tview

ght), and Log (bottom). The status bar shows context-sensitive keyboard shortcuts. Looking for contributors! Here are some areas where I'd love help: CI/CD integration: GitHub Actions workflow for running tests in lazygotest Benchmark mode: Support for go test -bench with visual graphs Coverage visualization: Show code coverage % per package/test Test generation: Auto-generate table-driven tests from function signatures Plugin system: Allow custom commands and key bindings If you're interested in contributing, the codebase follows Clean Architecture with clear separation between domain/application/infrastructure layers. PRs are welcome – I aim for small, focused changes (≤20 lines when possible) with tests included. I'd love to hear your feedback, especially from fellow gophers who spend a lot of time running tests! Install: go install -tags tview github.com/YuminosukeSato/lazygotest/cmd/lazygotest@latest

UI app, which I absolutely agreed with. Claude counselled me on my understanding of the Run() command, and how it was a blocking call (which I hadn't realised). The refactor/re-architecture fixed the way things were being run a great deal. However I still had a bug that I could not fix, and Claude was equally stumped (as was Gemini) When I clicked on any of the components in a flex row, the first component behaved as though it was the one that was clicked. When I clicked on any of the components in another flex row the last one behaved as though it was the one that had been clicked. Claude repeatedly told me that the problem was that the closure that used the index of components (inside a loop) was the problem. This was outright wrong because 1. That bug has been fixed in Go. 2. The code I was sharing with Claude had the "fix" of local := index - meaning that the local version should have been correct 3. I repeatedly showed Claude logs (that it suggested I create) that showed that ALL of the components were in fact receiving the click event. The second solution that Claude was fixated on was that th components overlapped one another inside the flex box. This was partially incorrect. I told Claude that I could visually see that the components weren't overlapping. I also told Claude that there were borders around each component that clearly weren't overlapping. I gave Claude debug logs that showed that the mouse click co-ordinates were inside a single component. The third issue that Claude claimed was the problem was a click propagation bug in the library. Claude repeated these claims several times, despite me showing that it wasn't either of the first two things, and I could not find a bug/issue for the third. The circuit breaking made me stop and think about things, and I realised that all I really had to do was say inside the box "If a click event has been received AND (and this was the fix) You (the component) now have focus then behave". What I suspect is happening is that the flex box container receives the click, and then tells all of its children that a click happened. What disappoints me is, if what I suspect is true, then I would have expected Claude to have known that either from the tview documentation OR from reading the tview code (Claude does seem well acquainted with the library) If my suspicion is correct then the second and third issues Claude claimed were causing me the bug were partially true, that is the flex container is on top of the components, which is an overlap, just not the components themselves overlapping. The second partial correctness is that the way that the click is being propagated to the components seems to be that the flex box container is telling all of its child components that a click occurred. This isn't really a bug, it's likely well documented (as if I would RTFM...) or clear from the code.