SimpleCov VS standard

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.

Rubocop has a default rule that says to put parentheses when there are parameters; even Standardrb has a default ([https://github.com/standardrb/standard/blob/8307fa8f449f896075ccad 74bf6a128ed2c26189/config/base.yml#L1098:title])

gem "rubocop" - https://github.com/rubocop/rubocop | Set up code guidelines for your dev team, I recommend using whatever Standard recommends.

Cynically, reading heavily between the lines, this reads to me like DHH just found out lots of rubyists like standardrb. https://github.com/standardrb/standard -- and this is his quick reaction to it.

This is a huge reason why I still use StandardJS and—shifting back to Ruby—why I rejected the countless requests for implementing line-length or any other metrics analysis rules for [StandardRB](https://github.com/standardrb/standard). There is always a legitimate edge case when it comes to length of lines and functions and the alternative—chopping them off arbitrarily—is rarely an improvement.

This approach is known as Standard Ruby. It can also be completed with plugins, including one for Ruby on Rails projects.

Oh, this is fantastic! Would you be willing to send a quick PR to our README?

[0] https://github.com/testdouble/standard

If you don't want to fiddle with configuration files and the wealth of options provided by RuboCop, consider taking a look at the Standard project. It's largely a pre-configured version of RuboCop that aims to enforce a consistent style in your Ruby project without allowing the customization of any of its rules. The lightning talk where it was first announced gives more details about its origin and motivations.