TL;DR: I don't need it, and you probably don't either. I'll explain below.
As we know of course, Go ships with a built-in unit testing framework i...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
My philosophy is to not introduce any external dependency until I absolutely need it. Creating a small assertion helper function that you have total control over is better than pulling in a dependency that you have no control over. Until the project absolutely needs all the extra features that an external dependency provides, it's more maintainable to roll out simple functionality yourself.
I wrote my assertions too until I moved to another project and had to copy-paste them all. Testify is great, it's worth it.
Why would you care about adding an external dependency for your tests? They won't even be included in your runtime binaries.
The point is that your own implementation will cover a lot of test cases (99%) but when you get to that 1%, then you have to add the external dependency anyway so all the work you did before goes in the trash.
It's not just about how heavy the runtime binary is, it's also about how much third-party code I am depending on. By introducing a new dependency, I am now relying on a third party's unpaid efforts. If I can avoid that with less than 15 lines of code, why shouldn't I?
Sure, I might end up needing more advanced assertion libraries. But why borrow problems from the future? If I need something in the future, I'll use it. And nothing is going to go 'in the trash' because I'll just keep using my own assertion whenever possible anyway.
You say "By introducing a new dependency, I am now relying on a third party's unpaid efforts."
which effort? What fact do you have to back it up? Maybe I am wrong, but you make strong points and they need proof.
What facts and proof are you looking for? When you use an OSS library maintained by someone, that person has to spend some effort to maintain the project–writing code, triaging issues, responding to queries, doing code reviews, tagging releases. The OSS doesn't magically maintain itself out of thin air.
So you don’t rely on OSS at all?
Of course I rely on OSS, as almost every developer does. But I want to be able to pick and choose which OSS I rely on and I want to reduce my dependency surface area as much as possible. If I can get 90% of the benefit of a third-party library with less than 15 lines of hand-written code that I know like the back of my hand, why shouldn't I just do that?
So, you don't use third-party assertion library just because you wrote new one by yourself
I thought the article was about using
fmt.Println + // want: whateverBut no 🤔
it seems that you wrote a tiny testify by yourself. why?
By writing your own thing instead of using well-known, quasi-standard way of testing, you also hurt uniformity and ease of collaboration since people have to learn your API instead.
So just to clarify, are you making both arguments at the same time:
?