retest VS Rubocop

Whatever you choose Retest (a gem I maintain) will acknowledge both naming conventions out of the box to increase the number of compatible Ruby projects. This is done in release 1.10.0. For example, you can now use Retest with Puma.

I created a gem: Retest which works on the terminal. A bit like Guard without any setup. The gem is smart enough to find the correct file to test after you save any.rb file.

I use retest. It works on every standard Ruby projects with no setup (understand no .Guardfile or Gemfile update). If you follow rspec, rails, rake or ruby standard file structure you get running in less than a minute. As a contractor I can checkout any repo and start TDD without caring about the repo setup. I use it even when Guard is already installed because the experience is consistent across all projects. It also has a —diff option that runs only spec files relevant from the diffs with another branch to run a final check before creating a pull request and triggering the whole test suite on CI.

But whatever the project I’m working on is, I always try using retest https://github.com/AlexB52/retest for awesome refactoring and TDD because it works with both Minitest and RSpec out of the box. Sorry for the shameless promotion.

Hi, I have created a gem called retest that helps you run specs after a file change without adding any configuration files to a repo. I created it for the specific reason you’re mentioning as I work in a consultancy. It is supposed to be dev centric and works with any ruby projects. I use it while working or refactoring. It might suits you, have a look

A great book by Sandi Metz is 99 bottles of OOP in Ruby where she explains heaps about refactoring. One of the best book I have read. I know you asked for article or videos but if you have time, it takes a day or two to read. I made a gem to help people refactor the same way she describes in the book. It will speed up your feedback loop when refactoring: retest

Parenthesis are mostly optional in Ruby, Seattle style takes it to an extreme where you omit any character not required for the code to run. https://github.com/rubocop-hq/rubocop/issues/4793

No, it's not?! The latest version is 1.28.2: https://rubygems.org/gems/rubocop

Running rubocop might give you a few tips regarding naming conventions and best practices

Every language that I’ve ever worked in has a linter written for it. JavaScript has ESLint; Python has Black, and Ruby has RuboCop. These linters do the simple job of making sure your code follows the prescribed set of style rules. A few linters like RuboCop also enforce good practices such as atomic functions and better variable names. Such hints are very often helpful in detecting and fixing bugs before they cause issues in production.

It's like rubocop problem: https://github.com/rubocop-hq/rubocop/issues/8091