I agree this should be consistent.

It's exactly the kind of thing we need a linter for, otherwise it'll just drift again in the future - it's clearly not an easy thing to spot during reviews! I've checked the rubocop-factory_bot repo, and found rubocop/rubocop-factory_bot#57 . Ideally, that would be implemented upstream, or perhaps we would implement it ourselves as a custom cop.

As for which name - it seems like there's three conventions:

• singular model name
• plural model name
• singular model name plus "_factory" suffix

I've check the factory_bot docs, and they don't mention anything. annotate_models (mentioned in the issue above) supports the three alternatives (while referring to "_factory" suffix as "old style"). Neither Discourse nor Mastodon use factory_bot. I can't find a style guide with any suggestions.

Personally I prefer the plural option, since my IDE then shows "user.rb" and "users.rb" and I know which is which 😄 But I'm eager to find some better reasoning than that.

From those options, I prefer <singular>_factory.rb, because:

• The factory within is defined in the singular. It feels weird to me that factories/users.rb defines internally a factory :user.
• The suffix helps telling the file from others in an IDE (in a list of tabs or similar).

But I have worked in projects with the plural before and I can live with it. In fact I think plural might be more widespread...