factory_bot VS migrate

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.

Go does not natively support the use of migrations, but we could use the ORM that has this functionality, such as GORM which is the most used by the community, but We can use migrations without using an ORM, for this we will use the golang-migrate package.

$ curl -L https://github.com/golang-migrate/migrate/releases/download/$version/migrate.$os-$arch.tar.gz | tar xvz

Golang-migrate is a database migration tool designed for Go applications. It helps manage and apply changes to the database schema as the application grows, ensuring that the code and database structure stay in sync.

First of all, thank you for SQLAlchemy! If I ever had to make a final choice in how I would interact with a database for a very large project that involves a considerable dev team, I would always bet on SQLAlchemy. Not that I would necessarily like all aspects of it, but when it comes to Python and SQL - “Nobody ever got fired for picking SQLAlchemy.”.

With that out of the way, despite ORMs doing much more than "just writing SQL", it is exactly on that point that I flinch: Most devs should be exposed to SQL. And if your project allows you to build around simple enough abstractions so that you aren't reinventing the wheel, you should definitely be writing SQL. Especially if you don't know SQL yet - which is the growing case of new devs coming into the job market.

You can achieve a lot with SQlAlchemy Core, a tool that I absolutely recommend, but my post is just a simple alternative to get developers to think about their approach. If that results in some devs reconsidering using "full fat" SQLAlchemy and to try SQLAlchemy Core, that's a win for me!

Your gist tries to highlight the difficulty of doing certain things without an ORM. Migrations (as just 1 example) doesn't need to be hard, simple tools like flyway, or migrate (https://github.com/golang-migrate/migrate) achieve a similar result (while also keeping you on the path of writing SQL!). Deep and complex relationships between objects also don't need to be hard - typically people approach this subject with a requirement to be very flexible in the way they want to build queries and objects, but that to me in a sign that maybe they should reconsider their business logic AND reconsider that, just maybe, their project doesn't require all that flexibility, it is fairly straightforward to extend objects and introduce some more complex representations as and when it is needed - will all of this make me write code faster? Absolutely not. That is why you have spent so much time perfecting SQLAlchemy, but then again, I am not advocating for devs to go and replace their usage of ORMs, just presenting an alternative that may or may not fit their needs for a new project + give devs the chance to learn something that the ORM might have taken away.

Doing this now with a mysql db for my use case. Using sp to take a large chunk of data migration load off my data layer code. I am using migrate (go library) for migrations and hooked it up with a bunch of test suites for all SP and Triggers it creates. I test it against a testDB maintained as part of my CI/CD. Haven’t had an issue with production yet. It does however require quite a bit of initial setup.

Before we can start using MySQL we need to create a table to store our data. I will be using excellent migrate database migrations tool, it can also be imported as a libraray.

We need a database table to store our application's users' data. To generate and migrate a schema, we'll use golang migrate. Kindly follow these instructions to install it on your Operating system. To create a pair of migration files (up and down) for our user table, issue the following command in your terminal and at the root of your project: