godog VS gomega

Quick side note - this is probably the subject of a whole other blog post but my current favourite way of testing CLI tools uses godog to write tests. It can be a little complex but I've found it supremely powerful. Here are some good examples of how I've approached it with layli and wait-for.

It's complaining about a file missing in $GOPATH/pkg... but I'm not sure how do I get the packages its asking for. Things I have tried: - running go mod tidy - running go get -u github.com/cucumber/godog (hoping it would add the files to pkg/mod/... - Uninstalled and installed Go again.

I also use BDD (Gherkin with godog in particular) to verify and document the expected behaviour of a product from an end user's perspective when needed. I usually do this when the product also contains untested code that I have no control over when I'm working on a problem - this gives me peace of mind over something I can't control while doubling as documentation.

It looks like it is not possible to share steps between scenario's or features. In https://github.com/cucumber/godog it is possible to share steps.

Differences between gherkingen and godog are:

Gomega: is a test assertion library, a vital dependency on Ginkgo.

Gomega is a Go library that allows you to make assertions. In our example, we check if what we got is null, not null, or equal to an exact value, but the gomega library is much richer than that.

Depends on the API and how much testing you need. You want to test your code, not the API's availability or correctness.

But it can be as easy as using a fake http library and mocking the responses, or using a httptest server: https://onsi.github.io/gomega/#ghttp-testing-http-clients

If the API is complicated and you have to write your own fake server, that might not make sense for small projects.

If we do the count, we gather that subtest appear to solve five out of the six problems we identified with the assert library. At this point though, it's important to note that at the time when the assert package was designed, the sub-test feature in Go did not yet exist. Therefore it would have been impossible for that library to embed it into it's design. This is also true for when Gomega and Ginko where designed. If these test frameworks where created now, then most likely some parts of their design would have been done differently. What I am trying to say is that with even the slightest change in the Go language and standard library, completely new ways of designing programs become possible. Especially for new packages without any legacy use-cases to consider. And this brings us to generics.