Regarding how design by contract (which at least JML is about) might relate to property-based testing I found a post which actually combines hypothesis (for property-based testing) with dpcontract (for design by contract):
Maybe they complement each other: “your code doesn’t violate any contracts” counts as a PBT invariant. Maybe we can generate inputs that match the preconditions and confirm that all of the postconditions (and preconditions of other called functions) are preserved.
The relationship is that the combination of design by contract and the testing methods are attempting to substitute for a correctness proof, which would be the ultimate goal, if it were feasible.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Thanks for the discussion!
Regarding how design by contract (which at least JML is about) might relate to property-based testing I found a post which actually combines hypothesis (for property-based testing) with dpcontract (for design by contract):
I also like the following comment (from softwareengineering.stackexchange....