shoulda-matchers VS SimpleCov

According to the shoulda-matchers documentation:

The value of shoulda-matchers is right there in the first line of the README: "test common Rails functionality that, if written by hand, would be much longer, more complex, and error-prone."

I work at thoughtbot, you might know us for our open source work like administrate, factory_bot or shoulda-matchers.

4. Shoulda-matchers

gem "simplecov" - https://github.com/simplecov-ruby/simplecov | Gather spec coverage stats locally and on CI, aim for those 90+%.

Have you wondered how much of the logic in your views is exercised in your test suite? Thanks to this change, now you can see that in tools like SimpleCov.

My talk is about different best practices - specifically when adhering to them breaks down. One of those best practices is high test coverage. I start to work on the content for my presentation by building the code samples that I want to use in the slides. For the code coverage section, I'm writing some code with some tests. I'm using SimpleCov to generate code coverage results.

SimpleCov - a tool to check Ruby application code coverage. You can configure it to run alongside your tests. It provides metrics on code coverage so that you can identify what you need to pay attention to and where to invest your time to create better test cases.

Ensure that you have sufficient test coverage. You can use code coverage analysis tools like SimpleCov to gain insight into gaps in your coverage.

simplecov might the answer you need, it generates a report of the lines of code your test suite hits.

Use SimpleCov to generate a report of how many statements are covered by your test suite. It won't assess the test suite quality, though.

There are many tools for measuring test coverage, but one is SimpleCov. It also supports branches coverage. To measure coverage of production code, check out Coverband, which you can set up to use oneshot lines mode.