Edit for posterity: The library you're looking for is Hspec.

I recently started writing Haskell tests with HUnit. My general setup looks something like this:

import Test.HUnit

import Widget (foo, bar)

tests = TestList [ "foo" ~: testFoo
                 , "bar" ~: testBar

testFoo :: Test
testFoo = TestList
  [ "with even numbers" ~:
    4 ~=? foo 4
  , "with odd numbers" ~:
    0 ~=? foo 5

testBar :: Test
testBar = TestList [ {- omitted -} ]

The semantics of this are fine with me: I'm trying to do expected–actual testing, not property testing like Quickcheck does. However, there are two things that I don't like about the syntax:

  • the list syntax feels really clunky, and
  • I have to write "foo" once and testFoo two times (three counting the type annotations); while I could inline this, that would make the lists even clunkier.

My goal was to be able to write tests like this:

import Test.HUnit (Test, (~=?))
import Describe (toTests, (...), (~:))

import Widget (foo, bar)

tests :: Test
tests = toTests $ do
  "foo" ... do
    "with even numbers" ~:
      4 ~=? foo 4
    "with odd numbers" ~:
      0 ~=? foo 5
  "bar" ... do
    "with true" ~:
      10 ~=? bar True
    "with false" ~:
      -10 ~=? bar False

I managed to accomplish just that! But to do so I had to resort to what I consider to be a pretty ugly monad. Here's Describe.hs:

module Describe(group, describe, toTests, (~:), (...)) where

import qualified Test.HUnit as H

data LeftList l r = LeftList [l] ()
                    deriving (Show)

instance Monad (LeftList l) where
  (>>=) = error "LeftList does not support binding; use (>>) instead"
  (LeftList xs a) >> (LeftList ys b) = LeftList (xs ++ ys) b
  return x = LeftList [] ()

group :: String -> LeftList H.Test () -> LeftList H.Test ()
group s (LeftList xs ()) = LeftList [s H.~: xs] ()

(...) = group
infixr 9 ...

describe :: String -> H.Test -> LeftList H.Test ()
describe s x = LeftList [s H.~: x] ()

(~:) = describe
infixr 0 ~:

toTests :: LeftList H.Test () -> H.Test
toTests (LeftList xs _) = H.TestList xs

Obviously, the ugly part is creating this data type that has an unnecessary second type parameter and isn't actually a monad! That is, my implementation of the do-notation is incomplete; sequencing works fine, but if I wrote x <- "foo" ... do { } I would get the error here.

I don't really mind that I'm shadowing HUnit.~:, although it's not optimal.

So, my question: what's the cleanest way to get the desired test case syntax without making the monads cry?


Firstly, I would advise you to look at how blaze-html implements their monads for HTML templating. They are doing something very similar to what you want to do.

You can simplify your definitions a bit by removing the second field from the LeftList constructor:

data LeftList a r = LeftList [a]

Then every place where you use the constructor LeftList you can omit the (now) extraneous (), e.g. the >> definition simplifies to:

  (LeftList xs) >> (LeftList ys) = LeftList (xs ++ ys)

You should also make group, describe, and toTests more general by using a type variable instead of ():

group :: String -> LeftList H.Test r -> LeftList H.Test r

This makes these functions valid for any return type r - not just (). Of course, you don't care what the return type is anyway. But GHC cares - and allowing a general return type might help with type checking.

It actually is possible to define bind for the LeftList monad -- just pass in undefined or error "...":

  (>>=) (LeftList xs) f = let LeftList ys = f (error "LeftList does not support binding")
                          in LeftList (xs++ys)

An error will occur only if the parameter to f is actually evaluated.

For instance, this will not throw an error:

"foo" ... do
   x <- "with even numbers" ~:
           4 ~=? foo 4
   "with odd numbers" ~:
     0 ~=? foo 5

because the value x is never evaluated.

Finally, with GHC 7.10 you will also have to define Functor and Applicative instances for your monad:

instance Functor (LeftList a) where
  fmap f left = left

instance Applicative (LeftList a) where
  pure _ = LeftList []  -- should be same as return
  (<*>)  = undefined
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks for this! I'll definitely look at Blaze. But I don't see how (LeftList xs) >> (LeftList ys) = LeftList (xs ++ ys) can work. It fails type-check because (>>) has specialized signature LeftList a -> LeftList b -> LeftList b, so xs :: [a] and ys :: [b] and we can't (++) those. What am I missing? \$\endgroup\$ – wchargin Sep 28 '15 at 19:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ Also, Blaze source for the lazy \$\endgroup\$ – wchargin Sep 28 '15 at 19:39
  • \$\begingroup\$ Here's my code: lpaste.net/141881 \$\endgroup\$ – ErikR Sep 28 '15 at 19:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ah! You meant to remove the second field from the constructor, not the type. Reading more carefully, that's exactly what you said. Got it. \$\endgroup\$ – wchargin Sep 28 '15 at 19:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ Great, this feels a bit better! I'll leave this question open for a bit to encourage more feedback. Thank you! \$\endgroup\$ – wchargin Sep 28 '15 at 20:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.