add gs-mock

[lvan100]

We want to ensure high quality of the packages. Make sure that you've checked the boxes below before sending a pull request.

• I have read the Contribution Guidelines
• I have read the Maintainers Note
• I have read the Quality Standards

Not every repository (project) will require every option, but most projects should. Check the Contribution Guidelines for details.

• The repo documentation has a pkg.go.dev link.
• The repo documentation has a coverage service link.
• The repo documentation has a goreportcard link.
• The repo has a version-numbered release and a go.mod file.
• The repo has a continuous integration process that automatically runs tests that must pass before new pull requests are merged.
• Continuous integration is used to attempt to catch issues prior to releasing this package to end-users.

Please provide some links to your package to ease the review

• forge link (github.com, gitlab.com, etc):
• pkg.go.dev:
• goreportcard.com:
• coverage service link (codecov, coveralls, etc.):

Pull Request content

• The package has been added to the list in alphabetical order.
• The package has an appropriate description with correct grammar.
• As far as I know, the package has not been listed here before.

Category quality

Note that new categories can be added only when there are 3 packages or more.

Packages added a long time ago might not meet the current guidelines anymore. It would be very helpful if you could check 3-5 packages above and below your submission to ensure that they also still meet the Quality Standards.

Please delete one of the following lines:

• The packages around my addition still meet the Quality Standards.
• I removed the following packages around my addition: (please give a short reason for each removal)

Thanks for your PR, you're awesome! 😎

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Added a new library reference to testing documentation, providing an additional mocking option for test development.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

A new Go mocking library entry (gs-mock) was added to the README.md file in both the general testing libraries section and the dedicated Mock subsection, documenting its generics support and concurrency-safe capabilities as a gomock alternative.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Documentation updates README.md	Added gs-mock library entry to "Libraries for testing codebases and generating test data" and "Mock" subsection under Testing, describing it as a Go mocking library with full generics support and concurrency-safe testing capabilities.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Possibly related PRs

• avelino/awesome-go#5672: Similar documentation update adding a different Mock library entry (moxie) to the same Testing Mock subsection.

Suggested reviewers

• phanirithvij
• bukarumar147

Poem

🐰 Another library hops into the fold,
Mock tools so swift, concurrency bold,
gs-mock joins the awesome way,
Testing dreams brighten the day! ✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'add gs-mock' directly and clearly summarizes the main change: adding a new library entry (gs-mock) to the README.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[github-actions]

Automated Quality Checks (from CONTRIBUTING minimum standards)

• Repo link: missing
• pkg.go.dev: missing
• goreportcard: missing
• coverage: missing

These checks are a best-effort automation and do not replace human review.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

README.md (1)

2507-2510: Make description neutral per Awesome guidelines.

Avoid comparative/promo phrasing like “drop-in replacement.” Suggest neutral wording while keeping the period.

Apply:

- - [gs-mock](https://github.com/go-spring/gs-mock) - A Go mocking library with full generics support and concurrency-safe testing that can serve as a drop-in replacement for gomock.
+ - [gs-mock](https://github.com/go-spring/gs-mock) - Go mocking library with full generics support and concurrency-safe testing; gomock‑compatible API.

Also, please ensure this entry appears only in the Mock subsection (no duplicates in parent Testing lists). As per coding guidelines.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 2bb07df and a52667b.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• README.md (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

📓 Path-based instructions (3)

README.md

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (AGENTS.md)

README.md: When modifying the Awesome list, keep categories with at least three entries
Descriptions in the Awesome list must end with a period
Avoid promotional copy; keep descriptions concise and neutral in the Awesome list
Do not remove existing list content unless removal is requested and justified

Files:

• README.md

**/*.md

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (AGENTS.md)

Keep documentation in English

Files:

• README.md

{README.md,COVERAGE.md}

📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (AGENTS.md)

Align rendered documentation (README.md, COVERAGE.md, etc.) with behavior changes in main.go or helper packages

Files:

• README.md

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)

• GitHub Check: Codacy Static Code Analysis