Conversation
|
The So, in most test case scenarios that we envisioned, the generation of valid node names has to be test-environment specific (e.g. the user has to supply a valid list of machine and domain names) in order for the test to be properly executed. Hence, it cannot be totally random. Is your use-case different than this? Perhaps you can give us some more info why declaring |
|
Agreed with the environment specific nature of About my use-case: I have an internal config handler and processor. It doesn't have functions with side-effects, just saving and processing input data. It has several records specifications, in one of them I had two options for the check_specs to work: either use We could consider adding more logic to the And short node name should be generated with the usual restrictions to the node names. What do you think? |
I needed a proper test for the module that works with the 'node()' type.
I'm not sure that it's done correctly as I don't know the code good enough. I've got the 'bool()' type as an example for my modification.
btw, I don't quite understand why in a comment in proper_types.erl it's said that 'node' type won't be done.