🧪 Integrate Hypothesis in tests

[webknjaz]

What do these changes do?

$sbj

Are there changes in behavior for the user?

Nah

Related issue number

Nope

Checklist

• [x] I think the code is well written
• [x] Unit tests for the changes exist
• [ ] Documentation reflects the changes
• [ ] Add a new news fragment into the CHANGES folder
  • name it <issue_id>.<type> (e.g. 588.bugfix)
  • if you don't have an issue_id change it to the pr id after creating the PR
  • ensure type is one of the following:
    • .feature: Signifying a new feature.
    • .bugfix: Signifying a bug fix.
    • .doc: Signifying a documentation improvement.
    • .removal: Signifying a deprecation or removal of public API.
    • .misc: A ticket has been closed, but it is not of interest to users.
  • Make sure to use full sentences with correct case and punctuation, for example: Fix issue with non-ascii contents in doctest text files.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Comparison is base (1456dd6) 99.33% compared to head (98412df) 99.48%. Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

:exclamation: Current head 98412df differs from pull request most recent head 3247e27. Consider uploading reports for the commit 3247e27 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #860      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   99.33%   99.48%   +0.14%     
==========================================
  Files          17        4      -13     
  Lines        3315      772    -2543     
  Branches      323        0     -323     
==========================================
- Hits         3293      768    -2525     
+ Misses         22        4      -18     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unit	99.48% <ø> (+0.23%)	:arrow_up:

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[webknjaz]

@mjpieters I started looking into using Hypothesis during PyCon (the maintainer helped me start). Does this look like a yarl bug to you? https://github.com/aio-libs/yarl/actions/runs/4813151119/jobs/8569304512?pr=860#step:7:1489

[mjpieters]

@mjpieters I started looking into using Hypothesis during PyCon (the maintainer helped me start). Does this look like a yarl bug to you? https://github.com/aio-libs/yarl/actions/runs/4813151119/jobs/8569304512?pr=860#step:7:1489

I was going to look into that since I found this PR! It does look like %30 is not being decoded properly, so that does look an awful lot like a bug.

[mjpieters]

Actually, no this is not a bug in Yarl; it is a bug in your Hypothesis tests. unsafe contains '0':

test_quote_unquote_parameter(
    quoter=yarl._quoting_c._Quoter,
    unquoter=yarl._quoting_c._Unquoter,
    text_input='0',
    safe='',
    unsafe='0',   # <--- 0 is unsafe
    protected='',
    qs=False,
    requote=False,
)

With 0 unsafe, the unquoter must return %30.

Either not tell Hypothesis to provide input to unsafe, or account for characters in unsafe when comparing input and output.

[webknjaz]

@mjpieters yeah, I never used these and wasn't sure about the semantics which is why I asked you. My objective is to make the foundation for adding more Hypothesis testing in the future and so the contributors could look at the examples...

[webknjaz]

@mjpieters how about https://github.com/aio-libs/yarl/actions/runs/5206601078/jobs/9393336950?pr=860#step:7:1507 then?

[webknjaz]

@mjpieters do you have ideas on how to best get this integrated finally? What extra constraints do we need in these tests?