contributing-tests

Pros of opensource.guide

• Comprehensive guide covering various aspects of open source
• Regularly updated with contributions from the community
• Well-structured and easy to navigate

Cons of opensource.guide

• More general in nature, not focused on specific testing practices
• May be overwhelming for beginners due to its breadth of content

Code comparison

While both repositories primarily contain documentation rather than code, opensource.guide includes some HTML and JavaScript for its website:

<header class="article-header">
  <h1>{{ page.title }}</h1>
  {% if page.description %}
    <p class="description">{{ page.description }}</p>
  {% endif %}
</header>

contributing-tests, on the other hand, focuses on Markdown files for documentation:

# Contributing Tests

This guide is intended to help you contribute high-quality tests to open source projects.

## Why write tests?

Tests are a critical part of any software project. They help ensure that...

Summary

opensource.guide offers a comprehensive resource for open source contributors and maintainers, covering a wide range of topics. It benefits from regular updates and community involvement. However, it may not provide the same level of specific guidance on testing practices as contributing-tests.

contributing-tests, while more focused on testing, may not offer the same breadth of information on other aspects of open source development. Both repositories serve valuable purposes for different audiences and use cases within the open source community.

Pros of first-contributions

• Larger community with over 27,000 stars and 50,000+ forks
• Step-by-step guide for making a first contribution, including GUI and command-line instructions
• Supports multiple languages, making it accessible to a global audience

Cons of first-contributions

• Focused solely on the first contribution, lacking depth for more advanced topics
• Less emphasis on testing practices compared to contributing-tests
• May not provide as much insight into project-specific contribution guidelines

Code comparison

contributing-tests:

describe "MyClass" do
  it "does something" do
    expect(MyClass.new.do_something).to eq(expected_result)
  end
end

first-contributions:

1. Fork this repository
2. Clone your forked repository

git clone https://github.com/your-username/first-contributions.git

3. Create a branch

git checkout -b your-new-branch-name

The code comparison shows that contributing-tests focuses on writing tests, while first-contributions provides instructions for basic Git operations. This reflects the different purposes of the two repositories, with contributing-tests emphasizing test-driven development and first-contributions focusing on the process of making a first open-source contribution.

Pros of how-to-contribute-to-open-source

• More comprehensive guide covering various aspects of open-source contribution
• Regularly updated with recent information and resources
• Includes links to external resources and tools for contributors

Cons of how-to-contribute-to-open-source

• Less focused on specific testing practices
• May be overwhelming for beginners due to the breadth of information
• Lacks detailed examples of code contributions

Code Comparison

contributing-tests:

describe "MyClass" do
  it "does something" do
    expect(MyClass.new.do_something).to eq(expected_result)
  end
end

how-to-contribute-to-open-source:

# How to Contribute to Open Source

This guide will help you get started with contributing to open-source projects.

1. Find a project you're interested in
2. Read the project's contributing guidelines
3. Fork the repository and clone it locally
4. Create a new branch for your changes
5. Make your changes and commit them

The code comparison shows that contributing-tests focuses on providing examples of test code, while how-to-contribute-to-open-source offers more general guidance on the contribution process.

Pros of awesome-for-beginners

• Extensive list of beginner-friendly projects across various programming languages and technologies
• Regularly updated with new projects and opportunities
• Clear labeling system for identifying suitable issues for newcomers

Cons of awesome-for-beginners

• Less focused on specific contribution guidelines or best practices
• May lack detailed instructions for setting up development environments
• Limited information on project-specific coding standards or conventions

Code comparison

While a direct code comparison is not relevant for these repositories, we can compare their structure:

awesome-for-beginners:

## JavaScript

- [Leaflet](https://github.com/Leaflet/Leaflet) [...]
- [Brackets](https://github.com/adobe/brackets) [...]
- [Hexo](https://github.com/hexojs/hexo) [...]

contributing-tests:

describe "User authentication" do
  it "logs in with valid credentials" do
    # Test implementation
  end
end

The awesome-for-beginners repository primarily consists of a curated list of projects, while contributing-tests focuses on providing example test implementations and best practices for writing tests in various programming languages.

Pros of training-kit

• More comprehensive training materials covering a wider range of GitHub topics
• Regularly updated with new content and features
• Larger community and more contributors

Cons of training-kit

• More complex structure, potentially harder for beginners to navigate
• Focuses primarily on GitHub-specific topics, less emphasis on general testing practices

Code comparison

training-kit:

title: GitHub Training Kit
description: Open source courseware for teaching GitHub and Git skills
collections:
  - name: GitHub Courses
    description: Official GitHub training materials
  - name: Git Courses
    description: Learn Git version control

contributing-tests:

module.exports = {
  extends: ['standard'],
  env: {
    mocha: true
  },
  rules: {
    'no-unused-expressions': 0
  }
}

The code snippets show that training-kit uses YAML for configuration and focuses on structuring course content, while contributing-tests uses JavaScript and is more oriented towards setting up testing environments.

Pros of up-for-grabs.net

• Larger community and more active project with frequent updates
• Provides a platform for connecting open-source projects with potential contributors
• Offers a searchable interface for finding projects based on tags and languages

Cons of up-for-grabs.net

• More complex codebase with multiple technologies (Jekyll, JavaScript, YAML)
• Requires more setup and configuration for local development
• Limited to showcasing projects, not directly facilitating contributions

Code Comparison

contributing-tests:

RSpec.describe "A test" do
  it "does something" do
    expect(true).to eq(true)
  end
end

up-for-grabs.net:

- name: "Project Name"
  desc: "Project description"
  site: "https://project-url.com"
  tags:
  - javascript
  - web
  upforgrabs:
    name: "up-for-grabs"
    link: "https://github.com/user/repo/labels/up-for-grabs"

The code snippets highlight the different focus of each project. contributing-tests provides example test code, while up-for-grabs.net uses YAML for project listings. This reflects their distinct purposes: contributing-tests aims to demonstrate testing practices, while up-for-grabs.net facilitates project discovery and contribution opportunities.