openapi-typescript-codegen VS Capybara

I’d also add that if you use Typescript with an OpenAPI client generator (https://github.com/ferdikoomen/openapi-typescript-codegen) it can immensely alleviate some of the biggest pain points of seperate backend and front-end. It always used to be a major pain in the ass with the amount of overhead an API change would incur - updating documentation, postman, constant communication between backend and front-end devs, etc. Now I just npm run generate, I see new API changes in my Git client and Typescript errors for code that needs updating.

Also, using a library like Tanstack Query or Rdtk Query can almost completely eliminate manual state management, and kinda makes the whole development experience feel almost like SSR.

I have been in love with Loopback.io since v2 even though it was a bit of a rollercoaster.. Loopback v4 is a beautiful library. Its been around longer than nestjs but that's the easiest thing to compare it too. I recently have been creating lb4 servers that interface nextjs and react native clients. Initially, I identify my entities and use cases that I want to build. I then use the lb4 cli to auto generate models, relations, controllers, datasources, interceptors (add logic on methods/classes). I can start testing them with the OpenAPI explorer. With the openapi-typescript-codegen library I can generate services from my lb4 OpenAPI spec that I can use on the client side. From there, you can really query data easily with the loopback filter (which can be used on the client too). I initially started doing this with angular1/2+ but its been pleasant using many clients. Even though I have been leveraging it for years in production, I am still learning and exploring. There are many other awesome things I can expand on or explain if you are interested!

https://loopback.io/doc/en/lb4/

https://github.com/ferdikoomen/openapi-typescript-codegen/tr...

In our current project with a TS frontend and Python backend, we use an OpenAPI schema as the source of truth and openapi-typescript-codegen [0] to interface with it on the client side. While not perfect, it provides a very nice interface to our API with request/response typings.

I also wrote a 10-line mock API wrapper that you can call as mockApi((request) => response), and it will type-check that your mock function implements the API correctly.

[0]: https://github.com/ferdikoomen/openapi-typescript-codegen

Second step is to generate typescript types from the backend's spec. You can use a library like this.

openapi-typescript-codegen Generates a Typescript client with interfaces from an OpenAPI spec.

I'm not familiar with all the options openapi-generator has. I tried it awhile ago and found it quite buggy, and more of a pain to run, especially if you're not already doing Java development. I ended up preferring OpenAPI Typescript Codegen, which is written in Typescript. One option it has which would solve the problem you're running into here, is that you can tell it to use union types instead of enums. So your interfaces would be generated as

I'm currently working on two separate projects, the first is a Django project with DRF and I codegen with drf-spectacular [1] and openapi-typescript-codegen [2]. The other project also uses Django, with the API through Hasura and codegen with graphql-codegen [3]. In both of these cases I've been able to largely avoid duplicating my models clientside, or at least it isn't manual.

1: https://github.com/ferdikoomen/openapi-typescript-codegen

2: https://drf-spectacular.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

3: https://github.com/dotansimha/graphql-code-generator

For typescript client code generation, I typically use something like openapi-typescript-codegen, but there are a lot more generators (like the openapi-generator project) that are imperfect in their own ways, I'm sure you can find one that works for you.

Cuba takes help from a lot of other technologies to bring the best of everything. For example, the responses in Cuba are the optimized version of the Rack responses. The templates are integrated via Tilt and testing via Cutest and Capybara.

I am going to use a browser based testing tool called Playwright (But you could use Capybara, or Selenium WebDriver etc.).

Even as a much smaller team, building Heii On-Call [0] as a lightweight alerting/monitoring/on-call rotations SaaS based on Ruby on Rails has basically been a pleasure!

And as the article highlights, perhaps the key reason for smooth deployments and upgrades is that the CI testing story is so, so good: RSpec [1] plus Capybara [2] for us. That means we have decently extensive tests of just about all behavior. The few small Rails and Ruby upgrades we've done have gone quite smoothly and confidently, with usually just a few non-Rails gem dependencies needing to be manually updated as well.

The "microservices" story is where we've pulled in the Crystal programming language [3] to great effect. After dabbling with Go and Rust, we've found that Crystal is truly a breath of fresh air. Crystal powers the parts of Heii On-Call that need to be fast and low-RAM, specifically the inbound API https://api.heiioncall.com/ and the outbound HTTP(S) prober background processes. I've ported some shared utility classes from Ruby to Crystal almost completely by just copy-and-pasting ___.rb to ___.cr; porting the tests for those classes was far more onerous than porting the class code itself. (Perhaps another point of evidence toward the superiority of RoR's testing story...)

The front-end story is nice but just a bit weaker. Using Hotwire / Turbo successfully, but I have an open PR to fix a fairly obvious stale cache bug in Turbo [4] that has been sitting unloved for nearly a month, despite other users reporting the same issue. I'm hopeful that it will get merged in the next release, but definitely less active than the backend side.

For me, the key conclusion is that the excellent Ruby on Rails testing story is what enables everything to go a lot more smoothly and have such a strong foundation. I'd be curious if any GitHubbers can talk more about whether they too are using Rspec+Capybara or something else? Are there internal guidelines for test coverage?

[0] https://heiioncall.com/

[1] https://rspec.info/

[2] https://github.com/teamcapybara/capybara

[3] https://crystal-lang.org/

[4] https://github.com/hotwired/turbo/pull/895

Engineering at Aha! focuses on using and improving the Capybara test framework. We have added many helpers and additional functionality to make working with Capybara easy. Testing at mobile widths is another chance to improve our testing tooling. Here is the incremental approach that we used to add mobile testing helpers.

Since the Capybara library drives the underlying tests, Minitest also has the same syntax.

We can write component tests with any language or framework, but the most popular ones are probably Cucumber and Capybara.

The nice thing about partial templates is that templates are unit-testable with View specs (or similarly in Minitest) and the rendered output can even be verified using Capybara matchers.

To piggyback: This would be a type of browser test, so you would want to use something like Cypress (https://github.com/testdouble/cypress-rails) or Capybara (https://github.com/teamcapybara/capybara). RSpec has a good integration with Capybara. Cypress is JS-based so it will require some additional config.

When you write a system test (or, as we prefer, a system spec) with Ruby on Rails, you're exercising the whole stack from the point of view of the user. So, naturally, you have to do things like make sure that certain elements are on the page and work as you expect when you click on then, type in them, and drag them around. Capybara works exceedingly well for this, giving you a lovely API for querying HTML.