WIP: docs: add "Integration testing with pulumitest" blog

[rshade]

Proposed changes

Unreleased product version (optional)

Related issues (optional)

[claude]

Review Feedback

This is a well-structured and informative blog post about PulumiTest. The content is technical, practical, and includes useful examples. Here are my findings:

Issues Found

1. Missing <!--more--> tag (required)

The blog post needs a <!--more--> tag after the first paragraph to control what appears in the blog preview/listing page. According to BLOGGING.md, this is a required element.

Line 17 (after the first paragraph):

Writing infrastructure code is one thing. Being confident that it actually works in production is another. PulumiTest brings integration testing directly into your development workflow, letting you validate that your infrastructure behaves correctly before it ever reaches production. Whether you're building a new cloud service, migrating existing infrastructure, or maintaining critical production systems, PulumiTest gives you the confidence to ship faster without sacrificing reliability.

<!--more-->

2. Draft status in frontmatter

Line 4: The frontmatter has draft: false. Typically for blog posts, the draft field can be removed entirely (it defaults to false), or if this is truly still a WIP (as the PR title suggests), it should be draft: true.

3. Future publication date

Line 3: The date is set to 2025-10-23 which is in the future (today is 2025-10-24 according to the environment). However, this appears to be a typo - it should likely be 2024-10-23 (last year) or updated to the intended publication date.

4. Minor style issue: "simple" terminology

Line 67: The phrase "Here's a minimal example testing a simple AWS S3 bucket deployment" uses the word "simple" which the STYLE-GUIDE.md advises against ("Avoid words like 'easy' or 'simple.' These judge difficulty and may alienate readers.")

Here's a minimal example testing an AWS S3 bucket deployment:

5. Minor style issue: "straightforward" (similar to simple)

Line 57: "Setting up your first integration test is straightforward." - While not explicitly banned, this is similar to "simple/easy" and judges difficulty.

Setting up your first integration test takes just a few lines of code.

Positive Observations

• Strong structure: The progression from "What is PulumiTest" → "Why it matters" → "Getting started" → "Best practices" is logical and clear
• Excellent code examples: The Go code examples are well-formatted, realistic, and include proper imports
• Good use of headings: All headings follow sentence case correctly (H2+)
• Practical advice: The best practices sections provide actionable guidance
• Good link structure: The "Learn more" section at the end follows the conventions in STYLE-GUIDE.md
• Table formatting: The environment variables table (line 389) is clear and well-formatted
• Consistent terminology: Good use of consistent terms like "PulumiTest" throughout
• Meta image included: A meta.png file is included as required

Minor Suggestions (Optional Improvements)

1. Line 17: Consider adding a brief mention of what readers will learn (e.g., "In this post, you'll learn how to write robust integration tests..." after the intro paragraph)

2. Line 391: The environment variable PULUMI_CONFIG_PASSPHRASE mentions a default value in parentheses. Consider moving this detail to a note or expanding slightly for clarity about when this matters.

3. Code block line 75: The comment 1. Copying your program to a temporary directory uses numbered list formatting in a prose comment. Consider using bullets or plain prose instead for consistency.

Verification Notes

• ✅ File ends with newline
• ✅ Headings use sentence case (except H1 which is title case via frontmatter)
• ✅ All ordered lists use 1. notation
• ✅ Code blocks use proper language specifiers
• ✅ Author field is present
• ✅ Tags are appropriate (testing, go, features)
• ✅ Meta description is present and appropriate length

Action Items

1. Add the <!--more--> tag after the first paragraph (required)
2. Fix or clarify the publication date (2025 vs 2024)
3. Review the draft: false setting based on actual publication status
4. Consider removing "simple" and "straightforward" terminology
5. Preview the meta.png image to ensure it meets specifications (2:1 ratio, 1200×628, opaque background with current logos)

---

Great work on this post! The content is valuable and well-written. Once these minor issues are addressed, this will be ready to publish.

Mention @claude if you'd like me to review again after making changes or if you need help with any fixes.

[meagancojocar]

@rshade ping on this, still working on getting this merged?