qcheck viewer doesn't let you select `small_strictly_positive_int`

[00-kat]

Cool viewer! It works great… except if you want to view small_strictly_positive_int. It just immediately changes the UI back to showing small_non_negative_int. Using arrow keys on that dropdown completely skips small_strictly_positive_int: pressing down from small_non_negative_int takes you directly to uniform_int.

[mooreryan]

Thanks for pointing this out! There are actually a couple of tests that are failing in the viewer codebase, but I haven't gotten around to fixing them yet 😅 It could be related to this. Good chance I messed something up when doing the big renaming for v1 of qcheck.

[00-kat]

I suspected that too, and the names all seemed correct to me, so I feel like the issue isn't that simple.

[00-kat]

Oh found it I think:

gleam_qcheck/qcheck_viewer/src/qcheck_viewer.gleam

Lines 168 to 169 in d0b59ec

	"small_strictly_positive_int" -> Ok(IntSmallPositiveOrZero)
	"small_non_negative_int" -> Ok(IntSmallStrictlyPositive)

These two are swapped around; the functions they correspond to are:

gleam_qcheck/qcheck_viewer/src/qcheck_viewer.gleam

Lines 440 to 444 in d0b59ec

	IntSmallPositiveOrZero ->
	gen_histogram(qcheck.small_non_negative_int(), of: json.int, bin: False)
	IntSmallStrictlyPositive ->
	gen_histogram(
	qcheck.small_strictly_positive_int(),

Not PRing this because I have no way to test it due to oddities of my setup.

[00-kat]

I feel like type QcheckFunction should be updated to use the same terminology as the new function names, since that would make typos like this far easier to spot.

[mooreryan]

Thanks for looking into it!

And yeah, probably should update them to use the same terms--but I was just being lazy about it 😅