Can we replace *testing T with an interface?

[anthonyfong100]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
When using apitest to do testing of api, the Expect method takes in a *testing T pointer which is a concrete type. This makes interacting with other third party testing library like Ginkgo difficult.

Describe the solution you'd like
Replace the reliance on *testing.T with an interface.

From the developer of ginkg:

---

It looks like testify uses (*testing.T) directly instead of an interface (which gomock does). Ginkgo can provide such frameworks with a Fail function that one can wrap in such a way to satisfy most interfaces (this is how we support go mock), but *testing.T refers to a concrete type and passing in the testing.T for the test that Ginkgo runs in would cause the entire suite to fail should one of your mock assertions fail...

---

Describe alternatives you've considered
As per the section above another way would to just pass in the testing.T but would cause the entire suite to fail if one of the assertions fail.

Additional context
Other libraries such as testify have changed this to support ginkgo integration

I would be happy to create a PR if this is possible

[steinfletcher]

Hi @anthonyfong100. This sounds very useful. Would be happy to take a PR for this. Changes would need to be backwards compatible. For info, apitest uses testify under the hood. You can already override the Verifier to implement a custom assertions instead of using testify - see the Verifier interface in assert.go. I am planning to remove testify in a future commit, but it's really an implementation detail that the consumer shouldn't care about.

Cheers

[anthonyfong100]

Hey @steinfletcher i was thinking more along the lines of passing in an interface to replace the *testing.T and continue using testify to do the assertions. As of now, testify already supports accepting an interface testingT as its argument in place of the concrete class *testing.T. This solution is likely to be better as it allows us to leverage on numerous other assertion methods defined in testify. Do let me know your thoughts on this

[steinfletcher]

Hello @anthonyfong100. Sorry I wasn't clear. I also agree that there should be an interface TestingT. I was just adding some info on the existing design around assertions, which is completely compatible with the approach you suggest. You'll need to update the Verifier interface to use TestingT. Other than that I think it's a simple change.

I'll be removing testify in a future commit for a like-for-like solution, but that doesn't really affect your changes :)

[anthonyfong100]

okay @steinfletcher that sounds wonderful i will go ahead with writing the PR then

[steinfletcher]

Looks great @anthonyfong100. Many thanks!