Mathieu Barbin

> I don't think 2. is useful because then it means we can't access the printers > from the outside. I believe you're referring to the qcheck generators, correct? Just...

I decided to take one more step while the details are still fresh in my mind. I've modified the test to use qcheck's core runner, as you suggested. Here's the...

Do you not use proptests in TDD? Long-term, users submitting failing tests [^1] in PRs could be a valuable workflow. This lets maintainers prioritize asynchronously, and use pre-existing expect-tests to...

I've added the following: 1. The ability to override the QuickCheck generator during test construction. 2. The option to disable certain tests from a generated test suite, providing flexibility for...

Thank you, @c-cube, for your continued involvement with this PR. I'm OK with the current tests for this PR, and am envisioning a growing collection of tests contributed from users...

I was thinking about it and wondered what could be done about the key `%%VCS_COMMIT_ID%%`, which is expected to be substituted during `dune subst` by the id of the commit...

@midorishibukawa I may have a related issue. Would you mind having a look at #411 and let me know if `BISECT_FILE` does anything for you? I'm preparing to use `bisect_ppx`...

Hi! Thank you for this issue, and linking the discord example, this helped me setup `bisect_ppx + cram` in a repo. I struggled to make the GitHub action part work,...

Hi @aantron, The impression I had was that you'd need to choose a location for the bisect files (1), remember to delete any stale file there ahead of running the...

> Also, Bisect_ppx itself uses cram tests, and Bisect's own `Makefile` doesn't seem to do any of this. I'll have to take a look at why. I'm unsure about the...