Administrate VS factory_bot

thoughtbot/administrate is a well-known framework for administrative screen, but it's not developer friendly。I implement my own template files for Administrate, so when new Administrate version released, It is hard to update Administrate because template file is changed.**

I work at thoughtbot, you might know us for our open source work like administrate, factory_bot or shoulda-matchers.

This looks very similar to Administrate by thoughtbot https://github.com/thoughtbot/administrate

We briefly considered migrating to a full-grown Rails admin interface, such as ActiveAdmin, RailsAdmin, Administrate or Avo. We especially liked Avo which is built on a very modern stack similar to ours (Tailwind + Hotwire + ViewComponents). In the end, we didn’t go this route as we found some of the options a bit too restrictive (even though Avo is very flexible) and we did not feel like trying to amend it to our needs. For example, Avo renders forms in a 1-field-per-row layout while we wanted something more similar to the Tailwind UI Stacked form layout. Nevertheless, we found a great deal of inspiration in the Avo code and its design principles.

We have already covered many use cases for customisation, everything else can be found in the official documentation.

Administrate

I usually tend to create these from Scratch, but moving forward I’ve started to use thoughtbot’s administrate gem. It sticks to the Rails conventions of controllers and routing, so it’s easy to customise and add new functionality to.

That's exactly what we do. Easy to extend trials as needed for users when needed too via https://github.com/thoughtbot/administrate

Documentation https://administrate-demo.herokuapp.com/

I made Factory-js inspired by factory-bot (https://github.com/thoughtbot/factory_bot), supports Prisma and Drizzle ORM and more. TypeScript is now widely used in both backend and frontend, but there is no de facto standard factory library. I'm developing a web application using Prisma, trpc, and nextjs, but I was struggling with how to write more beautiful and readable back-end tests. That's why I made factory-js.

factory_bot: A fixtures replacement

Not sure if you want the execution speed to be faster, or the development speed. If it's development, you can use FactoryBot in a script to generate data easily once you have your factories set up.

For instance, thoughtbot/factory_bot.

> if you're a bunch of tool makers and you all know your audience of tool users then there's no benefit at all to have someone offended by the word "tool" in your workforce.

It kinda reminds me of the factorygirl -> factorybot [0] story. It was a cute enough name for a technical tool that plays nice among bros, and down the line you end up renaming your package and deal with the drama.

On brand image, I get your point. I think the corporations doing it best tend to juggle with multiple brands and segment their market accordingly. Then yes, an homogeneous, single focus brand will be more valuable, as it also help to push people outside of the target to your other brands.

[0] https://github.com/thoughtbot/factory_bot/wiki

Not sure I follow why this question is related to an OS like Windows, but when it comes to RSpec testing with different users, I would use Factory Bot and define a User Factory and add Traits such as Admin & Non Admin and use them in specs with their pre-defined attributes to what they can access based on your User Model and call them within the specs.

The factory-bot gem is used in almost in all of our spec files and it make our set up much more easier than when we use fixtures. Here is the tradeoff, the easier the gem is to use, the more likely you’ll end up with some pain to control its usage. And when the times come to tackle slow tests, the best bet you can take is to start digging into you factories because it’s likely they are the primary reason why your test suite is slowing down

Efate is actually the second test fixture library I've written and there were several lessons I learned after using the first iteration for several years myself. The first version was influenced a great deal by factor_girl (called factory_bot now), with a heavy dependency on strings to define and create the fixtures. It also wasn't very modular. You couldn't just import a specific fixture, you had to bring in the whole library. And it wasn't very extensible, if you needed to define custom behavior for how a field should be created, it wasn't very pretty.

I work at thoughtbot, you might know us for our open source work like administrate, factory_bot or shoulda-matchers.

As we continue to level-up our skillsets as developers in Rails, the utility of POROs (Plain Old Ruby Objects) becomes more apparent and appealing. Sometimes, the business object(s) you create do not require persistent storage to a database and are, therefore, outside of the scope of an ORM (Object Relational Mapper) like ActiveRecord. But how do we maintain simplicity in our test suite and continue to leverage helpful testing libraries like FactoryBot without one? This instructional article explores how to implement factories for POROs including common pitfalls, building nested resources, and factory linting.