gomock VS gRPC

The commit mentions this rather sad thread: https://github.com/golang/mock/pull/627#issuecomment-1605169...

IDE: use whatever make you productive. I personally use vscode. VCS: git, as golang communities use github heavily as base for many libraries. AFAIK Linter: use staticcheck for linting as it looks like mostly used linting tool in go, supported by many also. In Vscode it will be recommended once you install go plugin. Libraries/Framework: actually the standard libraries already included many things you need, decent enough for your day-to-day development cycles(e.g. `net/http`). But here are things for extra: - Struct fields validator: validator - Http server lib: chi router , httprouter , fasthttp (for non standard http implementations, but fast) - Web Framework: echo , gin , fiber , beego , etc - Http client lib: most already covered by stdlib(net/http), so you rarely need extra lib for this, but if you really need some are: resty - CLI: cobra - Config: godotenv , viper - DB Drivers: sqlx , postgre , sqlite , mysql - nosql: redis , mongodb , elasticsearch - ORM: gorm , entgo , sqlc(codegen) - JS Transpiler: gopherjs - GUI: fyne - grpc: grpc - logging: zerolog - test: testify , gomock , dockertest - and many others you can find here

Normally I like to generate everything with Mockgen and test it using table driven test.

Looking at gomock's commit history, it seems like there hasn't been much activity on the project in a couple of years. I'm wondering if this is the case of software being mostly done and just in maintenance mode, or if gomock is falling behind. The reason I fear for the latter is there are still issues being opened up that don't seem to be engaged very much.

Yeah, that would work just fine. Nevertheless, as your business logic gets more complicated, you will want to test more scenarios and mocks will get complicated fast. In these cases tools like gomock really shine and make your life easier. I understand that this is a just-for-fun project, but it's never too early to experiment with a popular solution, especially if you plan on using Go professionally in the future.

Unit tests are leveraged to test individual units of code. As such it is not recommended for a developer to scaffold entire dependencies for the sake of testing a single object. Due to the way Go's specific implementations work, I've learned over time to declare interfaces for a lot of the structs that I use in Go. Interfaces not only define a contract for which struct-based implementations should adhere, but they also provide a mechanism for which struct methods can be mocked. While I've experimented with the mock package in testify, I've come to prefer the mock functionality which is provided by mockgen.

gomock can also be great for testing when used sparingly. Mocking out one or two calls is great, anymore than that and it becomes exponentially harder to reason about

Where we do use mocks, we primarily use GoMock.

gRPC, built on HTTP/2, inherently supports flow control. The server can push updates, but it must also respect flow control signals from the client, ensuring that it doesn't send data faster than what the client can handle.

Yes, grpc_cli tool uses essentially the same mechanism except implemented as a grpc service rather than as a stubby service. The basic principle of both is implementing the C++ proto library's DescriptorDatabase interface with cached recursive queries of (usually) the server's compiled in FileDescriptorProtos.

See also https://github.com/grpc/grpc/blob/master/doc/server-reflecti...

The primary difference between what grpc does and what stubby does is that grpc uses a stream to ensure that the reflection requests all go to the same server to avoid incompatible version skew and duplicate proto transmissions. With that said, in practice version skew is rarely a problem for grpc_cli style "issue a single RPC" usecases: even if requests do go to two or more different versions of a binary that might have incompatible proto graphs, it is very common for the request and response and RPC to all be in the same proto file so you only need to make one RPC in the first place unless you're using an extension mechanism like proto2 extensions or google.protobuf.Any.

While gRPC and Apache Thrift have served the microservice architecture well, CloudWeGo's advanced features and performance metrics set it apart as a promising open source solution for the future.

The loadBalancingConfig is what we use in order to decide which policy to go for (round_robin in this case). This JSON representation is based on a protobuf message, then why does the name resolver returns it in the JSON format? The main reason is that loadBalancingConfig is a oneof field inside the proto message and so it can not contain values unknown to the gRPC if used in the proto format. The JSON representation does not have this requirement so we can use a custom loadBalancingConfig .

The Dart implementation of gRPC which puts mobile and HTTP/2 first. It's built and maintained by the Dart team. gRPC is a high-performance RPC (remote procedure call) framework that is optimized for efficient data transfer.

gRPC is a high-performance, open-source RPC (Remote Procedure Call) framework initially developed by Google. It uses Protocol Buffers for serialization and supports bidirectional streaming.

In general, tunneling through HTTP2 turns out to be a great choice. There is a RPC protocol built on top of HTTP2: gRPC[1].

This is because HTTP2 is great at exploiting a TCP connection to transmit and receive multiple data structures concurrently - multiplexing.

There may not be a reason to use HTTP3 however, as QUIC already provides multiplexing.

I expect that in the future most communications will be over encrypted HTTP2 and QUIC simply because middleware creators can not resist to discriminate.

[1] <https://grpc.io>

Even in the https://grpc.io blog says this

gRPC