debajit

debajit

I have the following module where as I developed the code I was using doctests to verify if the function did what I expected. The problem is these doctests that I was writing are for functions that eventually became private functions:

  • Removing the doctests for the private functions does not help here as I need the tests — they help with catching regressions and help document the functionality of the code. Without these tests, it may not be clear to someone reading the code what exactly the private function does.

  • I could move the code inside the public function but that results in a big monolithic function and the separate functions help clarify the logic.

What is the recommended way to reconcile this in Elixir? (I seem to run into this problem very often — requiring doctests for private functions, that is)

The only solution I know is to create a separate Impl module and move the private functions as public functions like @pragdave describes here: Redirect . Is this an anti-pattern (given that I would be effectively “exposing” the private functions in a way)? I love this approach, but I was wondering if there was another way to have doctests for private functions — I would presume this would be a common problem?

What is the guidance here? Also, is there a way to remove these warnings for @docs on private functions?

defmodule InverseCaptcha do
  @moduledoc """
  Solves the Inverse Captcha problem.
  http://adventofcode.com/2017/day/1

  Run with:

      mix
      ./inverse_captcha 1122
  """

  def solve_captcha(string) do
    string
    |> string_to_list
    |> sum_of_digits_matching_next
  end

  @doc """
      iex> string_to_list("1122")
      [1, 1, 2, 2]
  """
  defp string_to_list(string) do
    string
    |> String.splitter("", trim: true)
    |> Stream.map(& String.to_integer(&1))
    |> Enum.to_list
  end

  @doc """
  ## Examples

      iex> sum_of_digits_matching_next([1, 1, 2, 2])
      3

      iex> sum_of_digits_matching_next([1, 1, 1, 1])
      4

      iex> sum_of_digits_matching_next([1, 2, 3, 4])
      0

      iex> sum_of_digits_matching_next([9, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 9])
      9
  """
  defp sum_of_digits_matching_next(list) do
    list_with_head = (list ++ [hd(list)])

    list_with_head
    |> Enum.zip(tl(list_with_head))
    |> Enum.reduce(0, fn {x, y}, acc ->
         if x == y do
           x + acc
         else
           acc
         end
       end)
  end
end

defmodule InverseCaptcha.CLI do
  def main(args) do
    string = hd(args)
    IO.puts InverseCaptcha.solve_captcha(string)
  end
end

Showing Posts 1 to 5

NobbZ

NobbZ

Private functions are not meant to get tested at all, not per unit test not per doctest. Also private functions are not meant to be documented.

The compiler spits out a warning when you try it. You can remove that warning by removing the documentation.

And last but not least, a doctest is not to verify that the function works as expected, but they are to verify that the examples in your documentation are correct.

There have been some discussions around this on the old mailinglist, on the core mailinglist, and on this forum as well.

utricularia

utricularia

Why wouldn’t you want to unit test a private function? I can more or less understand not documenting it given that they are not meant to be exposed- but unit testing?

imobachgs

imobachgs

I consider private functions just as “implementation details”, so I focus on testing only the module’s public APIs. On the other hand, if your public functions are working as expected, I think you can happily assume that your private functions are working aswell.

About documenting private methods, I understand the reasons to not doing so. But to be honest, I find this documentation useful for other developers contributing to the project.

jwarlander

jwarlander

Sometimes I’ve seen a tendency in my own code for private functions to grow a bit too complex; I usually take that as a hint that maybe they should be public functions in some kind of utility module or similar.

My idea of a “good” private function is mostly along the lines of a one-liner to shorten, and give a proper name to, a part of a larger transformation / pipe sequence.

If it gets more complex, like mapping a set of values to something else, etc, then I definitely feel it should be a public function, either in the current module or another one that fits better.

LostKobrakai

LostKobrakai

Private functions have different semantics than public ones, what Jose explained here quite well: https://forum.elixirforum.com/t/proposal-docp-for-private-function-documentation-and-doctests/3732/2?u=lostkobrakai

— All posts loaded —

Where Next? Top

Trending in Questions Top

RSP87
I’m working on a project that simulates the bumbl example in the programming phoenix book. It acts almost like an email client. We have a...
New
nseaSeb
Hello, I know there is an approach for handling lists that allows for optimized traversal, but I can’t recall the specific method (somet...
New
kpanic
Hi everyone, I am toying with the idea of building a “match maker” for giving personal help to people that wants to start coding. I sta...
New
brecabral
Documentation While reading the Scoped Routes section, I noticed that the documentation currently refers to a problem without explainin...
New
velrest
So my question is quite simple and i have found no conclusive answer on forum, google or AI. Should we use :erlang.float for Integer to ...
New
asweet-confluent
I recently noticed that Elixir’s Logger defaults its primary log level to :debug when no :logger, :level application configuration is pre...
New
ryanwinchester
apply_graft/2 doesn’t rewrite an add_many sub-workflow’s deps on an add step. Grafted jobs cancel with “upstream job was deleted” Version...
New

Other Trending Topics Top

JesseHerrick
Hey, I’m Jesse and I’m the main contributor behind Dexter, a full-featured, lightning-fast Elixir LSP optimized for large codebases. It s...
New
mudasobwa
I am happy to introduce the very α version of the new programming language compiled to BEAM. Welcome Cure. It has literally three kille...
New
marciok
Hi there! We created Gust: A task orchestrator inspired by Airflow. For those who have never heard about Aiflow, it’s a Python-based wor...
New
mhanberg
Hi everyone! The first release candidate for the Expert language server project is now available! We’ve published a press release detai...
New
jimsynz
Beam Bots (or just BB for short) is a framework for building fault-tolerant robotics applications in Elixir using familiar OTP patterns. ...
New
Dmk
Xamal is a deployment tool for Elixir apps that deploys native releases to bare metal servers over SSH. It’s a port of GitHub - basecamp/...
New

Latest on Elixir Forum

Elixir Forum

We're in Beta

About us Mission Statement

Options

Thread Display Mode




Thread Preview

Skip Thread Previews