

for (1..20) {

is_deeply [sort keys %hash], [sort @keys];

}

Now onto the real tests. This gets statistical. I failed my one statistics class, so take everything here with a grai of salt.

Here's the sorts of questions you're trying to ask when writing tests for random data.

1) Is the code using the right probabilities?

2) Are the tests avoiding the degenerate case? (ie. a string of tails when flipping a coin)

3) Are we fully exercising the set of all possible results?

To avoid the low probability degenerate scenarios we can use a large number of iterations relative to the overall probability. Since the probabilities here are pretty high the number of iterations don't have to be that large.

#1 first involves what sort of epsilon you're willing to accept, since the testing here is statistical. Since this application isn't terribly critical we'll say 10%. The number of iterations you have to run rises rapidly as your epsilon gets smaller.

Then it largely comes down to creating a set of random data and seeing if it matches your expectations.

The comments in Tie::Hash::Cannaboli sez:

# Revision 1.3 2001/09/05 19:48:15 dave

# fixed a very serious bug where instead of returning a random value

# from the hash we were, in fact, almost always returning C.

Gotta test that bug!

# Ensure we're forgetting 25% of the time.

{

my @values;

my $iters = 1000;

push(@values, grep(defined, values %hash)) for 1..$iters;

# $EP is

cmp_ok( abs( @values - ($iters * keys(%hash) * 3/4) ) / $iters, '=', $EP);

}

I don't really know the probabilities of failure for this test and would be interested if someone could show how to work it out.

To handle #2, the odds of a degenerate case decreases rapidly with the number of iterations. With 25% 20 iterations gives us odds of 9e-13. ie. Pretty bloody unlikely. So 20 iterations should be enough to avoid the degenerate case.

If we forget something, do we remember it again?

TEST: {

# Forget something...

1 while defined $hash{3};

# Try to remember it again.

for (1..20) {

if( defined $hash{3} ) {

pass;

last TEST;

}

}

fail;

}

The infinite loop cannot be proven to return but its very likely it will after just a few iterations. And the odds of failing to remember the value in 20 iterations is, as mentioned, 9e-13.

For #3 we want to make sure we're exercising the entire set. Again its down to running the test enough times. The smaller the set the less iterations you have to do, but I don't know the math for it.

Do we ever get a value outside the range we put in?

for (1..20) {

no warnings 'uninitialized';

like join('', values %hash), qr/^[1..4]*$/;

}

Generate a big set of values() results, check that nothing is outside of the range. The number of iterations should be adequate to ensure that you've hit every value.

That's the major scenarios I can think of.

The final icing on the cake is repeatability. When a user reports a bug you want to be able to repeat it. To do that you need to know what the random number generator was seeded with.

BEGIN {

# Store the seed so we can repeat the test if we fail

$Seed = $ENV{TIE_HASH_CANNABINOL_SEED} || rand;

srand($Seed);

}

END {

print STDOUT "# Seed was: $Seed\n";

}

A user sends you the seed along with the test output and you should be able to repeat the experience.

Reply to ThisParent