Our great sponsors
-
WorkOS
The modern identity platform for B2B SaaS. The APIs are flexible and easy-to-use, supporting authentication, user identity, and complex enterprise features like SSO and SCIM provisioning.
-
-
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
I used bats a while ago to test a homemade CLI to open github pull-requests, it worked well enough for me (https://github.com/williamdclt/git-pretty-pull-request if you're looking for an example, although I did not maintain the tests out of laziness so they are very red).
Cannot compare it to bash_unit, but I'm happy there's alternatives!
If you fancy more BDD-style testing with a Gherkin-like syntax, there is also Shellspec https://shellspec.info / https://github.com/shellspec/shellspec
The definition of a unit in the context of this framework doesn't seem to be some internal interface but rather whatever can be expressed externally via the CLI.
Projects that make use of this kind of testing include git[1], Donenfeld's pass[2], and anything else that uses sharness[3].
[1]: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/tree/t
[2]: https://git.zx2c4.com/password-store/tree/tests
[3]: https://github.com/chriscool/sharness#projects-using-sharnes...
In a similar vein, there's also babashka for these "bash+" use-cases: https://github.com/babashka/babashka
I've built a Bash testing framework myself, and my realization was that Bash is a bad language for this.
We have tones of PowerShell and it works like a charm, although we have some experienced posh devs
We also test REST backend in PowerShell using Pester.
PowerShell is preferred in this house because
a) you can run it on any Windows OS on the spot and modify it in ad hoc manner, you can even debug it with breakpoints etc easily Also our Linux machines have it.
b) its powerful, you can do anything in it with few lines of code (one case: we did 10 million SOAP requests per day for entire country)
c) many Windows toolsets use it like SqlServer, IIS etc. which makes management way easier (for example we use [1] to install sql server on all dev/prod machines)
d) we find it way easier to keep CI/CD vars in PowerShell hashtables then in yaml, so our yaml fiels are one liners and everything works locally.
---
I am only using chocolatey to install stuff and I regularly create packages for it. I worked hard to make what I need stable and not depend on their existence - [2] for examples releases packages on GH and there is a handy script to install from there. I also created AU for it [3] and managed to convince people to embed software in packages so packages always work (you can cache them on your own via file system, artifactory, nexus etc). You can also host your own gallery in number of different ways. So, in short, there is escape plan. TBH, it looks like choco is going better then ever. And you can't simply find any better repository for sw, its better and more up to date then most linux package repos (on par with Arch).
> I am not that into the way MS is doing the winget thing,
That is years away IMO, no scripting there too, and it moves like a snail. I would really be embarrassed if I were leading that team.
> I see a lot of manual scripts for installing things on Windows CI systems
Yeah, most people suck, like their scripts :-) There is literary 0 chance for you to make reliable installation script in general that works in any context.
> I really like chocolatey but I am worried it will disappear soon.
Just use it. I don't work for them. I maintain core team repo [2]. Its great tool now. What will happen tomorrow nobody knows but like I said, you have escape plan and even if they go down your CI will still work for decades if you want if you set it up properly.
---
[1] https://github.com/majkinetor/au-packages
[2] https://github.com/chocolatey-community/chocolatey-coreteamp...
> I am not aware that ShellCheck actually checks POSIX compliance; I am pretty sure it just checks for common errors in your bash/sh scripts
Bashisms are errors if you specify #!/bin/sh. If you want to try it out, you can load random examples on https://www.shellcheck.net/ until you get a #!/bin/sh. Then you'll get warnings such as "SC3010: In POSIX sh, [[ ]] is undefined."
To go back to the discussion: if you want to use Bash features, you're better off switching to Python.
I have successfully used https://github.com/infertux/bashcov in the past.