strgen helpfully mentions test.chuck for more comprehensive regex support. But is there then any reason to not use test.chuck always?

test.chuck isn't an alternative to test.check, it's a pile of miscellaneous utilities to go with it

so it's fine to have it around if you want, but if you're not using any of its parts then it's not providing any value

Sure. I'm mostly looking for helpers to generate the input

strgen is purely for making strings based on regexes, but mentions that test.chuck has more comprehensive support. I was just wondering is there ever any reason to use that, instead of test.chuck

oh I'm sorry

I missed the part about strgen

it looks like strgen targets portability?

i.e., it probably works in cljs

there's a half-pull-request in test.chuck for adding cljs support, but it needs some more work

I see, thanks! Good to know – though for now I'm just speccing the backend code, there's plenty of fiddly data munging on the frontend too

Not sure if this belongs here, as it's really a spec problem... but if running (stest/check) without any arguments gives an exception when check can't create any input that passes the input predicates, is there any way to know which specced function is causing problems?

lot more likely to be answered in the spec room I'd wager

they have over ten times more people