factory_bot VS Squirrel

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.

It uses Gin as the HTTP framework and PostgreSQL as the database with pgx as the driver and Squirrel as the query builder. It also utilizes Redis as the caching layer with go-redis as the client.

I would add Squirrel to PGX https://github.com/Masterminds/squirrel

I have written about this before, and my thoughts always settle on using a query builder. I've built a simple one, which works for what I need, but there are more feature complete ones out there such as squirrel. I've also written about how you can implement a simple CRUD library for database interactions using generics and query building to have that nice middle-ground between an ORM and query building.

Now for the dynamic queries you have to be really careful to prevent SQL injections, there are bunch of different ways to do it but I typically recommend using a package such as squirrel that lets you do this easily, you use it to generate the plain SQL you need (and then use sqlx, database/sql, pgx or whatever you prefer) or use it directly querying the database directly.

Here are 2 options for you * https://github.com/huandu/go-sqlbuilder * https://github.com/Masterminds/squirrel

https://www.reddit.com/r/golang/comments/vq98ud/what_sql_library_are_you_using/ Jet havn't used but is one that looks promising! Otherwise I'm one of the purests, db/sql and https://github.com/Masterminds/squirrel

I think he means an sql builder like squirrel. This allows dynamic queries, but more important you can reuse function that build a where clause so you can get a count and query with that.

I'd rather suggest the use of tools more aligned with the core concepts of the language such as sqlx, which is an extension of the database/sql standard library. It allows you to use models/structs to map your tables but you have more control over the SQL statements you use to perform queries and the like. You can combine sqlx with Squirrel to build queries from composable parts.

But using a query builder, something like squirrel or (plug) bqb, allows you to actually write SQL (or something close to it) when you need it but also handles the nasty string building bits. Though I agree that ORMs are not always bad, especially for small projects with well-defined scope.

Plug for bqb as a query builder, but there's also squirrel which works pretty well too.