forAll :: ∀ e a f. Foldable f => (a -> String) -> String -> f a -> (a -> Aff e Unit) -> Spec e Unit about purescript-spec

[safareli]

Would you like to submit this as a PR?

Yes!

[felixSchl]

I would welcome utility functions like these as I have been re-inventing that wheel many times over for neodoc

[mostalive]

I was looking for something like this to write a tests that takes a record of functions that work against a database, and a record of the same type with fakes, making sure both behave the same in the test.

…

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Felix Schlitter ***@***.***> wrote: I would welcome utility functions like these as I have been re-inventing that wheel many <https://github.com/felixSchl/neodoc/blob/development/test/Test/Spec/SolveSpec.purs#L240> times <https://github.com/felixSchl/neodoc/blob/development/test/Test/Spec/DescParserSpec.purs#L58> over <https://github.com/felixSchl/neodoc/blob/development/test/Test/Spec/ArgParserSpec.purs#L974> for neodoc — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#49 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAK7uOLsTKOtE7xPrUJuIcrwvaoq_hWDks5rzmSigaJpZM4NH69o> .

[owickstrom]

Yeah, this does seem useful. I have some questions/considerations:

• The name forAll feels like it's too close to forall. Would prefer something closer to it, as it's basically a "multi-it". Perhaps they?
• I'd prefer to drop the outer describe in this definition, keeping it a bit simpler, and not making an assumption that you want a separate level for the foldable. I'm not sure, but you might want to do something like:

  describe "many things" do
    they show [2, 4] \n -> (n `mod` 2) `shouldEqual` 0
    they show [4, 8] \n -> (n `mod` 4) `shouldEqual` 0

• And as a last thing, is the argument order the way we want? Not saying it isn't, but you might have feedback on that.

Thanks for the suggestion!

[safareli]

• dropping out describe is good idea.
• they seems good to me.

so at this point it looks like:

they :: ∀ e a f. Foldable f => (a -> String) -> f a -> (a -> Aff e Unit) -> Aff e Unit
they itTitle arb f = for_ arb \a -> it (itTitle a) (f a)

...
  describe "format (unformat a) = a" do
    they show arb \(str) -> (format $ unformat str) `shouldEqual` (Right str) 
...

About order:

I don't have strong opinion on it, but If we leave f as last argument, then we have two options:

• NAME itTitle arb f, infix usage: itTitle `NAME` arb f
• NAME arb itTitle f, infix usage: arb `NAME` itTitle f
  I can't think of a good name (english is not my native language) but there might be some name which will best fit this usage. maybe that? (show `that` validDates parseAndUnparseComutes)

[owickstrom]

Yeah, I could not come with any specific order either, as it doesn't read naturally anyway. I think we should go with what you already have:

they :: ∀ e a f. Foldable f => (a -> String) -> f a -> (a -> Aff e Unit) -> Aff e Unit

Would you like to submit this as a PR?