rules_js VS mutant

For Bazel you can find a good example of this functionality in rules_js with the integration of pnpm workspaces and the npm_package rule (macro) which recently gained a .publish runnable target that will publish the package.

I also think it is partly as the tooling is not there yet - especially in the typical case when a project depends on lots of external dependencies.

I am looking forward to new set of bazel rules being worked on for eg. https://github.com/aspect-build/rules_js and https://github.com/jvolkman/rules_pycross which will makes it more idiomatic to work with existing language ecosystems.

There's a pretty good Ruby gem I've used for this before:

https://github.com/mbj/mutant

You should only really care about mutation testing if your code coverage is relatively high. If your code coverage is 20% then mutation testing should not be your priority. We use mutation testing (mutant for Ruby, pitest for Java). mutant is pretty hassle-free but only works when running under MRI so if you use jruby you are out of luck. pitest was far less easy to integrate.

mutant shows redundant semantics, why we'd like to reduce them is perhaps better explained at https://github.com/mbj/mutant#what-is-mutant