Use deterministic helper to execute the test provided in the block successive number of times

[stefannibrasil]

faker has a deterministic_verify test helper that we can use for verifying the randomness of generators multiple times.

We have some tests using 10.times, 100.times, 1000.times blocks that we want to replace with the test helper mentioned above. Here are some examples of places that can be improved using the deterministic helper:

• https://github.com/faker-ruby/faker/blob/main/test/test_faker.rb#L16
• https://github.com/faker-ruby/faker/blob/main/test/faker/books/test_lovecraft.rb#L27

And other examples of tests using the helper:

https://github.com/faker-ruby/faker/blob/main/test/faker/default/test_faker_internet.rb#L61

Expected Outcomes

• replace existing tests using loops with the deterministic helper

---

This issue is great for a beginner, so please choose another way to contribute to faker if you have already contributed to other open source projects.

[fernandomenolli]

Hello,
I am a junior/mid level ruby on rails dev, I am looking for some open source projects to contribute, because I believe it helps a lot the learning journey.

Would this issue to be something like this?

 # Faker::Lovecraft.word generates random word from wordlist

 def test_word
   deterministically_verify -> { @tester.word }, depth: 5 do |word|
     assert_includes @wordlist, word
   end
 end

# test/test_faker.rb:16

  def test_numerify
    deterministically_verify -> { Faker::Base.numerify('###') }, depth: 5 do |result|
      assert_match(/[1-9]\d{2}/, result)
    end
  end

If so, I think I can take this one.

In the case we have 1000.times loop, like Lovecraft.word generator, should we use depth: 40 or any other number near this?

[ak2-lucky]

I want to do this myself!

[ak2-lucky]

@stefannibrasil
I modified it and created a PR.
Please check it out!

#2815

[stefannibrasil]

Hi @fernandomenolli yes, you can follow the existing tests implementation for the new ones.

About the depth, I don't think we need a high number. 4 or 5 looks good. Thank you!

[stefannibrasil]

Hi @ak2-lucky thank you for your contribution! @fernandomenolli already has shared an interest in taking this one, I just didn't have the time to assign the issue to them earlier this week. I hope you understand. Thanks!

[fernandomenolli]

Thanks @stefannibrasil, gonna work on it.

[ak2-lucky]

Oh, Sorry @fernandomenolli and @stefannibrasil
I've already fixed it, but I'll leave it to @fernandomenolli

@stefannibrasil
Are there any other tasks I can do?

[fernandomenolli]

@stefannibrasil I just opened a PR to this issue. Feel free to let me know if anything needs to be improved.