| > Nobody could really answer that. Sounds like it was dismissed without evaluation, your comments seem to support this, you seem to think it offers little or nothing over Go’s standard bare-bones testing. Ginkgo doesn’t re-invent the wheel regarding Go’s out-of-the-box testing, it builds upon it. Ginkgo tests run just fine with ‘go test’, except the output is a little less detailed/pretty. And you can still use standard Go tests alongside Ginkgo, they play just fine together. Go’s OOTB test story is pretty good. But one cannot easily have hierarchically structured tests, the output doesn’t clearly describe what a failed test was testing, one cannot easily enable/disable whole sections of tests (while getting reminders that tests are ‘pending’ so one doesn’t forget about them later), randomised test ordering, clean/easy before(after test methods. And those are just the features I use, from the top of my head — it does much more. And Ginkgo is usually paired/installed with Gomega. Assertions written with Gomega are very easy/nice to read, no matter what kinds of values one is checking, and Gomega also includes all manner of helpers for assertions and matchers. Go’s OOTB testing is pretty good. But eventually one will realise that one is re-inventing wheels when writing yet another bunch of testing helper funcs — then the path either leads to building one’s own library of helpers, or realising that someone has already done a good job of this already. I’ve been programming Go for a few years now. For some smaller projects, I just use the standard testing stuff, but for others I can write more readable tests, test more thoroughly, and write such tests in much less time when I use Ginkgo and Gomega. |