me, before writing a hundred of tests: "ugh, i don't wanna, i bet it won't even find any bugs" me, after: "holy crap so many bugs. so many"
What's depressing is when you try fuzzing & fuzzer writes 100M tests in the time it takes you to write 1-10, & finds more bugs.
-
-
I can't do fuzzing. I don't have a grammar, and I mostly can't have automated invariant checking!
-
I mean, I could probably find memory corruption bugs, but I don't care a lot about those.
-
What I do care about is things like "this doesn't render correctly" or "the sketch is in wrong configuration after solving".
-
I see. If you can write code to catch wrongness, fuzzing might work, but yes it doesn't always apply well, can be hard to apply.
-
I can catch wrongness. But almost all (in the set theory sense) cases of wrongness are in the end simply operator error!
-
It's like trying to use a fuzzer to write C programs and then running them.
-
@johnregehr I see what you did there.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.