Neither. It’s called that because it’s using a dialect/DSL of bash. It’s a general unit test tool, but working in bash orients Bats towards testing of scripted

Neither. It’s called that because it’s using a dialect/DSL of bash. It’s a general unit test tool, but working in bash orients Bats towards testing of scripted/automated infrastructure. I’ve used it for tests of Chef/Puppet configuration and found Bats a good fit. Seems odd to find it used as the test framework for a data management tool but clearly it floats their boat.