brutal VS WebMock

Unless you don't write tests, the advantage of using such DSL interface is to limit the introduction of additional logic into the specification document with potential errors, to encourage the use of good Ruby patterns with low algorithmic complexity, and to make Ruby code shorter and more (machine) readable.

If you want to check out an alternative to VCR, have a look at webmock.

Well, that's why your test says: "When the API responds like this I do that". People hate on ruby but webmock makes it very nice to mock/stub that, or for python there's responses. For the database you can use a local database with factories to easily create the data you need for each test and clear it between tests.

Man if you think python has great mocking/testing support, you check out some ruby tests! Honestly some of the best testing libraries that pioneered approaches that are becoming more common elsewhere, such as the expectations syntax. And now that I'm coding more in python I find myself missing libaries like webmock, letting you stub web reqests in a way that's agnostic of the HTTP/web libary, chef's kiss.

In order to keep our test suite faster and consistent, we need to mock our http requests. A simple and good way to achieve this is using the Webmock gem which allow easily mock the http responses for your requests.

We can avoid managing HTTP communication with our dependency. Instead, we'll stub out how we expect it to respond. In this case, we'll use webmock to stub out a response at the HTTP layer.

The other option is to mock the web requests to Hetzner - this: https://github.com/bblimke/webmock or similar may help.

There are fine istructions in WebMock README. I want to share it here for reference:

You can find the setup instructions and examples on how to use WebMock, in their github documentation. WebMock will prevent any external HTTP requests from your application so make sure you add this gem under the test group of your Gemfile.