go-sqlmock VS Centrifugo

For that, I used the lib go-sqlmock. So, for example, the following snippet is part of the person/service_test.go file:

It's not the right call IMO to skip mocking the database connection to achieve 100% test coverage. How your app will behave in failure scenarios that are impossible to imitate during integration tests is part of the software contract. If your choice is to panic, or return an error, document that by testing that behavior. If another dev, or future you inadvertently breaks the contract, the test suite will fail. That's what you want. For unit tests against your database you should be using either go-sqlmock if testing against database/sql or pgxmock if testing against pgx. That being said, the points raised elsewhere in this thread regarding unit tests potentially hiding edge cases in terms of how an actual database will interact with your application that are not reflective of your understanding when writing mocks are 100% valid. You should do both. Unit test your app and write integration tests as well. On my team, we run integration tests using docker-compose.

I use Sqlmock for that purpose

There is a good lib for db tests https://github.com/DATA-DOG/go-sqlmock

Hello, I am author of https://github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo. Our users can choose from WebSocket, EventSource, WebTransport (experimental stabilize in the future). WebRTC is out of scope as the main purpose is central server based real-time json/binary messaging, and WebRTC makes things much more complex since it shines for peer-to-peer and rich media communications.

What I'd like to add is that Centrifugo also supports HTTP-streaming – not mentioned by the OP – but this is a transport which has advantages over Eventsource - like possibility to send POST body on initial request from web browser (with SSE you can not), it supports binary, and with Readable Streams browser API it's widely supported by modern browsers.

Another thing I'd like to mention about Centrifugo - it supports bidirectional WebSocket fallbacks with EventSource and HTTP-streaming, and does this without sticky sessions requirement. I guess nobody else have this at this point. See https://centrifugal.dev/blog/2022/07/19/centrifugo-v4-releas.... Which solves one more practical concern. Sticky sessions is an optimization in Centrifugo case, not a requirement.

If you are interested in topic, we also have a post about WebSocket scalability - https://centrifugal.dev/blog/2020/11/12/scaling-websocket - it covers some design decisions made in Centrifugo.

Check out https://github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo - it was initially designed to be a standalone language-agnostic real-time messaging server. So it may be used with Django without radical change in the existing application and using ASGI. It can also provide a much better performance if you care about it.

https://github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo

It's a complete solution, including server, admin panel and client library.

We're an European company and use OVH, Hetzner and others.

Hello! Theoretically you can take a look at https://github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo - which is a standalone self-hosted real-time messaging server. It does not have native support for Laravel and not compatible with Pusher protocol, though integrating with any backend system, including Laravel: see the blog post https://centrifugal.dev/blog/2021/12/14/laravel-multi-room-chat-tutorial, also has some helper packages:

Hello, it's also possible to design an app in a way that its core will be built with Python, but WebSocket part delegated to something external and efficient like https://github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo – the benefit of the approach is that application business logic is completely decoupled from the real-time transport layer. This may lead to a scalable design with graceful degradation. I think this is especially useful when you already have backend built with Django and need to handle millions of concurrent connections.

Centrifugo https://centrifugal.dev/ https://github.com/centrifugal/centrifugo