For those using Rails with RSpec what do you guys use for creating Factories?

I am using factory_girl, and I have discovered that it is chiefly
responsible for making my tests run slow.

I have posted a question about this on Stack Overflow:

Anyway, I was curious what you guys use to create Factories?

  1. Do you put up with Factory_girl?
  2. Did you configure Factory_girl differently to make it run faster?
  3. Do you use something else? May I ask what?

Thanks!

Ken

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Ken Egervari
[email protected]wrote:

  1. Do you put up with Factory_girl?
    http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

In Rails land, tests are “slow” because of the database. Sorry, but
there is
just no way around it. Sure, you could mock everything out, but we all
know
the implications of doing that…

rspec-core has 691 examples and takes 2 seconds to run. That would be
amazing if we could have that for our Rails apps.

Given the limitation Justin just mentioned, an easy performance win is
to switch your testing environment to use an in-memory db. You could
also parallelize your specs to use all cores on your machine.

Best,
Sidu.
http://c42.in
http://about.me/ponnappa

Well, I’ve been getting rid of my Factory Girl for my controllers at
least
and I run 280 tests in about 1.5 seconds. To me, this is worth it as
before
it took 40-50 seconds. This is too much of a speed improvement to ignore
I
think.

I am at a loss as to why Factory_girl takes so many cpu cycles to create
a
few objects per test. I have benchmarked a simple call to
Factory.create(:user), and it takes .14 seconds to run.

Even if you use Factory.build() though and it doesn’t hit the database,
it
is STILL slow. I am at a loss as to how factory_girl cannot come close
to
the performance of manually instantiating the object yourself. Why is it
so
much slower? I’d have to look at their source code to know for sure.

Honestly though, I have removed factory_girl completely from my
controller
tests and I am so thrilled. I have not really lost anything in terms of
expressiveness.

Sure, I have to add a pieces of data to make render_views comply, but
it’s
not much. It is a very small price to pay for this much performance
gain.

Ken

Unfortunately, an in-memory database is both dangerous and doesn’t fix
the
problem. Factory_girl spits out 50-100 lines of sql junk in the RSpec
log
PER test. I tried switching to sqlite3 using the “:memory:” option, and
it
only saved me about 15-20%. That’s not much of an improvement.

By getting rid of Factory Girl entirely, I have increased my test
performance by 2000%.

Ken

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Ken Egervari
[email protected]wrote:

is STILL slow. I am at a loss as to how factory_girl cannot come close to
Ken

responsible for making my tests run slow.
3. Do you use something else? May I ask what?

[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users


rspec-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

Can you please bottom post? It is easier to follow the conversation.

So, you’re right. User.new vs. Factory.build(:user) should not be much
difference in speed. Factory.build(:user) will instaniate the user (and
its
attributes) AND its associations, but should not be hitting the
database. I
would bring this up with the factory_girl folks.

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:34 PM, David C.
[email protected]wrote:

Anyway, I was curious what you guys use to create Factories?
The factory girl docs on
http://rubydoc.info/gems/factory_girl/1.3.3/frames offer a few options.
Look for the :default_strategy option and the :factory option on
association.

HTH,
David

Yeah, :default_strategy helps somewhat… but not really. I have done a
lot
of tests/profiling and even if I resorted to Factory.build() for
everything,
it ends up being much slower than just making the objects myself.

I won’t get rid of factory_girl outright - it’s a good little tool to
have
when you need to create a mini-database, which happens quite a bit in
practice (testing scopes, and so on).

But I think a good rule of thumb is not use it like a basic defacto
object-instantiation tool. Maybe that’s my bad, but articles,
screencasts,
etc. actually tell people to do this - and given it’s performance
implications, I believe that should NOT be a best practice.

For me, I will use normal Rails/Ruby objects until they become too
cumbersome to build in order to satisfy validations or when I need to
put
something in the database because that is part of the test. Otherwise,
it’s
better to work with pure, transient objects that you create yourself.

I have literally got my entire test suite to run in 25 seconds when it
used
to run in over 90 before. That’s quite a big jump - several times faster
than swapping to an in-memory database.

I only wish I knew this when I started my Rails app and just following
what
I believe to be the “true” best practice from the start. I guess I gotta
live and learn. I hope others don’t fall into the same pitfall like I
did
though.

Ken

On May 25, 2011, at 2:00 PM, Ken Egervari wrote:

  1. Do you use something else? May I ask what?

Thanks!

Ken

The factory girl docs on
http://rubydoc.info/gems/factory_girl/1.3.3/frames offer a few options.
Look for the :default_strategy option and the :factory option on
association.

HTH,
David

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Ken Egervari
[email protected]wrote:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6128476/how-can-i-get-factory-girl-to-never-hit-the-database-if-i-am-calling-factory-buil

Yeah, :default_strategy helps somewhat… but not really. I have done a lot
implications, I believe that should NOT be a best practice.
I only wish I knew this when I started my Rails app and just following what

Again, please bring it up with the factory_girl authors. I’m sure they
would
like to know there might be some performance issues. Thanks.

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Justin Ko [email protected] wrote:

HTH,
practice (testing scopes, and so on).

rspec-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

Actually, I did bring it to their attention and just hear a response. It
turns out someone pointed this out back in June of 2010. Not a good sign
:frowning:
They already knew though.

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs