clearly broken code

[maxvonhippel]

No description provided.

[benchify]

🧪 Benchify Analysis of PR 334

The analysis shows that most properties are passing, including divide_numbers, find_maximum, and concatenate_strings, indicating that these functions handle various inputs correctly. However, the calculate_area function is failing for large integer inputs due to an OverflowError, caused by the incorrect calculation 3.14 ** radius * 2. To fix this, the calculate_area function should be modified to correctly calculate the area using the formula 3.14 * radius ** 2. This change will ensure that the function returns a non-negative float for any non-negative integer input radius and handles large inputs without overflowing.

[benchify]

✅ Type Contract for divide_numbers

The function divide_numbers expects both x and y to be integers and returns a float as the result of the division.

Outcome	Example Input	# Inputs	% of Total
✅	x=0 y=1	200	100.0%

view all inputs
The property-based test for the divide_numbers function has passed with the given arguments x=0 and y=1, confirming that the function returns a float result as expected. The test validated the function's type contract, ensuring it behaves correctly for integer inputs. With this passing result, the function appears to be working as intended, dividing integers and returning a float value.

Unit Tests

# Unit Test for "Type Contract for divide_numbers": The function `divide_numbers` expects both `x` and `y` to be integers and returns a float as the result of the division.
def benchify_test_divide_numbers_type_contract(x, y):
    result = divide_numbers(x, y)
    assert isinstance(result, float)

def benchify_test_divide_numbers_type_contract_exec_test_passing_0():
    x=0
    y=1
    benchify_test_divide_numbers_type_contract(x, y)

[benchify]

✅ Non-zero Denominator for divide_numbers

The function divide_numbers should not be called with y equal to zero, as this would result in a division by zero error.

Outcome	Example Input	# Inputs	% of Total
✅	x=-25559 y=2081298323925987213248662795... view full input	191	100.0%

view all inputs
The property-based test for the divide_numbers function has passed, indicating that the function behaves correctly when given non-zero denominators. The test was run with example inputs x = -25559 and y = 20812983239259872132486627953921439730, and the function returned the expected result without encountering a division by zero error. This suggests that the function is working as intended, correctly handling division operations with valid inputs.

Unit Tests

# Unit Test for "Non-zero Denominator for divide_numbers": The function `divide_numbers` should not be called with `y` equal to zero, as this would result in a division by zero error.
def benchify_test_divide_numbers_non_zero_denominator(x, y):
    
    result = divide_numbers(x, y)
    assert result == x / y

def benchify_test_divide_numbers_non_zero_denominator_exec_test_passing_0():
    x=-25559
    y=20812983239259872132486627953921439730
    benchify_test_divide_numbers_non_zero_denominator(x, y)

[benchify]

✅ Correctness of find_maximum

The function find_maximum returns the maximum integer from the list lst. For any integer x in lst, find_maximum(lst) >= x.

Outcome	Example Input	# Inputs	% of Total
✅	lst=[0]	200	100.0%

view all inputs
The property-based test for the find_maximum function has passed, indicating that it correctly returns the maximum integer from the input list. With the provided argument lst=[0], the function successfully identified the maximum value, confirming that it meets the described property. The test result shows that the function behaves as expected, with no errors or exceptions encountered during execution.

Unit Tests

# Unit Test for "Correctness of `find_maximum`": The function `find_maximum` returns the maximum integer from the list `lst`. For any integer `x` in `lst`, `find_maximum(lst) >= x`.
def benchify_test_find_maximum(lst):
    max_value = find_maximum(lst)
    assert all(max_value >= x for x in lst)

def benchify_test_find_maximum_exec_test_passing_0():
    lst=[0]
    benchify_test_find_maximum(lst)

[benchify]

✅ Type contract for find_maximum

The function find_maximum assumes that lst is a non-empty list of integers.

Outcome	Example Input	# Inputs	% of Total
✅	lst=[0]	200	100.0%

view all inputs
The property-based test for the find_maximum function has passed, indicating that it correctly finds the maximum value in a non-empty list of integers. With the provided argument lst=[0], the function successfully identified the maximum value as 0, aligning with the expected behavior described in the property description. This passing result suggests that the function is working as intended for this specific test case.

Unit Tests

# Unit Test for "Type contract for `find_maximum`": The function `find_maximum` assumes that `lst` is a non-empty list of integers.
def benchify_test_find_maximum(lst):
    assert find_maximum(lst) == max(lst)

def benchify_test_find_maximum_exec_test_passing_0():
    lst=[0]
    benchify_test_find_maximum(lst)

[benchify]

✅ Concatenation Property of concatenate_strings

The function concatenate_strings returns a string that is the concatenation of str1 and str2, meaning the output should be equivalent to str1 + str2.

Outcome	Example Input	# Inputs	% of Total
✅	str1='' str2=''	200	100.0%

view all inputs
The test for the concatenate_strings function has passed, indicating that it correctly concatenates two input strings. With input arguments str1='' and str2='', the function returned the expected result, which is an empty string. This suggests that the function behaves as expected, and no further action is needed.

Unit Tests

# Unit Test for "Concatenation Property of concatenate_strings": The function `concatenate_strings` returns a string that is the concatenation of `str1` and `str2`, meaning the output should be equivalent to `str1 + str2`.
def benchify_test_concatenate_strings(str1, str2):
    assert concatenate_strings(str1, str2) == str1 + str2

def benchify_test_concatenate_strings_exec_test_passing_0():
    str1=''
    str2=''
    benchify_test_concatenate_strings(str1, str2)

[benchify]

❌ Type contract for calculate_area

The function calculate_area takes an integer radius as input and returns a float.

Outcome	Example Input	# Inputs	% of Total
✅	radius=0	114	57.0%
❌	radius=2349	86	43.0%

view all inputs
The test test_calculate_area_returns_float failed with an OverflowError when given a radius of 2349, indicating that the numerical result of the calculation in the calculate_area function is out of range. This is due to the incorrect implementation of the area calculation formula, which should be 3.14 * radius * 2 instead of 3.14 ** radius * 2. To fix this, the calculate_area function should be updated to use the correct formula to avoid numerical overflow for large input values.

Stack Trace

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/app/repo/broken/pver_7ca06a41-64f8-44f0-bfdd-aa21a2838700-test.py", line 319, in wrapper
    ret = func(*args, **kwargs)
  File "/app/repo/broken/pver_7ca06a41-64f8-44f0-bfdd-aa21a2838700-test.py", line 478, in test_calculate_area_returns_float
    result = calculate_area(radius)
  File "/app/repo/broken/blarg.py", line 17, in calculate_area
    return 3.14 ** radius * 2
OverflowError: (34, 'Numerical result out of range')

[benchify]

❌ Output of calculate_area is Non-negative

The function calculate_area should return a non-negative float for any non-negative integer input radius.

Outcome	Example Input	# Inputs	% of Total
✅	radius=0	44	22.0%
❌	radius=30941	156	78.0%

view all inputs
The test test_calculate_area_non_negative failed with an OverflowError when given a radius of 30941, indicating that the calculate_area function's result exceeded the maximum numerical range. This occurred because the function calculate_area attempts to calculate 3.14 raised to the power of radius, which becomes extremely large for big inputs, causing the numerical result to be out of range. To fix this, the function should be modified to handle large inputs, such as using a more robust calculation method or adding input validation to prevent excessively large values.

Stack Trace

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/app/repo/broken/pver_25c82743-c081-4845-b407-12114829f31b-test.py", line 319, in wrapper
    ret = func(*args, **kwargs)
  File "/app/repo/broken/pver_25c82743-c081-4845-b407-12114829f31b-test.py", line 478, in test_calculate_area_non_negative
    assert calculate_area(radius) >= 0.0
  File "/app/repo/broken/blarg.py", line 17, in calculate_area
    return 3.14 ** radius * 2
OverflowError: (34, 'Numerical result out of range')

[maxvonhippel]

@Benchify patch

[benchify]

Patch Results

Function Changes

broken/blarg.py

Function: calculate_area

Updated the function to use the correct formula for calculating the area of a circle, which is π * radius^2. This prevents overflow errors and ensures the function returns the correct result.

===================================================================
--- calculate_area (original)
+++ calculate_area (revised)
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
 def calculate_area(radius: int) -> float:
-    return 3.14 ** radius * 2
\ No newline at end of file
+    return 3.14 * (radius ** 2)
\ No newline at end of file

Property Status Summary

Status	Before	After	Change
✅ Passing	5	7	✅ +2
❌ Failing	2	0	✅ -2
⏰ Timeout	0	0	↔️ 0
💥 Exception	0	0	↔️ 0