_Seyed

_Seyed

Hey folks,
I’ve written a regular expression for validating input strings. For testing purposes, I want to setup a scenario where a set of test vectors can be automatically injected as input into a new test and match against the regex. I’m currently testing each vector manually. I’ve written the code below. I was also thinking of using a file as opposed to hard coding the strings. Is there a nice way to this? Any feedback is much appreciated.

 setup_all do
  
     sample_strings = %{
       sample_str1: "test_string",
       sample_str2: "cz-dev",
       sample_str3: "new___cczdj",
       sample_str4: "czar,,,nic",
       }
    end
  
    defp input_length_valid(inp) do
      case String.length(inp) > 100  do
         true -> false
         false -> true
      end
    end
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
    test "Regular expression for string - test #1", sample_strings
    do
      assert sample_strings.sample_str3
         |> String.replace("_", "-")
         |> String.match?( ~r/^(my-regex)*$/)
      assert sample_strings.sample_str3 |> input_length_valid() == true
    end


    test "Regular expression for string - test #2", sample_strings
    do
      assert sample_strings.sample_str2
         |> String.replace("_", "-")
         |> String.match?( ~r/^(my-regex)*$/)
      assert sample_strings.sample_str2 |> input_length_valid() == true
    end

Showing Posts 1 to 6

al2o3cr

al2o3cr

If your sample strings are constants, you could put them in a module attribute:

@sample_strings %{
  sample_str1: "test_string",
  sample_str2: "cz-dev",
  sample_str3: "new___cczdj",
  sample_str4: "czar,,,nic",
  ...
}

General comment on input_length_valid: there are only four functions that take a single boolean value and return a single boolean value (constant true, constant false, identity, and invert) - whenever you find yourself writing a case with booleans on both sides of the ->s, figure out which one of the four you have and remove the case.

In this case you have “invert” - so input_length_valid simplifies to not(String.length(inp) > 100) or even just String.length(inp) <= 100


As to the test itself, unless there are a LOT of cases in @sample_strings you may find a single test easier to write. For instance, this is a very simple approach:

defp regex_matches?(sample) do
  sample
  |> String.replace("_", "-")
  |> String.match?(~r/^(my-regex)$/)
end

test "sample strings match" do
  Enum.each(@sample_strings, fn {_label, sample} ->
    assert regex_matches?(sample)
    assert input_length_valid(sample)
  end)
end

One downside of this approach is that it will fail the test on the first string that doesn’t match; if you want to see all the failures in a single run you could accumulate them explicitly:

test "sample strings match" do
  failed_matches =
    Enum.reject(@sample_strings, fn {_label, sample} ->
      regex_matches?(sample)
    end)

  assert [] == failed_matches

  # similar for input_length_valid
end

The main thing I like to keep in mind when structuring asserts like these: what do I want to learn when one fails?

_Seyed

_Seyed OP

Hey Matt,
Thanks a lot for the feedback.
My goal is to provide a test bed for trying out regular expressions. I’m currently displaying the strings that fail either test with IO.inspect.

On another note, I was thinking of adding the length_check to the pipe in regex_matches?()/1; since it returns a binary I don’t think it’s a good idea since I have to short circuit the pipeline. Would you recommend a with statement?

 with   true   <- input_length_valid(sample),   
    (the crux) <- String.replace(sample, "_", "-"),  
        true   <- String.match?(~r/^(my-regex)$/)  do

Thank you very much for your guidance.

al2o3cr

al2o3cr

To be frank, I don’t understand the intent of either input_length_valid or the String.replace here since the inputs are literals in the file - so it’s hard to make specific recommendations.

You could use an = clause for the String.replace if you wanted to use with.

_Seyed

_Seyed OP

In my particular use case, the input strings should have less than 100 characters. I think you are correct that the replace statement is a preprocessing step and should not be part of the test. Thank you for putting that into perspective.

dimitarvp

dimitarvp

As an alternative to @al2o3cr’s excellent answer, you can just code-generate test cases for each value so you have one failing test for each value that doesn’t match well:

defmodule YourApp.YourModuleTest do
  use ExUnit.Case

  @values ["test_string", "cz-dev", "new___cczdj", "czar,,,nic"]
  @regex "your_regex_here"

  describe "value" do
    for value <- @values do
      test unquote(value) do
        value = unquote(value)
        value = String.replace(value, "_", "-")
        assert String.match?(value, @regex)
        assert input_length_valid(value)
      end
    end
  end
end

Or you can draw out the heavy guns and use property-based testing (with some limitations of the input values so they are not infinite).

_Seyed

_Seyed OP

Thanks a lot @dimitarvp. :v:

— 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
brecabral
Documentation While reading the Scoped Routes section, I noticed that the documentation currently refers to a problem without explainin...
New
RemyXRenard
I’m seeing that a list inside a Kino.DataTable will be interpreted as a charlist, even if the Kino.configure() is set to charlists: :as_l...
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
samoloth
Hi, I’ve just set up an application with ash_authentication. There is only magic link strategy for now, so there is no confirmation add o...
New
FlyingNoodle
If a change or preparation module uses Ash.Changeset.get_argument/2 or Ash.Query.get_argument/2 (or any of the other get_argument functio...
New

Other Trending Topics Top

pckrishnadas88
In the previous part of this series, we built a Worker Pool from scratch, exploring point-to-point communication where a coordinator assi...
New
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

We're in Beta

About us Mission Statement

Options

Thread Display Mode




Thread Preview

Skip Thread Previews