I want to logically join two ScalaTest assertions with an OR operator.
The thing is, those two assertions are checking something completely different. There are some examples using or in similar posts but that is not what I want to do.
Most posts are checking an OR condition on the same variable, i.e.
actual should (be (a [RuntimeException]) or be (a [Thread]))
But I want to join completely different things, i.e.
actual should (be (a [RuntimeException]) or somethingElse should be(0)
However, this instruction does not compile, because or is not a member of assertion. I tried several syntaxes with brackets but none of them are compiling :
(count should be(0)) or (isCentroid should be(true))
(count should be(0)) || (isCentroid should be(true))
How can I join those two assertions with OR ?
Failed tests throw TestFailedException when using matchers, so we could wrap the assertion in Try and then use standard Scala logical operators like so:
val P1 = Try(count should be(0)).isSuccess
val P2 = Try(isCentroid should be(true)).isSuccess
assert (P1 || P2)
On failure we should see something like:
P1 was false, and P2 was false
ScalaTestFailureLocation: example.HelloSpec at (HelloSpec.scala:29)
org.scalatest.exceptions.TestFailedException: P1 was false, and P2 was false
Related
I'm fairly new to Julia and am trying to figure out how to check if the given expression is contained in a Dict I've created.
function parse( expr::Array{Any} )
if expr[1] == #check here if "expr[1]" is in "owl"
return BinopNode(owl[expr[1]], parse( expr[2] ), parse( expr[3] ) )
end
end
owl = Dict(:+ => +, :- => -, :* => *, :/ => /)
I've looked at Julia's documentation and other resources, but can't find any answer to this.
"owl" is the name of my dictionary that I'm trying to check. I want to run the return statement should expr[1] be either "+,-,* or /".
A standard approach to check if some dictionary contains some key would be:
:+ in keys(owl)
or
haskey(owl, :+)
Your solution depends on the fact that you are sure that 0 is not one of the values in the dictionary, which might not be true in general. However, if you want to use such an approach (it is useful when you do not want to perform a lookup in the dictionary twice: once to check if it contains some key, and second time to get the value assigned to the key if it exists) then normally you would use nothing as a sentinel and then perform the check get_return_value !== nothing (note two = here - they are important for the compiler to generate an efficient code). So your code would look like this:
function myparse(expr::Array{Any}, owl) # better pass `owl` as a parameter to the function
v = get(expr[1], owl, nothing)
if v !== nothing
return BinopNode(v, myparse(expr[2]), myparse(expr[3]))
end
# and what do we do if v === nothing?
end
Note that I use myparse name, as parse is a function defined in Base, so we do not want to have a name clash. Finally your myparse is recursive so you should define a second method to this function handling the case when expr is not an Array{Any}.
I feel like an idiot for finding this so fast, but I came up with the following solution: (Willing to hear more efficient answers however)
yes = 1
yes = get(owl,expr[1],0)
if yes != 0
#do return statement here
"yes" should get set equal to 0 if the expression is not found in the dictionary "owl". So a simple != if statement to see if it's zero fixes my problem.
let list p = if List.contains " " p || List.contains null p then false else true
I have such a function to check if the list is well formatted or not. The list shouldn't have an empty string and nulls. I don't get what I am missing since Check.Verbose list returns falsifiable output.
How should I approach the problem?
I think you don't quite understand FsCheck yet. When you do Check.Verbose someFunction, FsCheck generates a bunch of random input for your function, and fails if the function ever returns false. The idea is that the function you pass to Check.Verbose should be a property that will always be true no matter what the input is. For example, if you reverse a list twice then it should return the original list no matter what the original list was. This property is usually expressed as follows:
let revTwiceIsSameList (lst : int list) =
List.rev (List.rev lst) = lst
Check.Verbose revTwiceIsSameList // This will pass
Your function, on the other hand, is a good, useful function that checks whether a list is well-formed in your data model... but it's not a property in the sense that FsCheck uses the term (that is, a function that should always return true no matter what the input is). To make an FsCheck-style property, you want to write a function that looks generally like:
let verifyMyFunc (input : string list) =
if (input is well-formed) then // TODO: Figure out how to check that
myFunc input = true
else
myFunc input = false
Check.Verbose verifyMyFunc
(Note that I've named your function myFunc instead of list, because as a general rule, you should never name a function list. The name list is a data type (e.g., string list or int list), and if you name a function list, you'll just confuse yourself later on when the same name has two different meanings.)
Now, the problem here is: how do you write the "input is well-formed" part of my verifyMyFunc example? You can't just use your function to check it, because that would be testing your function against itself, which is not a useful test. (The test would essentially become "myFunc input = myFunc input", which would always return true even if your function had a bug in it — unless your function returned random input, of course). So you'd have to write another function to check if the input is well-formed, and here the problem is that the function you've written is the best, most correct way to check for well-formed input. If you wrote another function to check, it would boil down to not (List.contains "" || List.contains null) in the end, and again, you'd be essentially checking your function against itself.
In this specific case, I don't think FsCheck is the right tool for the job, because your function is so simple. Is this a homework assignment, where your instructor is requiring you to use FsCheck? Or are you trying to learn FsCheck on your own, and using this exercise to teach yourself FsCheck? If it's the former, then I'd suggest pointing your instructor to this question and see what he says about my answer. If it's the latter, then I'd suggest finding some slightly more complicated function to use to learn FsCheck. A useful function here would be one where you can find some property that should always be true, like in the List.rev example (reversing a list twice should restore the original list, so that's a useful property to test with). Or if you're having trouble finding an always-true property, at least find a function that you can implement in at least two different ways, so that you can use FsCheck to check that both implementations return the same result for any given input.
Adding to #rmunn's excellent answer:
if you wanted to test myFunc (yes I also renamed your list function) you could do it by creating some fixed cases that you already know the answer to, like:
let myFunc p = if List.contains " " p || List.contains null p then false else true
let tests =
testList "myFunc" [
testCase "empty list" <| fun()-> "empty" |> Expect.isTrue (myFunc [ ])
testCase "nonempty list" <| fun()-> "hi" |> Expect.isTrue (myFunc [ "hi" ])
testCase "null case" <| fun()-> "null" |> Expect.isFalse (myFunc [ null ])
testCase "empty string" <| fun()-> "\"\"" |> Expect.isFalse (myFunc [ "" ])
]
Tests.runTests config tests
Here I am using a testing library called Expecto.
If you run this you would see one of the tests fails:
Failed! myFunc/empty string:
"". Actual value was true but had expected it to be false.
because your original function has a bug; it checks for space " " instead of empty string "".
After you fix it all tests pass:
4 tests run in 00:00:00.0105346 for myFunc – 4 passed, 0 ignored, 0
failed, 0 errored. Success!
At this point you checked only 4 simple and obvious cases with zero or one element each. Many times functions fail when fed more complex data. The problem is how many more test cases can you add? The possibilities are literally infinite!
FsCheck
This is where FsCheck can help you. With FsCheck you can check for properties (or rules) that should always be true. It takes a little bit of creativity to think of good ones to test for and granted, sometimes it is not easy.
In your case we can test for concatenation. The rule would be like this:
If two lists are concatenated the result of MyFunc applied to the concatenation should be true if both lists are well formed and false if any of them is malformed.
You can express that as a function this way:
let myFuncConcatenation l1 l2 = myFunc (l1 # l2) = (myFunc l1 && myFunc l2)
l1 # l2 is the concatenation of both lists.
Now if you call FsCheck:
FsCheck.Verbose myFuncConcatenation
It tries a 100 different combinations trying to make it fail but in the end it gives you the Ok:
0:
["X"]
["^"; ""]
1:
["C"; ""; "M"]
[]
2:
[""; ""; ""]
[""; null; ""; ""]
3:
...
Ok, passed 100 tests.
This does not necessarily mean your function is correct, there still could be a failing combination that FsCheck did not try or it could be wrong in a different way. But it is a pretty good indication that it is correct in terms of the concatenation property.
Testing for the concatenation property with FsCheck actually allowed us to call myFunc 300 times with different values and prove that it did not crash or returned an unexpected value.
FsCheck does not replace case by case testing, it complements it:
Notice that if you had run FsCheck.Verbose myFuncConcatenation over the original function, which had a bug, it would still pass. The reason is the bug was independent of the concatenation property. This means that you should always have the case by case testing where you check the most important cases and you can complement that with FsCheck to test other situations.
Here are other properties you can check, these test the two false conditions independently:
let myFuncHasNulls l = if List.contains null l then myFunc l = false else true
let myFuncHasEmpty l = if List.contains "" l then myFunc l = false else true
Check.Quick myFuncHasNulls
Check.Quick myFuncHasEmpty
// Ok, passed 100 tests.
// Ok, passed 100 tests.
I am currently learning sml but I have one question that I can not find an answer for. I have googled but still have not found anything.
This is my code:
fun diamond(n) =
if(n=1) then (
print("*")
) else (
print("*")
diamond(n-1)
)
diamond(5);
That does not work. I want the code to show as many * as number n is and I want to do that with recursion, but I don't understand how to do that.
I get an error when I try to run that code. This is the error:
Standard ML of New Jersey v110.78 [built: Thu Aug 20 19:23:18 2015]
[opening a4_p2.sml] a4_p2.sml:8.5-9.17 Error: operator is not a
function [tycon mismatch] operator: unit in expression:
(print "*") diamond /usr/local/bin/sml: Fatal error -- Uncaught exception Error with 0 raised at
../compiler/TopLevel/interact/evalloop.sml:66.19-66.27
Thank you
You can do side effects in ML by using ';'
It will evaluate whatever is before the ';' and discard its result.
fun diamond(n) =
if(n=1)
then (print "*"; 1)
else (print "*"; diamond(n-1));
diamond(5);
The reason for the error is because ML is a strongly typed language that although you don't need to specify types explicitly, it will infer them based on environmental factors at compile time. For this reason, every evaluation of functions, statements like if else need to evaluate to an unambiguous singular type.
If you were allowed to do the following:
if(n=1)
then 1
else print "*";
then the compiler will get a different typing for the then and else branch respectively.
For the then branch the type would be int -> int whereas the type for the else branch would be int -> unit
Such a dichotomy is not allowed under a strongly typed language.
As you need to evaluate to a singular type, you will understand that ML does not support the execution of a block of instructions as we commonly see in other paradigms which transposed to ML naively would render something like this:
....
if(n=1)
then (print "1"
print "2"
)
else (print "3"
diamond(n-1)
)
...
because what type would the then branch evaluate to? int -> unit? Then what about the other print statement? A statement has to return a singular result(even it be a compound) so that would not make sense. What about int -> unit * unit? No problem with that except that syntactically speaking, you failed to communicate a tuple to the compiler.
For this reason, the following WOULD work:
fun diamond(n) =
if(n=1)
then (print "a", 1) /* A tuple of the type unit * int */
else diamond(n-1);
diamond(5);
As in this case you have a function of type int -> unit * int.
So in order to satisfy the requirement of the paradigm of strongly typed functional programming where we strive for building mechanisms that evaluate to one result-type, we thus need to communicate to the compiler that certain statements are to be executed as instructions and are not to be incorporated under the typing of the function under consideration.
For this reason, you use ';' to communicate to the compiler to simply evaluate that statement and discard its result from being incorporated under the type evaluation of the function.
As far as your actual objective is concerned, following is a better way of writing the function, diamond as type int -> string:
fun diamond(n) =
if(n=1)
then "*"
else "*" ^ diamond(n-1);
print( diamond(5) );
The above way is more for debugging purposes.
I'm struggling to understand parametric type creation in julia. I know that I can create a type with the following:
type EconData
values
dates::Array{Date}
colnames::Array{ASCIIString}
function EconData(values, dates, colnames)
if size(values, 1) != size(dates, 1)
error("Date/data dimension mismatch.")
end
if size(values, 2) != size(colnames, 2)
error("Name/data dimension mismatch.")
end
new(values, dates, colnames)
end
end
ed1 = EconData([1;2;3], [Date(2014,1), Date(2014,2), Date(2014,3)], ["series"])
However, I can't figure out how to specify how values will be typed. It seems reasonable to me to do something like
type EconData{T}
values::Array{T}
...
function EconData(values::Array{T}, dates, colnames)
...
However, this (and similar attempts) simply produce and error:
ERROR: `EconData{T}` has no method matching EconData{T}(::Array{Int64,1}, ::Array{Date,1}, ::Array{ASCIIString,2})
How can I specify the type of values?
The answer is that things get funky with parametric types and inner constructors - in fact, I think its probably the most confusing thing in Julia. The immediate solution is to provide a suitable outer constructor:
using Dates
type EconData{T}
values::Vector{T}
dates::Array{Date}
colnames::Array{ASCIIString}
function EconData(values, dates, colnames)
if size(values, 1) != size(dates, 1)
error("Date/data dimension mismatch.")
end
if size(values, 2) != size(colnames, 2)
error("Name/data dimension mismatch.")
end
new(values, dates, colnames)
end
end
EconData{T}(v::Vector{T},d,n) = EconData{T}(v,d,n)
ed1 = EconData([1,2,3], [Date(2014,1), Date(2014,2), Date(2014,3)], ["series"])
What also would have worked is to have done
ed1 = EconData{Int}([1,2,3], [Date(2014,1), Date(2014,2), Date(2014,3)], ["series"])
My explanation might be wrong, but I think the probably is that there is no parametric type constructor method made by default, so you have to call the constructor for a specific instantiation of the type (my second version) or add the outer constructor yourself (first version).
Some other comments: you should be explicit about dimensions. i.e. if all your fields are vectors (1D), use Vector{T} or Array{T,1}, and if their are matrices (2D) use Matrix{T} or Array{T,2}. Make it parametric on the dimension if you need to. If you don't, slow code could be generated because functions using this type aren't really sure about the actual data structure until runtime, so will have lots of checks.
I would like to parse a query for a database of chemical elements.
The database is stored in a xml file. Parsing that file produces a nested dictionary that is stored in a singleton object that inherit from collections.OrderedDict.
Asking for an element will give me an ordered dictionary of its corresponding properties
(i.e. ELEMENTS['C'] --> {'name':'carbon','neutron' : 0,'proton':6, ...}).
Conversely, asking for a propery will give me an ordered dictionary of its values for all the elements (i.e. ELEMENTS['proton'] --> {'H' : 1, 'He' : 2} ...).
A typical query could be:
mass > 10 or (nucleon < 20 and atomic_radius < 5)
where each 'subquery' (i.e. mass > 10) will return the set of elements that matches it.
Then, the query will be converted and transformed internally to a string that will be evaluated further to produce a set of the indexes of the elements that matched it. In that context the operators and/or are not boolean operator but rather ensemble operator that acts upon python sets.
I recently sent a post for building such a query. Thanks to the useful answers I got, I think that I did more or less the job (I hope on a nice way !) but I still have some questions related to pyparsing.
Here is my code:
import numpy
from pyparsing import *
# This import a singleton object storing the datase dictionary as
# described earlier
from ElementsDatabase import ELEMENTS
and_operator = oneOf(['and','&'], caseless=True)
or_operator = oneOf(['or' ,'|'], caseless=True)
# ELEMENTS.properties is a property getter that returns the list of
# registered properties in the database
props = oneOf(ELEMENTS.properties, caseless=True)
# A property keyword can be quoted or not.
props = Suppress('"') + props + Suppress('"') | props
# When parsed, it must be replaced by the following expression that
# will be eval later.
props.setParseAction(lambda t : "numpy.array(ELEMENTS['%s'].values())" % t[0].lower())
quote = QuotedString('"')
integer = Regex(r'[+-]?\d+').setParseAction(lambda t:int(t[0]))
float_ = Regex(r'[+-]?(\d+(\.\d*)?)?([eE][+-]?\d+)?').setParseAction(lambda t:float(t[0]))
comparison_operator = oneOf(['==','!=','>','>=','<', '<='])
comparison_expr = props + comparison_operator + (quote | float_ | integer)
comparison_expr.setParseAction(lambda t : "set(numpy.where(%s)%s%s)" % tuple(t))
grammar = Combine(operatorPrecedence(comparison_expr, [(and_operator, 2, opAssoc.LEFT) (or_operator, 2, opAssoc.LEFT)]))
# A test query
res = grammar.parseString('"mass " > 30 or (nucleon == 1)',parseAll=True)
print eval(' '.join(res._asStringList()))
My question are the following:
1 using 'transformString' instead of 'parseString' never triggers any
exception even when the string to be parsed does not match the grammar.
However, it is exactly the functionnality I need. Is there is a way to do so ?
2 I would like to reintroduce white spaces between my tokens in order
that my eval does not fail. The only way I found to do so it the one
implemented above. Would you see a better way using pyparsing ?
sorry for the long post but I wanted to introduce in deeper details its context. BTW, if you find this approach bad, do not hesitate to tell it me!
thank you very much for your help.
Eric
do not worry about my concern, I found a work around. I used the SimpleBool.py example shipped with pyparsing (thanks for the hint Paul).
Basically, I used the following approach:
1 for each subquery (i.e. mass > 10), using the setParseAction method,
I joined a function that returns the set of eleements that matched
the subquery
2 then, I joined the following functions for each logical operator (and,
or and not):
def not_operator(token):
_, s = token[0]
# ELEMENTS is the singleton described in my original post
return set(ELEMENTS.keys()).difference(s)
def and_operator(token):
s1, _, s2 = token[0]
return (s1 and s2)
def or_operator(token):
s1, _, s2 = token[0]
return (s1 or s2)
# Thanks for Paul for the hint.
grammar = operatorPrecedence(comparison_expr,
[(not_token, 1,opAssoc.RIGHT,not_operator),
(and_token, 2, opAssoc.LEFT,and_operator),
(or_token, 2, opAssoc.LEFT,or_operator)])
Please not that these operators acts upon python sets rather than
on booleans.
And that does the job.
I hope that this approach will help anyone of you.
Eric