Expect-test is a framework for writing tests in OCaml, similar to Cram.
Expect-tests mimic the existing inline tests framework with the let%expect_test
construct.
The body of an expect-test can contain output-generating code, interleaved with %expect
extension
expressions to denote the expected output.
When run, these tests will pass iff the output matches what was expected. If a test fails, a
corrected file with the suffix “.corrected” will be produced with the actual output, and the
inline_tests_runner
will output a diff.
Here is an example Expect-test program, say in foo.ml
open Core
let%expect_test "addition" =
printf "%d" (1 + 2);
[%expect {| 4 |}]
When the test is run (as part of inline_tests_runner
), foo.ml.corrected
will be produced with the
contents:
open Core
let%expect_test "addition" =
printf "%d" (1 + 2);
[%expect {| 3 |}]
inline_tests_runner
will also output the diff:
---foo.ml +++foo.ml.corrected File "foo.ml", line 5, characters 0-1: open Core let%expect_test "addition" = printf "%d" (1 + 2); -| [%expect {| 4 |}] +| [%expect {| 3 |}]
Diffs will be shown in color if the -use-color
flag is passed to the test runner executable.
A [%expect] can exist in a way that it is encountered multiple times, e.g. in a functor or a function:
let%expect_test _ =
let f output =
print_string output;
[%expect {| hello world |}]
in
f "hello world";
f "hello world";
;;
The [%expect]
should capture the exact same output (i.e. up to string equality) at every
invocation. In particular, this does **not** work:
let%expect_test _ =
let f output =
print_string output;
[%expect {| \(foo\|bar\) (regexp) |}]
in
f "foo";
f "bar";
;;
Matching is done on a line-by-line basis. If any output line fails to match its expected output, the expected line is replaced with the actual line in the final output.
Inside %expect
nodes, whitespace around expectations are ignored, and
the user is free to put any amount for formatting purposes. The same
goes for the actual output.
Ignoring surrounding whitespace allows to write nicely formatted expectation and focus only on matching the bits that matter.
To do this, ppx_expect strips expectations and outputs by taking the smallest rectangle of text that contains the non-whitespace material. All end of line whitespace are ignored as well. So for instance all these lines are equivalent:
print blah;
[%expect {|
abc
defg
hij|}]
print blah;
[%expect {|
abc
defg
hij
|}]
print blah;
[%expect {|
abc
defg
hij
|}]
However, the last one is nicer to read.
For the rare cases where one does care about what the exact output is,
ppx_expect provides the %expect_exact
extension point, which only
succeed when the untouched output is exactly equal to the untouched
expectation.
When producing a correction, ppx_expect tries to respect as much as possible the formatting of the expectation.
The extension point [%expect.output]
returns a string
with the output that
would have been matched had an [%expect]
node been there instead.
An idiom for testing non-deterministic output is to capture the output using
[%expect.output]
and either post-process it or inspect it manually, e.g.,
show_process ();
let pid_and_exit_status = [%expect.output] in
let exit_status = discard_pid pid_and_exit_status in
print_endline exit_status;
[%expect {| 1 |}]
If you are writing expect tests for a system using Async, Lwt or any
other libraries for cooperative threading, you need some preparation
so that everything works well. For instance, you probably need to
flush some stdout
channel. The expect test runtime takes care of
flushing Stdlib.stdout
but it doesn’t know about
Async.Writer.stdout
, Lwt_io.stdout
or anything else.
To deal with this, expect\_test provides some hooks in the form of a
configuration module Expect_test_config
. The default module in scope
define no-op hooks that the user can override. Async
redefines
this module so when Async
is opened you can write async-aware
expect test.
In addition to Async.Expect_test_config
, there is an
alternative, Async.Expect_test_config_with_unit_expect
. That is
easier to use than Async.Expect_test_config
because [%expect]
has
type unit
rather than unit Deferred.t
. So one can write:
[%expect foo];
rather than:
let%bind () = [%expect foo] in
Expect_test_config_with_unit_expect
arrived in 2019-06. We hope to
transition from Expect_test_config
to
Expect_test_config_with_unit_expect
, eventually renaming the latter
as the former.
This is what you would need to write expect tests with Lwt:
module Lwt_io_run = struct
type 'a t = 'a Lwt.t
end
module Lwt_io_flush = struct
type 'a t = 'a Lwt.t
let return x = Lwt.return x
let bind x ~f = Lwt.bind x f
let to_run x = x
end
module Expect_test_config :
Expect_test_config_types.S
with module IO_run = Lwt_io_run
and module IO_flush = Lwt_io_flush = struct
module IO_run = Lwt_io_run
module IO_flush = Lwt_io_flush
let run x = Lwt_main.run (x ())
let upon_unreleasable_issue = `CR
end
The simple example above can be easily represented as a unit test:
let%test_unit "addition" = [%test_result: int] (1 + 2) ~expect:4
So, why would one use Expect-test rather than a unit test? There are several differences between the two approaches.
With a unit test, one must write code that explicitly checks that the
actual behavior agrees with the expected behavior. %test_result
is
often a convenient way of doing that, but even using that requires:
- creating a value to compare
- writing the type of that value
- having a comparison function on the value
- writing down the expected value
With Expect-test, we can simply add print statements whose output gives
insight into the behavior of the program, and blank %expect
attributes to collect the output. We then run the program to see if
the output is acceptable, and if so, replace the original program
with its output. E.g we might first write our program like this:
let%expect_test _ =
printf "%d" (1 + 2);
[%expect {||}]
The corrected file would contain:
let%expect_test _ =
printf "%d" (1 + 2);
[%expect {| 3 |}]
With Expect-test, we only have to write code that prints things that we care about. We don’t have to construct expected values or write code to compare them. We get comparison for free by using diff on the output. And a good diff (e.g. patdiff) can make understanding differences between large outputs substantially easier, much easier than typical unit-testing code that simply states that two values aren’t equal.
Once an Expect-test program produces the desired expected output and we have replaced the original program with its output, we now automatically have a regression test going forward. Any undesired change to the output will lead to a mismatch between the source program and its output.
With Expect-test, the source program and its output are interleaved. This
makes debugging easier, because we do not have to jump between source
and its output and try to line them up. Furthermore, when there is a
mismatch, we can simply add print statements to the source program and
run it again. This gives us interleaved source and output with the
debug messages interleaved in the right place. We might even insert
additional empty %%expect
attributes to collect debug messages.
Every %expect
node in an Expect-test program becomes a point at which
the program output is captured. Once the program terminates, the
captured outputs are matched against the expected outputs, and interleaved with
the original source code to produce the corrected file. Trailing output is appended in a
new %expect
node.
Follow the same rules as for ppx_inline_test. Just make sure to
include ppx_expect.evaluator
as a dependency of the test runner. The
Jane Street tests contains a few working examples using oasis.