Another option would be to add a t.Deadline and leave context creation up to the test.

t.Deadline would be somewhat more annoying to use, but acceptable for my use-cases.

The way I see it, current testing is very simple and I like it that way. Adding a t.Deadline I think is a good idea, however. But contexts are big constructs that can make things complicated quick, especially when looking at other people's code. Probably better to just have a t.Deadline() since that is much simpler.

The last attempt at adding Context was trying to signal "this test is done, all you helpers can go away".
The new attempt is trying to signal - using exactly the same mechanism! - "this test is about to be killed, you might want to die with a more useful message".

I don't see why we should prefer one over the other. They both seem very indirect. The fact that there were these two very different plausible uses suggests that having plain t.Context will be confusing to people expecting one or the other (or a third equally plausible meaning).

If the goal is to expose timeout information, let's focus on an API that does that well, instead of shoehorning it into context.

@rsc are you OK with t.Deadline?

Per @golang/proposal-review

This appears to be related, if not a resurrection of #18368 which was FrozenDueToAge. I'm adding this comment here to act as a trail of breadcrumbs, hoping that the link will show up in the older proposal.

Sure, let's try adding t.Deadline for Go 1.13.

The last attempt at adding Context was trying to signal "this test is done, all you helpers can go away".
The new attempt is trying to signal - using exactly the same mechanism! - "this test is about to be killed, you might want to die with a more useful message".

I don't see why we should prefer one over the other. They both seem very indirect. The fact that there were these two very different plausible uses suggests that having plain t.Context will be confusing to people expecting one or the other (or a third equally plausible meaning).

We should prefer the second over the first because t.Error/t.Log cannot be called after the test finishes so it makes more sense that the context being cancelled doesn't mean the test is done, but that it needs to finish. In this respect, the first option encourages incorrect behaviour where background goroutines may use t.Error/t.Log after the test has completed as @bcmills noted and I don't think there is a good third plausible meaning.

If the goal is to expose timeout information, let's focus on an API that does that well, instead of shoehorning it into context.

Using context.Context makes cancellation across Go very consistent which is really nice and easy. You can pass the context to any function that may take a while and you know it will try to exit once the context is cancelled. You can also just select on a Done() channel versus creating this channel again with time.After.

Using context.Context also enables the use of the value map within context.Context which could be very useful.

It also fits in really well with the Stdlib's adoption of context.Context. As a user I'd be very surprised to see most of the stdlib using context.Context to express deadlines and cancellation and then see a Deadline method on *testing.T.

@rsc

In #18368 (comment) you closed the issue because

My objection to wg.Go in #18022 (comment) applies even more to t.Go. This is not a testing-specific problem (making sure goroutines are done before returning from a function). It's not obvious why it merits a testing-specific solution. Let's gather more information about the general problem and look for general solutions, maybe with an eye toward Go 2.

It isn't a testing specific problem yes, but because of t.Fatal and t.FailNow are so easy to abuse when dealing with multiple goroutines, it merits a testing specific solution.

Related #24680 and #15758

I guess if #15758 is done, then a testing specific solution doesn't matter.

I want to share a potentially relevant experience report.

I found context deadlines/timeouts are a great fit for strict cancellation purposes, but it's trickier to use them for "putting a bound on time to compute some result".

Specifically, when there's only one explicit time provided, it's not very obvious whether the "grace period" should be on the caller or callee side.

When it's on the caller side (i.e., the testing package), the problem is the caller doesn't have context to know what is "reasonable time" to wait, so it can only pick a very generic amount of time. At the same time, the callee (i.e., a user-written TestFoo(t *testing.T)) doesn't know what the unspecified grace period of caller is, so to be safe, it may need to add a grace period buffer on its own side too. At that point, both callee and caller are sharing the responsibility of figuring out the total grace period time, which is suboptimal.

As a result, I found it worked better to make it completely a responsibility of the callee to finish and return before the deadline. The downside of this is that it complicates all callee code.

The need for a grace period — and the fact that the appropriate duration for it depends on the details of the test — seems like a great reason to favor (*T).Deadline over (*T).Context.

Change https://golang.org/cl/202758 mentions this issue: testing: provide (*T).Deadline to report when the test will have exceeded its timout

This issue is currently labeled as early-in-cycle for Go 1.15. That time is now, so friendly ping. If it no longer needs to be done early in cycle, that label can be removed.