[0xFEE1DEAD]

I do write tests but I'm not a fan of aiming for 100% coverage because it's incredibly tedious to achieve, and the gains in my experience are marginal.

That being said even with 100% coverage your code may still contain bugs. If you've never had to debug code with extensive tests then hats off to you.

[9rx]

When you write a test you see the cute little "debug test" button show up beside it in your editor. If you press it, your logpoints spill the logging information you seek without having to modify the code.

I expect that is what the parent is really asking about: What does this meaningfully offer over the "built-in" debug logging?

[0xFEE1DEAD]

Well, my vim is missing buttons like these and I wasn't aware such a feature existed.

Maybe I'm just old, maybe it's just a different approach, but I built dlg for myself because it fits my workflow.

> What does this meaningfully offer over the "built-in" debug logging?

For you, it most likely doesn't offer anything meaningful.

For devs who use fmt.Printf a lot, it maybe does.

[0points]

> I'm not a fan of aiming for 100% coverage

"100% coverage" is just a measure of line coverage and is highly useless to reason about.

For testing to become meaningful, you should have test data covering way more than that for the relevant parts.

[latchkey]

Crazy that I get downvoted for a perfectly valid question, go HN!

I'm not saying that tests are perfect, but if you do find a bug, you write a new test and fix it. You don't add print statements that you expect to keep around any longer than the amount of effort there is to write the test and fix the code.

Maybe this product is for people who don't write tests, but even in this codebase, there is a pretty well done set of tests and zero dogfood usage that I noticed.

[0xFEE1DEAD]

> but if you do find a bug, you write a new test and fix it.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding here but this library is not meant to replace tests. It's for initially finding the bug for which you then write a test case (or not).

[danudey]

I think you're getting downvoted because it's not a valid question - debug logging and unit testing are two separate things, and the OP didn't say anywhere that he prefers this to unit tests. Your question presupposes a dichotomy that doesn't exist.