QuickCheck and Proptest are similar in many ways: both generate random inputs for a function to check certain properties, and automatically shrink inputs to minimal failing cases.
The one big difference is that QuickCheck generates and shrinks values
based on type alone, whereas Proptest uses explicit
Strategy objects. The
QuickCheck approach has a lot of disadvantages in comparison:
QuickCheck can only define one generator and shrinker per type. If you need a custom generation strategy, you need to wrap it in a newtype and implement traits on that by hand. In Proptest, you can define arbitrarily many different strategies for the same type, and there are plenty built-in.
For the same reason, QuickCheck has a single “size” configuration that tries to define the range of values generated. If you need an integer between 0 and 100 and another between 0 and 1000, you probably need to do another newtype. In Proptest, you can directly just express that you want a
0..100integer and a
Types in QuickCheck are not easily composable. Defining
Shrinkfor a new struct which is simply produced by the composition of its fields requires implementing both by hand, including a bidirectional mapping between the struct and a tuple of its fields. In Proptest, you can make a tuple of the desired components and then
prop_mapit into the desired form. Shrinking happens automatically in terms of the input types.
Because constraints on values cannot be expressed in QuickCheck, generation and shrinking may lead to a lot of input rejections. Strategies in Proptest are aware of simple constraints and do not generate or shrink to values that violate them.
The author of Hypothesis also has an article on this topic.
Of course, there’s also some relative downsides that fall out of what Proptest does differently:
- Generating complex values in Proptest can be up to an order of magnitude slower than in QuickCheck. This is because QuickCheck performs stateless shrinking based on the output value, whereas Proptest must hold on to all the intermediate states and relationships in order for its richer shrinking model to work.