[radanskoric]

Author here. I'm a big fan of factories but the slowness is a real drag on large test suites. If you're considering switching, remember that you can do it gradually, there's no law against using both fixtures and factories in the same project, in some cases (mostly on very complex domain data models) even makes sense: fixtures for the base setup that all tests share, factories for additional test specific records.

Btw, I also have an article with some of my learnings using factories and I make a remark on how it helps with test speed: https://radanskoric.com/articles/test-factories-principal-of...

[jrochkind1]

Thanks! While I have you, since you seem to know what's up with this stuff, I'm going to ask you a question I have been curious about, in Rails land too.

While I see the pro's (and con's) of fixtures, one thing I do _not_ like is Rails ordinary way of specifying fixtures, in yaml files. Especially gets terrible for associations.

It's occured to me there's no reason I can't use FactoryBot to create what are actually fixtures -- as they will be run once, at test boot, etc. It would not be that hard to set up a little harness code to use FactoryBot to create objects at test boot and store them (or logic for fetching them, rather) in specified I dunno $fixtures[:some_name] or what have you for referal. And seems much preferable to me, as I consider switching to/introducing fixtures.

But I haven't seen anyone do this or mention it or suggest it. Any thoughts?

[onionisafruit]

I use the pattern you describe, but not in Ruby. I use code to build fixtures through sql inserts. The code creates a new db whose name includes a hash of the test data (actually a hash the source files that build the fixtures).

Read-only tests only need to run the bootstrap code if their particular fixture hasn’t been created on that machine before. Same with some tests that write data but can be encapsulated in a transaction that gets rolled back at the end.

Some more complex tests need an isolated db because their changes can’t be contained in a db transaction (usually because the code under test commits a db transaction). These need to run the fixture bootstrap every time. We don’t have many of these so it’s not a big deal that they take a second or two. If we had more we would probably use separate, smaller fixtures for these.

[radanskoric]

Your thinking is sound. At the end of the day Rails default fixtures is nothing more than some code that reads yaml files and creates records once at the start of test suite run.

So you can definitely use FactoryBot to create them. However, the reason I think that's rarely done is that you're pretty likely to start recreating a lot of the features of Rails fixtures yourself. And perhaps all you need to do is to dynamically generate the yaml files. Rails yaml fixtures are actually ERB files and you can treat is an ERB template and generate its code dynamically: https://guides.rubyonrails.org/testing.html#embedding-code-i...

If that is flexible enough for you, it's a better path since you'll get all the usual fixture helpers and association resolving logic for free.

[jrochkind1]

Cool, thanks!

I feel like i don't _want_ the association resolving logic really, that's what I don't like! And if it's live ruby instead of YAML, it's easy to refer to another fixture object by just looking it up as a fixture like normal? (I guess there's order of operation issues though,hm).

And the rest seems straightforward enough, and better to avoid that "compile to yaml" stage for debugging and such.

We'll see, maybe I'll get around to trying it at some point, and release a perversely named factory_bot_fixtures gem. :)

[yxhuvud]

What I feel is really missing from factories is the ability to do bulk inserts of a whole chain of entries (including of different kinds). That is where 95% of the inefficiency comes from. As an additional bonus it would make it easy to just list everything single record that was created for a spec