Learn more about rspec let. There's a debate going on.
Do not over use mocks and test real behavior when possible. Testing real cases are useful when updating your application flow.
Mocking makes your specs faster but they are difficult to use. You need to understand them well to use them well. Read more about. If you have ever worked in a medium size project but also in small ones , test suites can be heavy to run. To solve this problem, it's important not to load more data than needed. Also, if you think you need dozens of records, you are probably wrong.
This is an old topic, but it's still good to remember it. Do not use fixtures because they are difficult to control, use factories instead. Use them to reduce the verbosity on creating new data. One important note. When talking about unit tests the best practice would be to use neither fixtures or factories. Put as much of your domain logic in libraries that can be tested without needing complex, time consuming setup with either factories or fixtures. Read more in this article. Use readable matchers and double check the available rspec matchers.go site
Rails Best Practices 12222 for Rubynetti
Making tests is great and you get more confident day after day. But in the end you will start to see code duplication coming up everywhere. Use shared examples to DRY your test suite up. In our experience, shared examples are used mainly for controllers.
Since models are pretty different from each other, they usually do not share much logic. Learn more about rspec shared examples.
Ruby Best Practices: A Review
Deeply test your models and your application behaviour integration tests. Do not add useless complexity testing controllers. When I first started testing my apps I was testing controllers, now I don't. Now I only create integration tests using RSpec and Capybara. Because I truly believe that you should test what you see and because testing controllers is an extra step you don't need. You'll find out that most of your tests go into the models and that integration tests can be easily grouped into shared examples, building a clear and readable test suite.
This is an open debate in the Ruby community and both sides have good arguments supporting their idea. People supporting the need of testing controllers will tell you that your integration tests don't cover all use cases and that they are slow. Both are wrong. You can easily cover all use cases why shouldn't you?
Sorry, comments aren't active just yet!
In this way you will run only the specs you need to test blazing fast without stopping your flow. Do not use should when describing your tests. Use the third person in the present tense. So that was my biggest win. But from an authors perspective, RBP has given me a great boost in exposure.
I already had name recognition in the inner circles of Ruby community, but after writing the book, I find more opportunities from folks I probably wouldn't have been able to reach otherwise. This has been good for my open source projects, and good for my work. I'm glad I did this, and it worked out well. I'd recommend it to others, for sure.
Of course, buying the book will make O'Reilly happy, so go ahead and do that if you want :. It's quite a risk to open up a book like this. More so if the main sales are expected to be E-versions. I've talked to a few people who did things along this line, and they are of two minds.
One camp says it kills sales. The other says it boosts sales, but in the latter case I don't think there was a PDF version even offered, and they made the book available as a Web site. I encourage people who think this book is valuable to pay for it in some form, to encourage publishers to do more of the same, and to reward the author. BTW, people should Google around for Gregory Brown's conference videos to hear him talk about, and demonstrate, assorted instances of good and bad code.
Thank you for the details! Much appreciated. Even though you may not have been paid a "fair wage" for the work that you put into this book, it sounds like you are very happy with the outcome and the experience and the future benefits that you will undoubtedly reap from this project. Congratulations and thanks again!
Ruby Best Practices
Actually, I don't think my advance was unfair. I self published a book a couple years ago and it was a logistical nightmare. When you think about what a publisher actually does, it's really a daunting task. I think there was a post here on HN about that recently, but I can't remember the link. The author who wrote it described pretty much the exact process I went through, even though I think he was working with another publisher Could you explain a little bit more about the "logistical nightmare" aspect of self-publishing?
I'm thinking about self-publishing a book of my own, so I'd love to hear more about the obstacles you came across and how publishers make it easier.
- Rails Database Best Practices.
- Rails 6 Upgrade Best Practices - DEV Community 👩💻👨💻;
- Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science).
- Best practices for using classes with object decomposition..
- The Road to Ruin;
Well, I think that it can be profitable, especially if going EBook only. After a year or so, instead of being thousands in the black, we were hundreds in the red, even though the book sold a few hundred copies.
- Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth.
- Modeling Atmospheric and Oceanic Flows: Insights from Laboratory Experiments and Numerical Simulations.
- Securing Rails Applications;
- Ruby Best Practices (full book available for download) | Hacker News.
- Ruby Best Practices by Gregory T. Brown?
- Thinking Kids Math, Grade 2.
- 5 Chapters of O’Reilly’s Ruby Best Practices – Free!;
So we just made it available at cost and closed the doors at that point. This may be because the HTML version was available for free when we started. It was a bunch of epic fail on the business side of things, and that at least taught me a lesson. I talked to O'Reilly and though they were very inflexible about certain things due dates, typesetting, etc , they were open to change pretty much everything that mattered to me, and did. As a result, my book shipped early and at a much higher quality level than I could imagine doing myself.
Of course, I could tell you stories about other publishers I either pitched ideas for, did tech editing with, or wrote chapters for that'd make your head spin. So I wouldn't say that professional publishers are good across the board, just O'Reilly pretty much let me run with my ideas and ended up being very accomodating. This may have something to do with the fact that I blogged and wrote articles with them for a while before writing a book, and because my editor is also a friend of mine from the Ruby community.
But I know folks who have pitched O'Reilly cold and had similarly positive experiences, so I don't think that's the case. Ultimately, publishing is going to be what you make of it. Self-publishing gives you full control, but it also gives you full responsibility. I think you can make money on it if you market effectively, and I think it can be a worthwhile if you really want to do something unique. But for me, someone who just wanted to get some ideas out there and maybe make a buck or two in the process, doing all of the work of self publishing really was horrible.
I didn't mean to imply that your payment was "unfair", but rather that minimum wage is to low imo for an advanced programming book. Writing tech books is something of a crap shoot.