3 ms·

Love this idea! I generally just have scratch files in whatever codebase I'm working on, but I like the idea of having a centralized place to keep these. Any ch

Love this idea! I generally just have scratch files in whatever codebase I'm working on, but I like the idea of having a centralized place to keep these. Any chance yours is public? I'd love to see an example of how you organized the repo, what type of stuff your testing, any boilerplate setup/tooling you used to make it more effective (mocking library to stub out things like network calls or complex objects, test runners, etc)

Groxx 6y ago
No, just one internal to work (which I share pretty heavily), though I should set a public one up. I've got a few bad ideas fleshed out enough to realize why they're bad, and a few multi-million-iteration things to test the fairness of go channels / cancellation strategies / etc just because it seemed like fun. But the repo has slowly grown to include things like demonstrating issues in books[1]. Boilerplate setup for me is typically: - a one-page Makefile for laziness. I try very hard to avoid automating what I don't fully understand, and large / complex makefiles are typically inscrutable for readers. usually I just have "build", "test", and "live tests", little else. - a small script to use `entr` to run tests in the last directory changed (the /_ arg) - ... that's about it. maybe a .editorconfig or .envrc? I avoid lang-specific runners because they're all different and tend to have complex relationships - if you can't run your test within a second or three, find a different way. break apart dependencies to benefit from build caches. leverage make. etc. If I wrote experiments that used networking libs, I might have common stubs, but none currently :) I'd be sorta tempted to write fakes tho (probably multi-process), and try to integrate them into tests, in part because that's often hard for no apparent good reason. Maybe I'd find out why, or maybe I'd end up with a demonstration that there isn't a good reason. [1]: https://www.oreilly.com/catalog/errataunconfirmed.csp?isbn=0636920046189 https://www.oreilly.com/catalog/errataunconfirmed.csp?isbn=0... I'm the sync.Cond.Broadcast one

Groxx 6y ago

No, just one internal to work (which I share pretty heavily), though I should set a public one up. I've got a few bad ideas fleshed out enough to realize why they're bad, and a few multi-million-iteration things to test the fairness of go channels / cancellation strategies / etc just because it seemed like fun. But the repo has slowly grown to include things like demonstrating issues in books[1]. Boilerplate setup for me is typically: - a one-page Makefile for laziness. I try very hard to avoid automating what I don't fully understand, and large / complex makefiles are typically inscrutable for readers. usually I just have "build", "test", and "live tests", little else. - a small script to use `entr` to run tests in the last directory changed (the /_ arg) - ... that's about it. maybe a .editorconfig or .envrc? I avoid lang-specific runners because they're all different and tend to have complex relationships - if you can't run your test within a second or three, find a different way. break apart dependencies to benefit from build caches. leverage make. etc. If I wrote experiments that used networking libs, I might have common stubs, but none currently :) I'd be sorta tempted to write fakes tho (probably multi-process), and try to integrate them into tests, in part because that's often hard for no apparent good reason. Maybe I'd find out why, or maybe I'd end up with a demonstration that there isn't a good reason. [1]: https://www.oreilly.com/catalog/errataunconfirmed.csp?isbn=0636920046189 https://www.oreilly.com/catalog/errataunconfirmed.csp?isbn=0... I'm the sync.Cond.Broadcast one