removed factories_spec.rb and anywhere it was being used.

[mrageh]

This is a possible fix for Issue #155

[calebhearth]

Cross-commented from #260:

The factory specs running first (thought they add a lot of overhead, which I'm trying to minimize here) is really nice. Despite them never having saved @croaky's butt, they have mine - at least insofar as them running and fast-failing have saved me from trying to figure out why half a test suite is failing. It's nice to have the single failure up front.

[mrageh]

Ok thanks for the update caleb, should I close this pull request?

[calebhearth]

@Adam89 this is my opinion, others may have their own. (@jferris, @gylaz)

[jferris]

I haven't gotten any use out of factories_spec.rb yet, and I'd be in favor of removing. Here are my reasons:

• I don't like waiting for the test environment to boot up an extra time to run rake on one spec file.
• If you like feedback quickly, there are alternates like failing fast or alternate test runners.
• The failures from factories_spec.rb are unlikely to be better than the failures from a spec that tries to use an invalid factory. Either way, you'll get the model being saved and the validation failures.
• We don't have a nice way to reuse these, so we end up copying the file into suspenders apps. The fewer files we have to copy, the better.

[gabebw]

I agree with Joe's eloquent explanation.

[calebhearth]

The failures from factories_spec.rb are unlikely to be better than the failures from a spec that tries to use an invalid factory. Either way, you'll get the model being saved and the validation failures.

Agreed, except in the case of a feature spec, where the message is just confusing.

[croaky]

I don't like waiting for the test environment to boot up an extra time to run rake on one spec file.

Does Spring (which is in Suspenders) solve this?

If you like feedback quickly, there are alternates like failing fast or alternate test runners.

Are these alternatives or complements?

We don't have a nice way to reuse these, so we end up copying the file into suspenders apps.

How about including them in Factory Girl?

[croaky]

Despite them never having saved @croaky's butt, they have mine

I feel @calebthompson's opinion on this is more valid than mine as he's been working on Rails apps at least 32 hours/week and I'm more like in the single digits.

I'm inclined to merge #260 and see if we can make further changes like including this ability in Factory Girl to reduce files in Suspenders.

[jferris]

Yeah, that could be an interesting factory_girl feature. Something like:

FactoryGirl.lint

If we run this before specs run (ie included in spec_helper.rb or spec/support), it doesn't even need to be constructed as a test.

[calebhearth]

FactoryGirl.lint

I like this.

I don't like waiting for the test environment to boot up an extra time to run rake on one spec file.

Does Spring (which is in Suspenders) solve this?

I know that by virtue of being in the same rake task, the Rails environment doesn't need to be reloaded, which is Spring's benefit. I'm not sure of the overhead of the test environment itself being reloaded, but doubt that Spring effects them.

fast-failing test runners

Right, but we randomize the order so there's no guarantee that the fast-failure will be informative.

I'm all for looking into adding better test support to factory_girl. @joshuaclayton?

[croaky]

FactoryGirl.lint is being done in thoughtbot/factory_bot#609

[mrageh]

Can I close this pull request now as thoughtbot/factory_bot#609 solves this issue

[croaky]

@Adam89 I think we still want to figure out a way to run FactoryGirl.lint inside the Rails app. Should this be in the rake task similar to the existing version (but deleting the factories_spec.rb file)?

[joshuaclayton]

To update this ticket, FactoryGirl.lint is available in factory_girl 4.4.0, released this morning!

[mrageh]

Cool that means I can close this pull request right?

[calebhearth]

Yeah, thanks @Adam89