I am the original author of
gunit and the oft-associated
testify is mainstream and very well-suited for integration test scenarios.
gunit has different (BDD-style) assertions/output and is a better fit for pure unit tests.
- Similar startup:
- Both provide access to
- Similar Setup/Teardown for test cases
- Bottom Line: simple test suites defined in both gunit-style and testify-style look almost identical!
- employs "shared" fixtures - uses the suite instance provided to
- sequential execution (ONLY?)
- if t.Parallel() is used in setup in an attempt to enable parallel/random execution of test cases, data races will undoubtedly occur
- because the provided suite instance is used it is possible to wire in other integrations for assertions, etc...
- more complicated suite aggregation and execution is possible... (see docs)
- all of the testify/assert package goodies are embedded on the suite
- built-in integration in popular editors
- supports suite-level setup and tear-down (integration tests)
- employs "fresh" fixtures - uses the suite/fixture instance provided only to know what to instantiate (fresh) for each fixture
- very limited assertion capabilities, in practice used with assertions and assertions/should
- includes an option to run test cases sequentially
- Skip/Focus/Long prefixes modify execution of tests, independent of any editor integration/settings
- weak integration with editors (requiring use of
Focus prefix for debugging)