feat(bdd): add shared stream operations scenario for Go SDK by ex172000 · Pull Request #3063 · apache/iggy

ex172000 · 2026-03-31T06:24:54Z

Which issue does this PR close?

Related to #1986

Rationale

Adopt the same pattern as other BDD

What changed?

Add a shared Gherkin feature file for stream CRUD operations and corresponding godog step definitions, beginning the migration of Go BDD tests from embedded Ginkgo scenarios to shared .feature files.

Local Execution

Passed
Pre-commit hooks ran (prek --last-commit passed)

AI Usage

Which tools? Claude Code
Scope of usage? Generate functions under supervision and planning
How did you verify the generated code works correctly? Testing and manual verify
Can you explain every line of the code if asked? Yes

hubcio · 2026-03-31T08:45:44Z

this is nice. once you add more feature files (tests), can you create issues for implementing them in other SDKs?

bdd/go/tests/stream_operations_test.go

chengxilo · 2026-03-31T14:47:37Z

Finally, another .feature file. 😭

) Add a shared Gherkin feature file for stream CRUD operations and corresponding godog step definitions, beginning the migration of Go BDD tests from embedded Ginkgo scenarios to shared .feature files. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Move step definitions from stream_operations_test.go to stream_operations.go (non-test file) and register the suite in suite_test.go, matching the pattern used by basic_messaging and leader_redirection. Update imports to use refactored Go SDK paths (client, client/tcp, contracts). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

codecov · 2026-04-02T20:15:03Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 31 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 71.20%. Comparing base (b19daa9) to head (5db4ccb).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
foreign/python/src/client.rs	0.00%	31 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your patch check has failed because the patch coverage (0.00%) is below the target coverage (50.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #3063      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     70.58%   71.20%   +0.62%     
  Complexity      943      943              
============================================
  Files          1113     1136      +23     
  Lines         94590    98100    +3510     
  Branches      71787    75287    +3500     
============================================
+ Hits          66770    69856    +3086     
- Misses        25348    25538     +190     
- Partials       2472     2706     +234

Components	Coverage Δ
Rust Core	`71.51% <ø> (+0.87%)`	⬆️
Java SDK	`62.30% <ø> (ø)`
C# SDK	`69.11% <ø> (-0.29%)`	⬇️
Python SDK	`77.42% <0.00%> (-4.02%)`	⬇️
Node SDK	`91.39% <ø> (-0.04%)`	⬇️
Go SDK	`38.97% <ø> (ø)`

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
foreign/python/src/client.rs	`82.37% <0.00%> (-9.09%)`	⬇️

... and 187 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

apache#1986) Extend the shared basic_messaging.feature with stream update and delete steps, covering full CRUD lifecycle. Add matching step definitions in all 6 SDKs (Go, Python, Rust, Java, Node, C#). Add update_stream and delete_stream methods to the Python SDK (PyO3). Remove the separate stream_operations.feature and its Go-only implementation to avoid duplication. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Use iggy::prelude::Identifier instead of iggy::identifier::Identifier and unwrap Option<StreamDetails> from get_stream. Add null assertion for stream.get() return value in Node step definition. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

ex172000 · 2026-04-03T02:12:39Z

this is nice. once you add more feature files (tests), can you create issues for implementing them in other SDKs?

Sure! My thought is to modify on the go so we don't have additional step. In this case, I enhanced the basic messaging to include CRUD for streams so all language can have it now

ex172000 · 2026-04-03T02:13:15Z

Finally, another .feature file. 😭

Thanks for pointing out! I don't like either and modified! Please take another look :D

chengxilo · 2026-04-03T20:49:45Z

bdd/go/tests/basic_messaging.go

+func (s basicMessagingSteps) thenStreamDeletedSuccessfully(ctx context.Context) error {
+	c := getBasicMessagingCtx(ctx)
+	if c.lastStreamID != nil {
+		return errors.New("stream ID should be nil after deletion")
+	}
+	return nil
+}


I think it's better to call GetStream here to verify whether the stream is actually deleted.

chengxilo · 2026-04-03T20:51:38Z

bdd/go/tests/basic_messaging.go

+	sc.Step(`I delete the stream`, s.whenDeleteStream)
+	sc.Step(`the stream should be deleted successfully`, s.thenStreamDeletedSuccessfully)


I recommend ^...$ for consistency. e.g. ^I delete the stream$

chengxilo · 2026-04-03T20:55:50Z

bdd/go/tests/basic_messaging.go

+		if c.client != nil && c.lastStreamID != nil {
+			streamIdentifier, _ := iggcon.NewIdentifier(*c.lastStreamID)
+			_ = c.client.DeleteStream(streamIdentifier)
+		}
+		if c.client != nil {
+			if err := c.client.Close(); err != nil {
+				scErr = errors.Join(scErr, fmt.Errorf("error closing client: %w", err))
+			}


I’m not sure it’s worth cleaning this up. Even if we do want to, this approach isn’t ideal. We should probably provide a script that cleans up all resources instead (e.g., fetch all streams, topics, users, etc., and delete them), which would work across all scenarios and ensure everything is properly cleaned.

For example, if CreateStream(A) actually creates a stream B, but DeleteStream(A) only attempts to delete A, then who is responsible for deleting B?

chengxilo · 2026-04-03T21:04:33Z

Finally, another .feature file. 😭

Thanks for pointing out! I don't like either and modified! Please take another look :D

Actually this is not part of code review LOL. I commented in Go SDK bdd. Would you mind to take a look at them?

hubcio changed the title ~~feat(bdd): add shared stream operations scenario for Go SDK (#1986)~~ feat(bdd): add shared stream operations scenario for Go SDK Mar 31, 2026

chengxilo reviewed Mar 31, 2026

View reviewed changes

bdd/go/tests/stream_operations_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

chengxilo reviewed Mar 31, 2026

View reviewed changes

bdd/go/tests/stream_operations_test.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

chengxilo suggested changes Mar 31, 2026

View reviewed changes

ex172000 and others added 2 commits March 31, 2026 08:18

ex172000 force-pushed the qichao/convert-go-bdd-1 branch from 66a0626 to d9d8908 Compare April 2, 2026 20:11

ex172000 and others added 2 commits April 2, 2026 15:35

Merge branch 'master' into qichao/convert-go-bdd-1

5db4ccb

chengxilo reviewed Apr 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

chengxilo suggested changes Apr 3, 2026

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat(bdd): add shared stream operations scenario for Go SDK#3063

feat(bdd): add shared stream operations scenario for Go SDK#3063
ex172000 wants to merge 5 commits intoapache:masterfrom
ex172000:qichao/convert-go-bdd-1

ex172000 commented Mar 31, 2026

Uh oh!

hubcio commented Mar 31, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

chengxilo commented Mar 31, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Apr 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

ex172000 commented Apr 3, 2026

Uh oh!

ex172000 commented Apr 3, 2026

Uh oh!

chengxilo Apr 3, 2026

Uh oh!

chengxilo Apr 3, 2026

Uh oh!

chengxilo Apr 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

chengxilo commented Apr 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

		sc.Step(`I delete the stream`, s.whenDeleteStream)
		sc.Step(`the stream should be deleted successfully`, s.thenStreamDeletedSuccessfully)

Conversation

ex172000 commented Mar 31, 2026

Which issue does this PR close?

Rationale

What changed?

Local Execution

AI Usage

Uh oh!

hubcio commented Mar 31, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

chengxilo commented Mar 31, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Apr 2, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

ex172000 commented Apr 3, 2026

Uh oh!

ex172000 commented Apr 3, 2026

Uh oh!

chengxilo Apr 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

chengxilo Apr 3, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

chengxilo Apr 3, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

chengxilo commented Apr 3, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

hubcio commented Mar 31, 2026 •

edited

Loading

chengxilo commented Mar 31, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Apr 2, 2026 •

edited

Loading

chengxilo Apr 3, 2026 •

edited

Loading