ruby-science VS minitest

So, bigger is worse, but how big is bad? At what number should you take action? Thoughtbot's Ruby Science book suggests a method is long or complex with a flog score above 10. It also posits that a class is long or complex with a flog score above 50.

Ruby Science - it's a free book by thoughtbot. It might be the most short term beneficial thing honestly. It just points out all of these various practical patterns you can immediate use to increase code quality.

I think you would appreciate Ruby Science. I love this book, it's extremely practical.

Well, if you're programming in Ruby, a great place to start is the Ruby Science book by ThoughtBot. It's a bottom-up approach to improving your code by identifying code smells and applying OO principles to fix them. Identifying smells in your own code will lead you to the OO principles that you need to learn to build your OO skills.

Read Ruby science to learn about code smells and good architecture.

It's a bit more advanced, but I like Ruby Science by thoughtbot.

Check out Ruby Science by Thoughtbot which I found useful at your stage.

Code smells. Ruby science is a good one for Ruby.

Currnetly reading ruby science. 200+ page guide on code smells and solutions.

This book is old but it's still very relevant https://github.com/thoughtbot/ruby-science. Also check out thoughtbot's blog and www.gorails.com

I am very comfortable with Minitest in Ruby. When I started to learn Rails, though, I was surprised by how different RSpec was. In case .NET testing is equally unlike the xUnit style, I should learn the idioms.

It supports both RSpec and Minitest as well as any other testing gem. There are flexible configurations options which allow to configure editor with needed testing tool.

5. Automated Tests: Unit tests are automated tests that verify the behavior of a small unit of code in isolation. I like to write unit tests for every bug reported by a user. This way, I can reproduce the bug in a controlled environment and verify that the fix works as expected and that we wont see a regression. There are many different JavaScript test frameworks like Jest, cypress, mocha, and jasmine. We use Rspec and Minitest for unit and integration tests in our rails application.

In this part, we’ll set up our testing environment so that we can test our Rails API using minitest with minitest/spec. We’ll look at the differences between traditional style unit tests and spec-style tests, or specs. I’ll demonstrate why you should use minitest-rails. We’ll look at using rack-test for testing our API. We’ll even create our own generator to generate API specs.

I forgot to mention that reading code is also a good way to learn how to write code, it's like inspiration. Check repos of some gems you like. For example sidekiq https://github.com/sidekiq/sidekiq/tree/main/lib/sidekiq Or minitest https://github.com/minitest/minitest/tree/master/lib/minitest

All through GitHub.

1. From https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/6ffb29d24e05abbd9ffe3ea9..., click "Blame" on the header bar over the file contents.

2. Scroll down to the line and click on the commit in the left column.

3. Scroll down to the file that removed the line from its previous file, activesupport/lib/active_support/test_case.rb.

4. Click the three-dots menu in that file's header bar and select "View file".

5. Click "History" in the header bar of the contributors, above the file contents.

6. I guessed here at commit 281f488 on its message: "Use the method provided by minitest to make tests order dependent". There's a comment here that identified the problem which led to, and provided context for, the change in 6ffb29d.

The OP is from minitest's documentation, so to find the introduction in minitest, it's basically the same process.

1. Go to https://github.com/minitest/minitest.

2. Search the repo for the method name. Even just "i_suck" will match the commit.

3. Select the oldest commit in the results. That's a4553e2.

The new test convention is now "test/**/test_*.rb" instead of "test/**/*_test.rb". For example, Puma and Minitest are popular repositories using this naming pattern.

https://github.com/seattlerb/minitest really removed the FUD for me when i started learning Ruby and Rails. Its full of metaprogramming and fancy tricks but is also quite small, practical and informal in its style.

e.g. "assert_equal" is really just "expected == actual" at it's core but it uses both both a block param (a kind of closure) for composing a default message and calls "diff" which is a dumb wrapper around the system "diff" utility (horrors!). There is even some evolved nastiness in there for an API change that uses the existing assert/refute logic to raise an informative message. this is handled with a simple if and not some sort of complex hard-to-follow factory pattern or dependency injection misuse.

https://github.com/seattlerb/minitest/blob/master/lib/minite...

Those are just a few examples of what you can do with Minitest! Check out their README on GitHub and keep on exploring.

One of the things I love the most about Ruby is that it tends to coalesce around one or two really popular libraries. Rails is the big one obviously, but over time you see libraries designed for a particular purpose "winning" over other things. This includes things like linting/code analysis (Rubocop), authentication (Devise), testing (RSpec and Minitest) and more. The emphasis is on making something good great rather than making a lot of different good things.