Johannes Link

@kostis I won't have time to do it till my return from vacation (mid September). If you find the time, all the better...

@AnthonyLloyd I agree that your examples are smaller for any definition of size that comes to my mind. Maybe there’s a subtle difference in your heap implementation to the original...

> > The description says `(0, None, (0, (0, None, None), (1, None, None)))` is the smallest but I find `(1, None, (0, None, None))` for 0+ and `(0, None,...

@AnthonyLloyd I reran the challenge mimicking your generator but do not find a smaller failing sample than the one in the description: https://github.com/jlink/shrinking-challenge/blob/main/pbt-libraries/jqwik/reports/binheap.md

@AnthonyLloyd The following example test: @Example void simplestFailingSample() { // (1, None, (0, None, None)) Heap h = new Heap(1, null, new Heap(0, null, null)); List l1 = toList(h); List...

I agree with everything except - maybe - that a challenge must not have several parts. Why couldn't it if - as in this case - the parts are a...

@kostis I am with you that starting from a written specification would be better. I do think, however, that the current situation is better than nothing because we have a...

@kostis Many thanks for diving into the challenge! I don't think every challenge has to be disected in this way but having a few well-understood examples is important for all...

> Looking at the jqwik implementation of the challenge, it indeed has a `not` on the right side of the ORs. > `(x,y) -> x < 10 || x /=...

Well, it's my bias from how jqwik does shrinking. Equality was a special case so case 1 worked from the beginning. Case 3 required special tuning. But of course, this...