Is there a version of quickcheck that works for Javascript and that is well maintained? I have found several such as check.js and claire, but none of them seem to support shrinking of failing test cases, which has always struck me as the most useful part of the whole problem.
I'm creator of jsverify. I'll try constantly to make it better, bug reports and feature requests are welcomed.
There are also a list of other javascript generative testing libraries in a readme. So far I haven't found any other good alternative to the jsverify.
I recently released https://github.com/dubzzz/fast-check
I built it in order to answer several limitations I encountered in the existing quickcheck implementations in JavaScript.
It comes natively with a shrink feature which can shrink even combination of arbitraries (the frameworks I tried were failing on oneof like arbitraries).
It also can generate large objects and arrays.
By default it tends to try smaller values first in order to detect trivial edge cases while it covers all the possible inputs in next runs.
Lots of other features are on-going or already available :)
Cheers,
Nicolas
I wrote quick_check.js, which has a nice library of generators. Shrinking is not there yet, but is planned.
There seems to be a dearth of good quickcheck-like testing tools in javascript. However they are to be better supported in typed languages, and in fact you can write your tests in one of those languages if you wish.
To avoid dealing with runtime interop, I'd recommend going with a language which compiles to JS and runs on node.js (eg: Purescript with purescript-quickcheck), or a java-based language using the Nashorn engine provided in Java 8, for example ScalaCheck. You could even use ghcjs and the original flavor of the quickcheck library!
Related
A rookie here.
Messing with my google scripts projects I have found a strange thing, a method that I was using was strike-through in the editor and it looked like this --> substr . Researching, I found that it is because this method is being deprecated. And for people looking how to solve it look the documentation in developer.mozilla.org.
At first, I had no problem with this, but, if it was not there before, and it is now, that means that the version of javascript that my project is using is changing and I do not want that. And there is my question
Is there a way to make the version of V8 JavaScript that my google script uses constant?
Looking in to the app-scripts documentation I have found that it uses V8 and that it is defined in the manifest but the way of freezing to a certain version is nowhere to be found. Maybe there is an easy answer, but I have no clue where else to look. Any help will be welcomed.
No, there is no way to select a particular V8 version for your GAS.
That said, JavaScript engines are generally very conscious of backwards compatibility. It is extremely rare that features are removed -- there are a good number of "legacy"/"deprecated" things in JS that won't be removed for the foreseeable future, because there's too much old and unmaintained (but still used) code out there that depends on them, and browser makers don't want to break that code.
Regarding the specific case at hand, I personally would be quite surprised if String.prototype.substr ever got removed. I see its deprecation as more of a "pro tip: how not to confuse substr and substring: only ever use one of them".
FWIW, V8 itself has no notion of deprecated JavaScript features. The strike-through you see is just an editor feature. Updating or not updating the V8 version underneath wouldn't affect it.
Taking a step back: writing software once and then expecting it to work without maintenance or monitoring for decades is, unfortunately, generally not a thing. For instance, if you developed a game for Windows 95, you'd have to expect that it won't run well (or not at all) on modern Windows versions. There are countless more examples of operating systems, SDKs/toolkits, compilers/engines, and programming languages themselves evolving over time in ways that guarantee backwards-compatibility for a couple of years but not forever. This is the flip side of technological progress. Pinning yourself to certain outdated versions is generally not a viable solution, for a variety of reasons.
So actually, in comparison, when you write an app or script in JavaScript, you have a very high chance of it still working fine 20 years later. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.
How one can determine JS version using only js functions, without calls navigator/agent?
For example, codeforces.com has a JS as one of the possible languages for problem solutions, however, it uses outdated d8 instead of nodejs for some reasons. Since JS actively goes to the backend and becomes general purpose scripted language I guess this determination code can be somehow useful.
As far as i know nodeJS uses v8. (https://developers.google.com/v8/)
there is a related topic here (Detect version of JavaScript)
Feature detection is the way to go.
The reason is that all modern JavaScript implementations have adopted a development/release strategy where they work on new features in parallel and ship them when they are ready. So there is no (usually) no specific point in time where a given browser or node.js switches from "not supporting ES2017" to "supporting ES2017", it's more likely that they're in a state of "most ES2017 features are supported already but some are still missing or incomplete".
There are many ES6 features that look great like => syntax, Map object, and a long etc.
To be honest I'm kind of tired of checking if there is support for addEventListener due to ie8 attachEvent, and I wouldn't like that kind of pain coming back to my life.
So how, would you deal with this new posibilities? (or how will you, lets say, in a year or so). Would you not use them for basic actions but to add another layer of extra functions? Would you use it just for apps that you know you will be running in browsers that support them? Would you wait untill there is at least 90% of support?
I understand these are great features but for short to medium term usage it seems that you'd need to double your code checking and fallbacking for support.
Any enlightment about this subject?
EDIT: Please, don't mark this as duplicate. Notice I'm not asking how to check for support, I'm asking if it is wise to start using it, or it is better to wait. I'm also asking if the support check is the best option, not how to do it, or if there are other ways to proced while designing your code.
tl;dr: Make use of transpilers and polyfills.
Whether or not you should use new features primarily depends on your target environment and how exactly you are using new features. E.g. if you are targeting only the latest browser version, then you won't have an issue. Have to support IE8? That could be more difficult.
In general though, you should start using new features as soon as possible, and make use of tools that help you with that.
There are two aspects to look at:
New APIs
New syntax constructs
APIs
New API's can often (but not always) be polyfilled. I.e. you include a library which checks whether certain parts of the API exist, e.g. Map, and provides an alternative implementation if it doesn't.
These alternative implements may not be 100% equivalent or may not be as performant as a native implementation, but I'd say they work for 95% for all use cases.
The nice thing about polyfills is that you will be automatically using the native browser implementation if it is available.
Syntax
Making use of new syntax constructs, such as arrow functions or classes, is a bit more complex (but not much). The biggest issue is that browsers who do not support the syntax cannot even evaluate your code. You can only send code to the browser that it can actually parse.
Fortunately many of the new syntax elements, such as arrow functions, are really just syntactic sugar for things that are already possible ES5. So we can convert ES6 code into their ES5 or even ES3 equivalent.
Several such tools, called transpilers, have emerged over the last one or two years. Note that the transpiler has to convert your code before it is sent to the browser. This means that instead of simply writing your JS file and directly include in your page, you need to have a build step that converts the code first (just like we have in other languages, like C or Java).
This is different from how we wrote JS a couple of years ago, but having a build step has become increasingly more accepted by the JS community. There are also many build tools that try to make this as painless as possible.
One drawback is, unlike with polyfills, that you won't magically be using the native features if they become available. So you could be stuck with shipping the transpiled version for a long time, until all your target environments support all the features you need. But that's probably still better than not using the new features at all.
You can use BabelJS or Google Traceur
You have to include in your build process a step to transform ES6, ES7 code to Javascript compatible with todays browsers. Like a gulp or grunt task. Babel has a list of supported tools here
I am working on an ASP.NET project, and it is very frustrating how poor the support for JavaScript is in VS. For example, no outlining, no f12 to find a definition, no refactoring, no code analysis, no ready support for documenting functions, horrible navigation and barely functional intelisense.
Although JavaScript is no doubt an intractable language, it is clearly possible to do these things: many PHP/Python/Java toolsets have much better support.
I was wondering if there is a decent plug in for JavaScript in VS? Does everyone just suffer in silence, or am I missing something? I find the contrast between working in the C# side, which has awesome tools, to the JavaScript side which has tools with 1990s functionality quite disconcerting.
I'm looking forward (it's not available as yet) to the JavaScript support in ReSharper 6: http://blogs.jetbrains.com/dotnet/2010/09/resharper-6-javascript-css-support-coming-up/
This one is pretty good too ..
http://code.google.com/p/js-addin
what basic tips should we observe in design web pages(html/css/javascript) for having highest compatibility with most browsers(IE-firefox-opera-chrome-safari)?
thanks
Validate often and squash all validation errors by the time you make a public release. The purpose of validation, after all, is to parse the html as a standards-compliant browser would and then avoid the errors that a browser's parser would find.
Apply progressive-enhancement techniques. Often that means moving some of the complexity of dynamic pages to the back-end (e.g. php, django, what have you) so that you can have complex functionality that doesn't break in one of the thousands of different client environments in which a page's javascript will run. jQuery is excellent for narrowing the focus of your javascript development towards feature enhancement instead of open-ended features-in-javascript, and it'll help with cross-browser compatibility as well.
IE - Test in at least one live version of IE 7 or 8. Unfortunately, there really isn't any way around this, because even IE8 misbehaves like no other browser. If possible, limit your goal of support for IE6 to html/css (i.e. don't promise support for user-enhancement-features via javascript in ie6). If possible, drop support for IE 5.5 and below.
For Javascript, use libraries that are intended on being platform-independent (ie: JQuery, Prototype). Not everything will be, but it'll make your life much easier.
For CSS, I'd say follow standards, but IE tends to cause problems across the board.
Which means, you need to test, and test often. Selenium is awesome for automated functional testing, and it works with pretty much every browser. We use a Selenium RC server on a Windows machine to test IE and Firefox, which are then controlled from our standard Java JUnit tests.
Keep things simple.
The simpler your markup, CSS, and JavaScript, the easier it will be to track down incompatibilities. Try to limit yourself to CSS1 for as much as possible. Only use more modern CSS2/3 features when there is no easier way to accomplish your task.
Don't use tables, they just add extra complexity. Using semantic markup not only makes things maintainable, but also gets you the best cross browser support if done properly.
Keep in mind that floats are evil, but are also very powerful. Use them generously, but avoid trying to clear floats. Use overflow instead.
Use a JavaScript framework. Framework developers have smoothed out most of the cross-browser bugs for you. I recommend jQuery, but you can choose any framework your developers feel comfortable with. My advice is to:
Use a JavaScript framework that doesn't alter the prototypes of native objects (like Prototype JS does)
Doesn't introduce many global variables. Most frameworks follow this rule.
Aside from those 2 rules for JavaScript, try using closures to encapsulate code so you don't introduce your own global variables.
One strategy I use is to start my CSS with a set of rules that blank everything out. Each browser may have different values for element attributes so ensuring that everything is consistent from the get-go can be handy. Here is an example reset.css
http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/css/reset/
Take a look at this great article: Browser Compatibility Tutorial
Remember: something won't just work for a specific browser (mayble a left dotted border won't show in Chrome). Do not be upset about that if you can! :) Cross-compatibility is an art that takes a lot of time.