Change test suit to ShellSpec

[lumenpink]

"ShellSpec is a full-featured BDD unit testing framework for dash, bash, ksh, zsh and all POSIX shells that provides first-class features such as code coverage, mocking, parameterized test, parallel execution and more."
Excerpt from https://shellspec.info/

In my experience, ShellSpec is more complete and easy to use than BATS.
And ShellSpec supports POSIX shells and not only bash.

I don't know if the project goals includes support for POSIX shells, but anyway I think is a good idea to keep this option open.

[Potherca]

There is in fact an issue requesting that BPKG be rewritten in POSIX cimpliant terms. (see #90). I am very much in favor of that issue and have already done some work in the past to try to reach that goal.

I hadn't heard of ShellSpec. Usually I get a bit irked when yet another project is created to fix the same problem (i.e. unit-testing in BASH), but after reading the well-though out "Why I created ShellSpec" I am tempted to be in favor of switching over. Specifically as we do not have too many Bats tests yet, this would be the right time to do so.

@jwerle Can you pitch in as to wether you are for or against switching from Bats to ShellSpec?

[jwerle]

@Potherca wow! shellspec is quite feature-full! It does look promising and indeed this is a good time to pick a framework and go. I am all for it 👍🏼

[Potherca]

@lohn I'd say your motion has been seconded and carried!

[lumenpink]

This makes me very happy! I really appreciate shellspec.

[francescobianco]

I have looked at ShellSpec with a lot of interest, I can say that it is an impressive work, which really takes your breath away.
Not only the product but also the developer who made the big contribution has some really captivating projects:

• https://github.com/ko1nksm/getoptions (The calm in the getopt/s war)
• https://github.com/ko1nksm/readlinkf (Portable readlink)

I also think it is an excellent step to proceed with the use of ShellSpec

[Potherca]

I'll leave this issue open for now, until we have documented that ShellSpec is our weapon of choice for unit-testing. (We need to create a CONTRIBUTING.md anyway, so this is another nice incentive to get that done 😏 )

[ko1nksm]

Hello, everyone.

@lohn Thank you for suggesting ShellSpec.
@jwerle Thank you for inviting me to this great project.
After looking around at this project, I would like to join in this project.

My goal is to sublimate (POSIX-compliant) shell script into a real programming language. For this purpose, a package management system like npm for developers is essential. As long as bpkg aims to be POSIX-compliant, I will be able to help with this project.

As a demonstration, I am going to implement some tests in the project with ShellSpec. This is all I could find, but if there are others, please let me know.

• https://github.com/bpkg/bpkg/tree/master/lib/json/test
• [WIP] Add unit-tests for bpkg_utils #113
• [WIP] Add unit-tests for getdeps. #112

[ko1nksm]

Done