BTW, this report means:
- mutation kind:
ReturnValue - mutation itself: we returned
nilinstead of what has been returned - failure: test has still had passed
mudasobwa
Creator of Cure
0
lud
Well then there is a problem because I added nil at the bottom of the function and 52 tests broke, so I’m not sure why it reported it as a positive.
Is there a way to run muex and tell it to run only with that precise mutation?
0
mudasobwa
Creator of Cure
Other tests, I suppose. The methodology is not perfect, and I know that. OTOH, the ultimate goal is to run it one the newly added code and tests subset.
It’s planned. Currently you might do mix muex --files "lib/my_module.ex" --test-paths "test/my_module_test.exs".
Also, passing --verbose might shed some light too.
0
lud
Yes I was running with verbose all the time. I need to move my tests to be able to target them better, but in fine JSV might be too test-heavy for mutation testing.
On the optimiztion side, could you describe your strategy? When running claude for the bug report I saw it was debugging symlinks, so I guess you are copying the source code in a temporary dir, adding the mutation, symlink all dependencies build to _build/test/lib/<each-dependency> and call mix test?
0
mudasobwa
Creator of Cure
Copying the source code is not the trick, the trick is to avoid recompilations whenever possible.
Unlike ruby or python, where you just change the code and run the mutation, recompiling elixir module might result in recompilation of the whole project. So we group tests by mutations in code, we avoid mutating the whole bunch of file kinds like behaviours etc, Mutation Optimization — Muex v0.8.1
1