Clojurians Log v2

Hi Alex, I’m super excited about the new spec. Just trying to moderate my expectations… Do you think it will be a complex port to clojurescript? From memory the first version took a while (months?) to come out.

¯\(ツ)/¯

I think there were a couple tricky parts to the cljs port in gen/instrument/check - I suspect those tricky bits aren't going to change, at least in the tricky parts. And I think the increased clarity around symbols vs objects is probably likely to make the cljs code larger but simpler

so I don't see any reason it should be particularly hard, but there is a lot of internal structural change, enough that if it were me doing it, I'd probably start fresh and pull from the old code as needed

that said, we're not done yet :)

Thanks

While I’ve got you can I ask about the idea of including specs in defn. Do you think we will see :args and :ret keys added to the pre/post condition map?

Haven’t looked at that yet

Ret and fn specs are likely going to change a lot

Fair enough. Thanks.

I am trying without success to generate clj-time dates using specs in clj-time.spec . (s/exercise ::spec/date-time) always returns dates close to January 1rst 2011 by a few millis. The spec in the lib is using:

(spec/def ::past-and-future (spec/int-in (to-long (date-time 2011 1 1 00 00 00))
                                         (to-long (date-time 2030 12 31 23 59 59))))

(s/exercise (s/int-in 1293840000000 1924991999000))

are you sure that it doesn't start near 2011, then move away progressively? @gariepyalex

if you sample more values

You are right. With more samples some are different. Still, most date are very close to the minimum value. This is expected behavior? If I want something else, I need to write a custom generator?

This is expected.

there's a control -- I don't have a link handy, but see the test.check wiki I think

http://clojure.github.io/test.check/growth-and-shrinking.html

@gariepyalex the expected behavior of large-integer is that many values are close to 0

So any date/time generator naively implemented with large-integer will have the sort of behavior you're describing

There's no datetime generator that doesn't privilege some span of time

> From http://clojure.github.io/test.check/growth-and-shrinking.html > gen/sample starts with very small sizes in the same way that the quick-check function does. This can be misleading to users who don’t expect that and take the first ten results from gen/sample to be representative of the distribution of a generator. Using gen/generate with an explicit size argument can be a better way of learning about the distribution of a generator. Thanks @ghadi and @gfredericks!

👍