ginkgo VS Task

Ginkgo: a testing framework based on the concept of ‌"Behavior Driven Development" (BDD)

We were also able to leverage Ginkgo's parallel testing runtime to run our integration tests on multiple concurrent processes. This provided multiple benefits: we could run our entire integration test suite in under 10 minutes and also reuse the same suite to load test the operator in a production-like environment. Using these tests, we were able to identify hot spots in the code that needed further optimization and experimented with ways to save API calls to ease the load on our own Kubernetes API server while also staying under various AWS rate limits. It was only after running these tests over and over again that I felt confident enough to deploy the operator to our dev and prod clusters.

A bit off-topic, but i really like the ginkgo BDD framework

You obviously are not familiar with the third circle of golang continuous integration hell that is ginkgo+gomega:

https://onsi.github.io/ginkgo/#adding-specs-to-a-suite

It’s actually worse than that example suggests. Stuff like Expect(“type safety”).ShouldBe(GreaterThan(13)) throws runtime errors.

The semantics of parallel test runs weren’t defined anywhere the last time I checked.

Anyway, you’ll be thinking back fondly to the days of TestShouldReplaceChildrenWhenUpdatingInstance because now you need to write nested function calls like:

Context(“instances”, func …)

Describe(“that are being updated”, …)

Expect(“should replace children”, …)

And to invoke that from the command line, you need to write a regex against whatever undocumented and unprinted string it internally concatenates together to uniquely describe the test.

Also, they dump color codes to stdout without checking that they are writing to a terminal, so there will be line noise all over whatever automated test logs you produce, or if you pipe stdout to a file.

If you are using Ginkgo for your e2e, this library might of help.

https://onsi.github.io/ginkgo/ offers a simple way to create tables with different scenarios useful to generate different test cases based on a file like a yml without to need to develop useless code. Maybe at start seems to be a little verbose but depends how you design the test case.

What are people’s thoughts on testing frameworks? I’ve heard that most devs only use the testing package in the standard library and the testify package for assertions— I assume this is because Go is meant to be lightweight and scalable, and adding external dependencies basically goes against that. But I’ve also seen devs use packages like ginkgo to make tests more structured and readable. What do you guys think?

Ginkgo Behavioural test framework

If you write your tests with Ginkgo [0] its CLI can do this for you. It also has nice facilities to quickly disable a test or portion of a test by pretending an X to the test function name, or to focus a test (only run that test) by prepending an F. It’s pretty nice.

[0]: https://onsi.github.io/ginkgo/

The BDD testing framework Ginko [1] has some "weird" / unidiomatic patterns, yet it is very popular

https://github.com/onsi/ginkgo

So many tools in this space! This one looks a little bit like go-task, but it seems maybe better for production workflows because if timeout support, while go-task seems more aimed to command line work/makefile replacement.

—-

https://github.com/go-task/task

View on GitHub

A similar tool is `task` https://taskfile.dev/ . It is quite capable and also a single executable. I've grown to quite like it.

check out tasks - a bit of a learning curve but arguably more powerful imo

That's when I came across taskfile.dev. Task is an automation tool designed to be more accessible than other options, such as GNU Make.

Full disclosure, I did not review Conda or Hatch fully. Not that there is anything explicitly wrong with either of them. Conda is too specific to the scientific community for my general taste. Hatch seems to go well with Conda and also uses the PyProject manifest as well. It's nice that it gives you several built in tools, similar to commit hooks, but I tend to like to roll my own via a Taskfile and run them with Poetry.

Taskfile is a tool for streamlining repetitive development tasks. It helps automate activities like building, testing, and deploying applications. Unlike Makefile, Taskfile uses YAML for configuration, making it more readable and user-friendly.

9. We test everything with another promotion which runs make targets which build docker containers to run python scripts (pytest)

This is also built by a complicated web of wildcarded makefile targets, which need to be interoperable and support a few if/else cases for specific components.

My plan is to migrate all of this to something simpler and more straightforward, or at least more maintainable, which is honestly probably going to turn into taskfile[0] instead of makefiles, and then simple python scripts for the glue that ties everything together or does more complex logic.

My hope is that it can be more straightforward and easier to maintain, with more component-ized logic, but realistically every step in that labyrinthine build process (and that's just the open-source version!) came from a decision made by a very talented team of engineers who know far more about the process and the product than I do. At this point I'm wondering if it would make 'more sense' to replace it with a giant python script of some kind and get access to all the logic we need all at once (it would not).

[0] https://taskfile.dev/

task - a task runner and a replacement for make