Hey friends and welcome to my channel I'm Yoshida and this is Norris Cove you guys I hope the lighting is okay I'll keep double checking today I wanted to do a flip of my mini happy planner I fell down this way at the hole I really didn't have any intentions on making a new planner but I wanted to change I was going to order an A5 but during the pandemic I just didn't think that was just wise to do so I'm gonna jump right in I'll start first pretty much everything in this planner I made myself from what I had here around the house I'm just taking some images off of Pinterest only because I don't plan to redistribute them and like for sale and then here is an ollie clip and I made my dashboard from the chopping match from the Dollar Tree and I have it on the mat side and this is the shiny side but I like the mat and I just use my happy planner hole punch to do so I did a flip on my Instagram but I wanted to kind of be a little more thorough I'm here in my YouTube over here or a happy planner disk I have some tortoise shells this coming but it looked like they've been rerouted or something so I just wanted to just go ahead and do the flip and get it out the way so and then this is printed on vellum some thick vellum I got the image off of Pinterest I believe what Pinterest is listed below but if not I'll make sure that I add it below so that you all can check out most of the images that I have I saved some of them there some of them I just saved on my phone this I printed on acetate also from Pinterest I made my own dividers and what is this they'll come to me Pinterest and then I made this inbox dashboard that's what it is dashboard myself from Canva on Canva these are from Clarkton paper I'm considering putting these in the shop so I'm kind of testing them out just to see how I like them I just tend to do that from time to time that way I make sure that it'll be something that would get used or purchased this cotton paper page flag is mocha these little paper clips I see some shops sell them but I just give them free with orders if it's something that you would like to be so just let me know because I have this is how they come and I have a couple of boxes of those and these are he's epoxy pocket excuse me this one came from Michaels it was like a long one and I just cut it and it was in an old happy planner and I just read stuck it here and this is some journaling cards that I was going to offer and I didn't want to offer it first because I was waiting on thicker card stock paper I just feel like I need to be on a thicker card stock but then I ordered a journaling card and it came on about the same way the paper and I say you know what let me just offer it so I'll be putting these in the Etsy shop this one says how you love yourself is how you teach others to love you Rupa core I believe that's how you say it I will jack up a word y'all I'm sorry okay and then here's another German card that I had made be kind and full love but have boundaries like a person and then this he's the pocket I made myself using laminating paper and I just ordered some more now this dashboard I made myself as well just a little layout and these are things that inspire me I have made it you'll see in here I made a dashboard that I have expensive taste on a beer budget champagne taste on a beer budget but this is luxury to me there are some free of these going around and I like them but I wanted to make something that kind of just spoke to me and this is my inbox section so these are just some ideas I have for the shop front and back and then planning ideas that I want to do for the channel here and these are corneal notes these inserts are by simply trendy co also if I didn't mention this planner is my extension plan and then I have these calendars that I got from I think these were peanuts plan a co or I think it's a penis plan a co what I'm doing here I decided to use I got I'm excuse me I'm just all tongue-tied I made a couple copies because with this one I'm going to be tracking how many days off I've been off from work and just tracking them so that I don't know like for unimportant purposes and just you know kind of this is my way of kind of tracking the COVID-19 and then back here I'll just list some other stuff and these are some note pages from penis plan a co but the only thing that someone else pointed this out penis plan a co pages for the happy planner are a little shorter than like say these from simply trendy co okay and the next is my calendar and this drawing card I got from sequence and playing something like that so I just have it stuck here dividers that's what these are called dividers I made the dividers myself and so this is from peanuts plan a co it's their mufflies I want to try different monthly and this one somewhere like it write notes and things like that and I actually don't need January but I kind of not necessarily have to have it here but that first page for just like for the years overview of plans and so I just kind of put this together so there's not a lot going on in here but just to kind of show you guys my little idea of what I want it to be and then on the back here is a foldout I use it kind of like for tracking bills but I think I'm gonna use it for something else I haven't quite decided so right now it's just bills on there and then this is my weekly and this habit tracker is from collective paper now this insert is from simply trendy co I love it I didn't think I was gonna like it but I'm not gonna say anything I was gonna like it but I wanted to try to kind of pre plan in a different way and listing things I'm a lister so this kind of work for me and it's just simple not a lot of fluff going on here but I kind of like this but I like this a lot it's one of my new favorite weekly inserts and so this is for next week I've kind of already started a little bit because I was so excited about the insert and then you know I know obviously why do you have so many weeklies I don't know I just like weeklies I don't know so I'm testing I was testing that one in this one out and this one was gonna be for pre-planning then I saw this could be for affirmations this could be for something else but as you can see I don't have anything wrote in a lot so I'm not saying that I don't like it I'm just really more in love with this one at the moment so I don't know I probably want probably won't use this one again I don't know but I have plenty of them so I'm gonna find use for it but I can use it to track you know something else but right now I'm just kind of playing with it so that's why it's a little bear it's this week that I'm currently in but I'm just like well what am I gonna use it for but I really like this one for pre-planning so that's that and I put a lot in here just to thicken her up a little bit and then I decided I wanted to kind of I love middle-planning but every now and then I want just a little bit of sticker fix so I decided to get these from penis clinic code to do a little journaling and so I've been doing a little journaling and this is my week for this week so I journal pretty much at the end of the night sometimes I'll do my affirmation at the beginning of the day but that way I could just kind of play with a little color and make it look a little you know cutesy I guess so here's another provider and another journaling card so I'm gonna figure out how to like put it so that you can download it and then also make them available for sale and the shop if you're interested let me know and I just have an orange with some washi tape and this is my daily and then I also did this my name on Canva put it on some big vellum I got this design off of Pinterest put it on some big vellum and this little journaling card came I think I got it from Joe and but I think it was like an happy planner journaling card set or something and it was in my old mini HP so I just edited here and it says when you love what you have you have everything you need and I just thought that was perfect I'm doing this kind of time that we're going through because for me I'm realizing that I don't need a lot not as much as I thought I did and so this today divider I made again from that chopping board I just had some leftovers so I flipped it to the shiny side so that maybe I could take a dry erase board right over it or add something to it and then I took my labeler and then put today and then here's another dashboard that I made on not Campbell I did use Campbell for the measurements but I made it on photo grid and then I just put it through canvas to get like the exact measurements to cut it and even on photo grid it'll give you the measurements if you know your measurements well at least you'll be close and then you can just cut it but I like to put it through camera and then here are some dailies these are from Simply Trendy Co. I try to remember leave her information in the description bar below and I love this dailie too I'm gonna show you the dailies that I was using I was using these by Pants Planner Co. and I was like in love with using it and I still like them but this one has definitely minimized my plans and this made everything more functional for me for things that I have to do so this is the first day I tried it out and I was like okay I like that and then so as you can see I have bipolar handwriting so I like to try different handwriting so I wanted to see which one I thought would look good with these pages and this is my regular like everyday handwriting this one is my want to be fancy and this one is me trying to write neat which doesn't turn out right but these are dailies from Simply Planner Co. and I'm Simply Trendy Co. I keep saying Simply Planner Simply Trendy Co. and this is today and I love this one has some things I gotta mark off but yeah I'm just still keeping it kind of light and minimal and I'm loving these too so I'm I'm gonna go back and get some more stuff and I think I might get some for my motor, my personal so those are dailies and again I added these because just in case sometimes I'm just planning daily and I get to the bottom like oh I gotta go print some more or get some more so I just stuff these in here full back up and then next we have notes and then again I printed this on vellum from Pinterest and then here's a dashboard that I made I have champagne taste or it be a budget and I printed this on a little thinner vellum that I had laying around and the design came from Pinterest another Pinterest design and vellum and then here are some more Cornell notes because this should be the notes section yeah and I just have a lot of that and then I have some more of those pages that I'm using the journal and they're just extra and I'm thinking about writing something else on here because I like them kind of plain so I can make them into dailies, weeklies or whatever I want so drilling so they're just extra and then here's a drawing card that I had from the happy planner that was in my old mini and I just stuck it back in here and then this pocket I don't know where it came from but obviously I didn't make this one because it's a little scoop here but then I have these from cloth and paper and this is sorbet sorbet sorbet and then this is liche and then here are some more stickers I'm testing out which I haven't quite used but I want to test out before I put them in the shop so maybe if I put them in front I'll see them and use them but I do know they're in here and then here's a happy planner I'm sticky note and I just stuck it in there and these are from my shop as well and they're just in there for functionality in case I want to use them and then on cardstock I printed this from Pinterest front and back and I love leopard I have another pair of dashboards like this what leopard feels another ollie clip and another divider which says miscellaneous and then I took one of my drawing cards and put it on a photo paper and just printed out with that same Chanel sign from the front and then here are those year at a glance papers excuse me calendars and so I just made a couple of them so I can put them where needed and then another vellum dashboard like that from Pinterest and then here's my test management pages I love these by peanuts planner co and this is for zone cleaning and I already have my zone cleaning down in my other planner and my personal but this is just sometimes it's something about writing down writing it down it's like okay you can remember or you know what to do so I'm gonna hit and put down my declutter because I'm using this one as a declutter to as a breakdown for the things that I want to declutter and then that way also I can remember so I started writing the word that's what I'm just going to start writing some things I can remember because there's so many ideas I kind of have for this task manager even use it for your working out with laws meals all that good stuff and I think that's it and then I have this from thrive on plans it's a budget insert I don't know why I bought this because I have so much budgeting stuff even stuff I you know me but I think this was like one of my first purchases for this planner and I just wanted to try it out because even though I can make my own budget inserts sometimes I just want to see if somebody just I just pray somebody has something that'll be useful for me as a stylist and then now with the pandemic and refilling unemployment I may be getting a check so I'm gonna see I'm curious to see how that's gonna work me planning a check and I'm kind of excited about it actually instead of planning with for cash and then I have some extra note paper here and then I printed this from Pinterest on some acetate and I just love the way this points I just do because it's like we have both sides they're both clear it's not like them where one side is frosty and clear and other side you can barely see I like this and so I want that to be excuse me this one and I want that to be on the back so that you can see and with that note paper as a backdrop and again this is from the chopping the chopping that so I turned to the inside the shiny side and then the mat and I see a lot of people have the clear dashboards or what have you from cloth and paper and I thought about getting it but I like the mat look and I just like they didn't cost me anything now like I said I could just take this out turn it to the shiny side and make it shiny and make it a glass dashboard I can do that but I like the mat side either way it's pretty so if you like to see how I did that I think I probably have a video on my channel some way of me doing making dash boards and each time I set up a planner a lot of times I do it myself so that's that she's pretty thick I like her again this is my extension planner but what I've been doing for the past couple days is trying to plan her and not playing in my personal to see how it will work for me on an everyday basis I really still think I could take it it's a little bulkier not bulkier but a little wider than my personal which I like because it gives me just a about another maybe I think with my personal the cut so maybe like another half an inch to an inch worth the room to write so I've just been planning in here I still check in my personal because that is my everyday carry but just having an extension of what I already have really works I just want to kind of come in here more often just to see how it would work for me and give my personal maybe a little break since I don't have anywhere to go now I can just you know and this gave me like a project to do to like working I was fussing the phrase like I didn't want to do it but I'm so glad I did because just kind of gave me something to do okay so I hope you guys enjoyed this video I hope I wasn't too long-winded let me know in the comment sections if you have a mini happy planner have you done anything with me setting up and just basically what are you planning in now since we have the pandemic alright I'll talk to you guys later you have a great day and don't forget if you're new here you enjoy today's content please hit that subscribe button also hit that notification bell and I'll see you in my next video


Skip to this timecode for the rankings. I thought I should explain what this is for any newcomers. And before we get going, please do leave your rankings in the comments down below. I'd love to see what you guys think, whether it be, you know, all of them, or maybe just your top 10, top 5, top 3, whatever. I want to know what you're thinking too. Origins! Towards the end of 2019, I did a ranking of what was then the full Doctor Who Road episode list. What is Doctor Who Road? A very interesting question. It's kind of weird to answer. I don't know how to make fan films. I don't know how people do it. It's very tricky. It's a tricky thing. You need a lot of people. You need a lot of skill. Two things I don't have or certainly didn't have then. So I thought I'd follow in the footsteps of some of my then favorite YouTube creators, that being the likes of Daleks Fear Me, the Master Crevice, if you remember that one. And I made comedy sketches instead, all within sort of one set universe, which I called Doctor Who Road. Essentially when they're finished on the show itself, they, in their contract, said that the BBC owns them and Doctor Who Road is essentially a prison for all Doctor Who actors. It came from the idea of Seb, aka Daleks Fear Me. I think he did a Big Brother style sketch, where all the doctors had to live in one house, you know, Big Brother style. And that's where the idea came from. And I thought, all right, I can make a thing out of this. But since then, I've realized it's less of a sketch show and more of a, more of a sitcom. So strap in as I rank all 38 episodes of my weird Doctor Who themed comedic sitcom, Doctor Who Road. Get ready for a lot of the early stuff. Doctor Who Road, in its current form, is split into five distinct phases or series, but I was copying Marvel at the time. It wasn't always like this. I only did it at the tail end of phase two when I realized I wanted it to be in series and sort of made an arbitrary line, which I think worked out for the best. Phase one ends with a Christmas special and then phase two starts when I got my new camera on my birthday, which is at the end of the year. So it already felt like two distinct chapters, essentially. That's my family group chat with, I believe, my mum saying tram wankers. I don't know the context, but that's what that thing was. Right, let's get on with it. 38 episodes to go. Get ready for a lot of the early stuff to be at the bottom. Number 38, Christmas Eccleston. I despise this one from phase one, the very last one of phase one. It's such a good pun name as well. Christmas Eccleston. I think it's a genius pun on my part, but it's a shame that the rest of the episode is so bad. Essentially, Santa Claus visits Doctor Who Road and Eccleston kills him accidentally thinking he was someone else kills Santa and has to take his place. Like the Grinch style, I guess, but with more murder. And like all the jokes just don't land. It's not entertaining. I don't know, man. I suppose the one thing that is interesting about it is that it's the first instance of me singing as the doctors, where I do Christmas carols, but as the doctors for a sort of joking. Now that's what I call Christmas joke. I mean, you can debate all of the ones I've done since are bad, but at least they're better than that. But I don't want to talk about Christmas Eccleston anymore. Don't watch it. Sucks. Moving on. Number 37. The first of a few trilogies I've made, Doctor Who Road Smith's Beginnings. I only recently renamed it to Smith's Beginnings. It used to just be called Doctor Who Road. I thought I'd be cheeky. Essentially, after the first few Doctor Who Road episodes, I realized I should probably explain what the universe is. Doesn't make for an entertaining watch. I suppose that's the worst part about it. It's a trilogy and no part of it is interesting to watch, except for one gif which got out of it, which is Eccleston shumping over the kitchen counter going, you what? But aside from that, it's just boring. I tried to do world building and I could have done it in a much more interesting way. Ho-hum. Number 36. The Answer to Rory's Deaths. Or The Answer to Rory's Many Deaths. I think I called it both over the years. This is the second proper episode, not counting the first trilogy. Again, it's just another boring one.  It's not funny. Again, a lot of the early stuff, especially Phase One, which fills up most of the bottom slots, they're just boring. That's the worst thing a Doctor Who Road episode can be boring. That is a fact. Number 35. Moffat's Leaving. One of very few Doctor Who Road episodes written by someone else, which is why I feel bad putting it here. I just realised the sun is going to make the white balance go absolutely wrong. Moffat's Leaving essentially was a quick sketch that I wanted to get out where Moffat had just announced he was leaving the show and being replaced by Chibnall and I try and keep up to date with Doctor Who Road, or I did. I've sort of missed a whole showrunner change since. And I couldn't really think of anything, so I handed it off to who you all know now as Harry or Hudson Media, who was a different YouTube name at the time. And I mean, there are some good funny bits in there, like the the BBC employee, which I gave the worst voice I've ever given a character to, and that includes Terence Dix. But again, there's not much to it. It doesn't have much of an ending. Sorry, Harry. I'm sure you'd do better these days. In fact, you do with the mini sketches you do, or the mini soads where you did the 10th Doctor and 4th Doctor ones, which were very funny in Phase 4.  Oh yes, that makes a lot of sense.  Number 34. Eccleston's Revenge. I did a few revenge episodes over the years. Some did really well. Others are Eccleston's revenge. It was just an excuse to use the superpowers again. I did Doctors Assemble, which we'll get to where I had a bunch of superpowers, and all the doctors were different superheroes. And I realized I had all these powers left over, and so I needed to do something with them.  But Eccleston's like, nah, and he uses them all to fight them off. And there's some good effects there. Again, by Harry funnily enough. Again, it's just boring. For what it is, it should be much more entertaining, but it's not. Plus cringe-acting. That's something I haven't mentioned yet. In all of Phase 1, especially, ah, I'm not going to pretend I'm Daniel Day Lewis now, or Leo DiCaprio, but oh my god, I couldn't act. I couldn't act. Cheers mate. No problem. Number 33, Terrence Day, a parody of Father's Day. I did many sort of episodes and series parodies over the years, and this is the worst of them, I guess. Essentially, Terrence Dix, who I feel so bad for, especially since his passing of making him sound like that. Although in my defense, I ripped off the impersonation, so to speak, of Terrence Dix from someone who is now considered to be a pedophile, so I blame him entirely. Thanks, Tony Coburn. But yeah, Terrence Day. Again, it's not terrible. It's one of the few episodes to only feature one doctor, that being Eccleston, because you know, Father's Day, featuring Terrence Dix going back in time to save his father, who sounds and looks exactly like him, but has some mustache. It's funnier to describe than it is to watch. Number 32, Doctor Who versus Moffat Trilogy. Those are the first ever episodes of Doctor Who wrote, so I was kind to it, and nostalgia does play a part, you know? It's the start. And you've always got to give credit to what starts it off, but doesn't mean it's good. That is also the start of something very interesting, which is Moffat being the bad guy, the ultimate evil, which is still true now. That version of Moffat lives on for now. But again, you know, phase one acting, cringeworthy jokes, the only one that sticks out is Mean Girls, where Matt Smith's like, I like Mean Girls, and everyone looks at him like, what? Which isn't funny, Mean Girls is a good movie. Just because you started it off doesn't mean it's good. There's some good moments in there, but not enough to make it past 30. Capaldi's Revenge. This was just after Heaven Sent, Face the Raven, and Hellbent. I don't know why I said it in a weird order. Actually no, I said it in the order of quality. It goes Heaven Sent, Face the Raven, Hellbent, just my opinion. But Capaldi's Revenge, I wanted to make something sort of based around that. It was originally going to be a trilogy, so Capaldi's Revenge was the sort of Face the Raven, then I was going to do Heaven Sent and Hellbent, but then I didn't. So it's one of the few that ends on a cliffhanger that never gets resolved, which is Johnson firing regeneration energy at Capaldi. It was a very loose Face the Raven adaptation. It has a very badass intro with Capaldi sort of slo-mo walking to to camera, and Matt Smith sort of waking up and going to the door, and that's quite a cool intro, but the rest, eh. Calling the troops. Right. What troops? Number 30, Fear Moff. I have a soft spot for Fear Moff, clearly not that soft as it's at number 30, but it's not terrible. Essentially a Fear Her spoof, wrapped in Doctor Who road's clothing, where Moffat goes a bit nuts because of a thing called the Writer's Pen, which is essentially a god-like weapon where you write something down and it becomes real if you use the Writer's Pen. Yeah, it's also a bit of a plot device in the early days.  Again, there's some good jokes in there. There's some really good split screen. That's the first time I believe I used split screen and Doctor Who road, and certainly not the last. And yeah, it's just just another okay one, I guess. You fools. Number 29 and the first Phase Two episode of this list, Sherlock's Revenge. I consider this the weakest of Phase Two. Phase Two's more of a mixed bag. I think Phase One on the whole is mostly crap, but Phase Two is where it sort of starts jumping around in quality. I did a Sherlock One in Phase One and I wanted to do a sequel to that. Sherlock I found quite a fun character because he's essentially, you know, he's supposed to be Benedict Cumberbatch, essentially, like all the other doctors are called David Tennant, Matt Smith. But Sherlock slash Benedict was insane and genuinely thought he was Sherlock, and that was his gimmick, and he kept murdering people to pretend to solve the mystery. This episode doesn't use any of that.  There's some good shots in there. Again, this was in Phase Two, so I've got the new camera and I'm sort of working out how to use it. Other than that, just a bit naff. Number 28, Fantasy and the Scarf is a weird one, because I did a poll. I said which of these doctors should I make a sketch around on the two winners? Were the two most popular doctors, Tom Baker and David Tennant, hence, Fantasy and the Scarf. It's got a very weird plot to it. I don't think the plot's that bad, but I should have just done more with it. Basically, David Tennant is brainwashed by the family of blood for some reason, specifically son of mine, which is a villain I should bring back because people keep saying I look a bit like Banes. But yeah, he's trying to open like a Doctor Who museum, but keeps stealing things from people to put in the museum, but because he's brainwashed evil, as soon as they're like, oh no, I don't want to give you that.  But again, it's just kind of boring on the whole, which is a shame. One of the few moments as well where Chibnall's a good guy in the Doctor Who road. Yeah, I don't do the writers justice, do I? Number 27 and back to phase one with Eccleston's Shed Mystery. Again, this is one I've got a soft spot for because it's so unique because I made it because basically the whole gimmick of phase one, two, and three is that Eccleston lives in his shed. Eccleston lives in his shed, and it became synonymous with him and his character. So when the old shed got torn down and the back garden was empty, I took this as a prime sketch material. Essentially a murder mystery story, but the murdered victim in question was a shed with Eccleston trying to get to the bottom of where it went, because it's his house. And he actually went a few episodes without it, I believe. So there's that. It's a bit of fun. It's a bit of fun. It's not terrible, but it's not exactly amazing.  Back to phase two with number 26, the next trilogy, Doctor Who vs Chibnall, the first proper one where Chibnall was introduced to Doctor Who Road, as well as the first ever episode and appearance for Jodie Whittaker. And boy, did I get the ball rolling by essentially having Moffat be the main evil again, and having Chibnall and Whittaker be Cyberman versions of themselves. This was back in the time where I wanted Chibnall to be the good guy, but changed course drastically in phase three. There's some good moments throughout, especially in the first two. I also like how the third one has the double act of Capaldi and Hartnell, because, you know, twice upon a time, I believe was coming out around that time. I've had them pair up since, actually, in Doctor Who Road, the musical, and I think in a couple other places. But again, it's just okay. We're getting into the realm of the okay episodes. We have Jodie Whittaker, who's still not wearing her new costume, because screw the BBC for releasing it halfway through, I make a three parter. Brood Road, very rude. What do you think, Samantha? I completely agree. It's just totally doing it to screw over Jack. No reason even, not even, not even promotion for the new series.  Number 25, Sherlock's Murder Mystery. This time, it's an actual murder mystery, where Russell T. Davis is shot at night in this really cool, quite moody and dramatic opening. I really like the opening of this one, because it's all at night. But the mystery itself is kind of boring. I think on a first watch, you might not know who the murderer is. I'm not going to say who, although I think I gave it away in my previous rankings. But you know what? It's short, it's sweet, it does the job, except for the bit in the middle which drags on massively, which is a big slo-mo sequence. For some reason, it's in slo-mo of Sherlock watching all of Doctor Who Road up until that point to get an idea of what people are like and who has beefs with who. So just skip that bit and it's pretty good. Number 24, Regen Bonanza, which is only one part now. It used to be a two-parter, and again, so it's technically now one without an ending, so it ends on a cliffhanger which never gets resolved. I have a reason for that, and that's because part two heavily features an X. See, this is why I don't get a lot of people involved in Doctor Who Road. I think who, there's been her. There was an old friend called Zack who I've no longer friends with, because reasons. There's Harry, which worked out in the long term, and of course, Gemma has appeared in a few, and I think that's it. That's all my collaborators for Doctor Who Road. But anyway, sorry, Regen Bonanza. Harry again did all the regeneration effects and absolutely smashed it. This is why it's one of the best ones of Doctor Who Road, phase one, specifically because of the effects. He nailed it. I could have done better with the actual jokes leading up to the regenerations, because essentially it's one big joke on each regeneration for each doctor. It's supposed to be a big sort of gag, but it's very rarely funny. It's just doing the regeneration fairly straight phase. Number 23, Physicians' Fears. Ah, the first of another trilogy which was more spread out amongst the phases. I love Batman and its rogues gallery. I'm currently watching through Gotham and playing through Arkham Knight sort of back to back. So that's me. And so I thought, why not? I've done Sherlock. I can bring in other universes to it, essentially have, you know, there'd be a Batman road or like an Arkham road and have them be able to sort of cross over on occasion. And this is what I did with the Batman trilogy.  And I mean, there were some interesting parts like Scarecrow's costume. I think it's really cool, like that mask, which I don't have any more sadly. And there's some good moments in between it, but I think it was around this time I was trying to take it a bit more seriously, like the sort of sitcom elements were coming into it where you can have a bit more of the drama and the character beats. But I hadn't quite struck the balance yet, so it kind of falls flat. But again, it's a really good villain.  Like I did something with the voice modulation as well, so he sounds really creepy. And it's this low because compared to the other two in the trilogy, it's just not as good. But it has some good moments. And I believe it was up for a uh, a Hovian's Choice Award? No, no, it was called something different. That was my one. Dr. Blue when he did his award stuff back in uh, back in the day, which was only a few years ago. It was up for funniest video, and I believe I lost to Dr. Hoop Hoop, because of course I did. I won one of those ones. I can't remember what for. What do you feel? Scarecrow's gonna make you see yourself straggling yourself with something predictable like that. Reminds you of the problem I had in my head the whole time. Number 22, and the first Phase 4 of the video. Yes, I hold Phase 3 in high regard, so Phase 4 comes first. Dr. Who wrote the musical. Oh, it's this low because I cringe. I can't watch it.  But yeah, it's cringe. Dr.  There's only two song sequences in it where I would call it good, and good in the broadest of terms. That's the first one with Pertwee, where he's singing nine to five. I thought that was still quite funny. And then I'm Still Standing, sung by Kapaldi and Harnell. Neither are very good, but they're at least funny, and I can watch them without wanting to die. Especially I'm Still Standing, where I recreated the whole music video, and I think that's quite impressive. But yeah, it's the weakest of Phase 4. It's way worse than anything in Phase 3. I've always been tempted to try again with a musical episode because it's always tempting, isn't it? But I think I'll stick to the one Halloween video I did and the Christmas videos I've done to keep the doctors singing. I don't think it really works as a whole episode. In fact, funnily enough, I did nearly make a sequel in Phase 5 when Phase 5 was very different, and it was gonna only feature musical songs, like I was gonna have songs from Hamilton, for example, but change the context to fit a new story. That didn't get off the ground. I'm not very good with changing lyrics. It really is a beautiful place. It really is a beautiful place. It really is a beautiful place. And it's covered in shi- Anyway, Number 21, back to Phase 2 with Costume Wizard. Another one I've just got a soft spot for. Essentially, I created this bit of lore, and I like making lore, where all the doctors' costumes came from this wizard in an alternate dimension, and he creates these costumes very specially made. Paul McGahn and Peter Davison, because they at the time had some of the least accurate costumes of the bunch, get a letter from the costume wizard saying, come to my dimension, come through this portal, which the portal looked great because it was a green screen. Come to my dimension, and I'll give you new clothes. And that was the plot. It's a short and sweet one. I enjoy the costume wizard a lot. He's got one of the best voices, I think. It's just not very notable, and he weirdly played a big part in Muffat's Revenge, which we will get to. Washing is finished. Thank you, Alexa. Yeah, again, I've just got a soft spot for it. I enjoy it. I think it's a-okay. You got any jacks? You mean this one?  And you wrote it. You can't prove that. Well, here's proof for the audience at home. Here you are. Look at that. Yes, there it is. I'll just send me back to reality for God's sake. Okay, but seriously, do you have any jacks? Do you?  We're now in the top 20, and the first of those is Inside the Game. Again, I've got such an unwarranted soft spot for it. A very simple premise and one I would reuse in phase four, where some of the doctors get sucked in to different video games, and they've got to work their way out. And for some reason, Rick Grimes from The Walking Dead and Star Lord from Guardians of the Galaxy are there, in, I believe, their only appearance. Why did I put them in there? It doesn't make sense. They never explain themselves either. I picked three video games that I really liked, and Call of Duty. Although I have Call of Duty to thank for my fiancé, weirdly enough. Not gonna say any more. You can just guess what I mean by that. But yeah, so Matt Smith goes into Minecraft, Star Lord goes into Mario, Eccleston goes into Batman, Arkham, Asylum, I think, and Rick Grimes goes into Cod. Why? I dunno. And the way they get out is they have to find a teddy bear. It's also the first appearance of the Joker, which became a bigger villain in phase three, so fun fact. I put this one high for a few reasons. One, I think I recreated the games quite well, especially Minecraft and Mario, because I had that big pipe for Mario and all the fun little 2D bits for Minecraft, which I didn't make for the sketch, I just had it. I just made it for fun and thought, why not? I'd use it. And I also just had so much fun making it, because I wasn't really thinking that hard about it, like I do now.  That's my life. I enjoyed it. I enjoyed making it. Minecraft. 19. Doctor's Assemble! I asked Harry the other day what his like top 10 were for Doctor Who wrote, and Doctor's Assemble ranked highly. And I can tell you exactly why. Once again, he did all of the superhero effects, including Captain America's Shield, Wolverine's Claws, Spider-Man's Swippin'. And honestly, as sort of rough around the edges as it is, it totally holds up.  I really like Doctor's Assemble a lot. It was meant to be one big thing. It wasn't supposed to be a two-parter, but it just took me longer to make than I was expecting. So I just put out part one and put the finale as its own thing, because that's how I rolled back in the day. I was a wild card! But yeah, it's a fun one. It's one of two Phase One episodes. We'll get to the other one in a minute where I would call it good. I praise, I know.  Number 18. Worlds had enough of Chris. Again, Eccleston has the best pun titles. It's a fairly obvious parry of world enough and time, which I always struggle to say, because it doesn't make sense, word-esque. What? But anyway, Eccleston gets taken to the Villain Road, which Moffat had turned into a cyber factory for reasons. And John Sim is there. He sure is.  They're too late. They turn him into a Mondassian cyber man in this fantastic costume. Again, this is another one where I just have a soft spot for it. And it's one of the first ones where I properly nailed the formula of mixing the dramatic with the comedic, I think. I think. And it's also, if you've watched Day of Steel recently, the most recent episode, you will note that Eccleston talks about being converted into a cyber man, hence why he can zap the others. And that's where that comes from. World, world enough of, world's had enough of Chris. I can't talk. Let's get moving, the whole world. I've got time. I've got time. Well, that's about you to leave. Number 17, back to phase four with the Kraken Time War. Yes, that's right, the finale. This is here because it should have been better. I was juggling a lot of characters' stories. I was juggling a lot of moments that needed to happen. You know, I had the Time War itself, which, good lord, why did I do that? I had all of the characters a unit in Gling the Pertwee and Trout in Storyline, and the, I knew I wanted the Brigadier to die at the end for a good emotional climax. But apart from Harry's tremendous, oh my good performance, there was a lot it needed to do and it did a lot of it well, but it should have been better. Should have made it better. Although it's the TARDIS console in that. Quite proud of it. The TARDIS console room, I never thought I could do a TARDIS console because, you know, again, the sort of stigma against my fan film brain.  But as soon as I link it to Doctor Who Road and know because of that it can be a bit shabby and a bit rough around the edges, I could make it and it looked pretty cool. But also shout out to my, again, terrific pun naming of the Kraken Time War because it also had to do with the accidental overarching plot of the Kraken Time throughout it, and it also featured the time why you put it together. Yeah, Phase Four's theme of things coming through the Kraken Time... accident. I never intended that to be the storyline for that, but I was like, Moffat needs to send these villains from somewhere. It's Moffat making the Kraken Time every single time. Why do you sigh with this madman? Because he's not you. He is a strong, independent leader, not bound by another's judgment. And I was offered a new bicycle to go along with it. Speaking of, where is that? Plong left. Keep it. Number 16, which is the highest of Phase One, can the Doctor lift Thor's hammer? At my first or second ever MCM London Comic-Con, I got Thor's hammer. I found it and I bought it and I wanted it. And I thought, why not put it in a Doctor Who Road episode? I did that and it's funny. Basically, it's a very simple plot. Every single Doctor comes out, tries to lift it and fails, and there's a very comedic moment at the end where we find out who could actually lift it. It's just simple. It's simple. It doesn't take itself seriously. It makes it the best. It doesn't try to be something it's not. And it's a part one, essentially, two Doctors assemble. So that's fun. You don't need the context of it to watch Doctors assemble. I don't think, but if you want to make it a trilogy, there you go. Okie dokie. Here we go. That went as well as we expected. Ah, no. We are now out of the Phase One woods, all we've got left is Phase Two, Three, Four and Five. Exciting stuff. Do you like this desk, by the way? This is a new desk. I've got some of my favourite little things here. I've got Omega, of course. I've got Drashing with his 3D glass. I don't know why I'm just telling you what's in front of you. You can see I like this desk. It's a nice big L desk. I've got my unit badges from TimeFracture here as well. I've also got this. Check this out. It's from Doctor Who Experience when that was open. And I think you get it for free. I forget if you did it, but you get a TARDIS key with Doctor Who Experience written on it, an official companion on the back. Treasured Possession, which deserves to be on my desk. Sorry, I've got really off track. Number 15, The Silent Monoliths. This always ranks quite highly. I remember asking a couple times what the best of Phase Four was, and people always ranked The Silent Monoliths as high in the list, which is interesting, and I'm happy about that. It features two doctors that don't often get the spotlight, which is Peter Davidson and Peter Capaldi. I put them together because, why not? No, I put it together because when I was planning Phase Four, I wanted to give every single doctor a chance to shine, a episode to call their own. So, you know, there was the three doctors for Hartnell, Pertwee, and Troughton. There was Doctor Who wrote the musical, which was a mostly Colin-centric one. There was Super Smash Docs, which was what, Tennant Smith, Eccleston, Tom Baker, Sylvester McCoy. Then there was The Silent Monoliths with Capaldi and Davidson, and I left out Whittaker and others. Oh no, and Return of Amiga was McGann's. So the only one I left out was Whittaker, but that was only really because after Phase Three, I thought I'd give her a break. God bless her. I really put that character through the ringer, and that's why Eccleston didn't play much of a part either. But anyway, The Silent Monoliths, I liked it. I filmed it in a way which would look sexy in black and white, so I actually released a black and white cut of The Stone Monoliths, which is sick. Yeah, just call me Zack Snyder, baby. But again, it's a very simple story. A Weeping Angel breaks in, kidnaps every single character, except for Anthony Aenley, with Peter Davidson, Pete Capaldi, and for a moment, Teagan. But she gets taken. Oh, my Teagan acting. And my Teagan costume. This was quite a fun one to make. It also counted, I believe, as a Christmas special. Yeah, because it had the Christmas tree in the back. Yeah, yeah, I remember that was fun. And because I knew I couldn't make a full-scale Angel costume, I used the action figure. Made for a bit of accidental comedic genius there. Well done, Jack.  You're not a genius.  Something's up with Capaldi. Obviously. But we'll have to worry about him later. Angel? Angel. He was doing something very odd there. What? Trying to hug the air. What? Number 14. Left for Who. No points as to what this is about. I wanted to do another episode where they go into a video game, but I focused in on one, aka the Left 4 Dead series. I picked four doctors at random, that being Tennant, Capaldi, Davidson, and Trouton, and let them loose in the world of Left 4 Dead, and had all the other doctors play a part of a, you know, a special infecting. That's the word they call. So like Matt Smith was the spitter, and Tom Baker was the smoker, and so on. There's some funny memories from Left 4 Who.  So it looked like, and the excuse I used, when I asked about it, I said I had a shaving accident, because it was red all here, so I was like, I shaved, and it's all red raw. It would be higher, because I'm very proud of that one, both for the makeup effects, and the sort of, you know, all the little special effects, like for example, the health bars at the bottom. It'd be higher, but I didn't finish it.  I sort of cheated it as well, because I knew I couldn't finish it in time for, I think, Halloween. So I just pretended it crashed, but I had a whole ending planned, where all four of them go into the garden, they fight Eccleston as the tank, there was Colin Baker as the boomer, Hartnell as the witch, and the shed, of course, was the safehouse. If I ended it, it might have been one of the best. If I actually gave it a proper ending, but I didn't. It's still an entertaining watch. I enjoy it. I like it a lot. 13. Midnight on Gallifrey. The first of two midnight spoofs. It's the opener to Phase 2, the first time I had ever gotten my new camera and gotten the chance to use it properly. So I mostly used autofocus, so if the camera goes a bit fucky in any of Phase 2, that's why. Again, I like it. I had Rassilon as the villain, not for the last time. It was very, very fun. Also, fun fact, you'll notice in Return of Omega and the Kraken Time War, occasionally Omega will sort of touch his Rassilon symbol on his chest, and there's a hidden backstory to that. Essentially, Rassilon from Midnight on Gallifrey and Moffat's Arrange later on, and Omega from Phase 4, are from the same universe. They were friends. But once upon a time, Rassilon went missing, like he does here in Moffat's Revenge, so Omega thinks he's lost a time, and so he wears the symbol of Rassilon to like remember him. So that's a fun bit of hidden detail I did just for Jack. I never mentioned it, but it's just for Jack. Midnight on Gallifrey, though. It takes a few random doctors and has a bit of fun with them. Very simple. They're trapped in a room at midnight, but they're on Gallifrey. Oh, Jack's a genius with the names once again. The most noteworthy thing of this, well, there's two. It gives Magan the spotlight for the first proper time, and Rassilon, my performance is Rassilon. I don't know how I can do the voice, but it's down here, and he just shouts. Just a fun performance. Me yelling at night in that conservatory. Ah, beautiful. Number 12. Super Smash Doctors, the last, I believe, of the put doctors in a video game plot device. I've wanted to do a Super Smash Brothers episode of anything. For ages, I wanted to do like it with just the characters playing in simple, not Doctor Who Road related, but I thought why not split the diff and make it a Doctor Who Road episode so it can be rough around the edges.  But with Doctor Who Road, I have the excuse of like, I would sort of that homemadey feel. But yeah, Super Smash Doctors, again, it's just a fun one, really. It was a fun one to make. I tried my best to sort of have a bit of drama in there, which I think for the most part worked. Especially with the ending where Tenant's vanity gets the better of him, and his sort of Time Lord victorious brain tells him to kill Smith, and no one knows if Respawn is on or not, so they don't know if he lives. Luckily he did, of course. This ruptured their friendship until Day of Steel. Again, it's a fun one. It's a very, it's a very fun one where I play random characters as well like Amy Pond and Sarah Jane, as well as Michael Grade, Jonathan Powell. If you want a bit of fun, give it a watch. Number 11, and this is the first Phase 3 episode. Companion Conundrum. I thought to myself, there's not a lot of companion action in Doctor Who Road, so I made a whole sketch all about them, and at their own special companion house. Again, it's just a fun one. It has the ongoing story of Phase 3 to back it up, so it follows Whitaker as she tries to learn about Doctor Who's past. You encounter characters such as the Brigadier for the first time. Adric, a gnar doll, briefly. It's also got such a nice ending.  It's a strong one where Whitaker and Tennant add a little heart to heart, and it works. Sometimes where I try the drama and it's a bit cringe, but it works for me, personally. A mere toy does not prove you are the Doctor, especially not one of those toys. No, it's, whatever. Number 10, and the second highest of Phase 2, The Mad Hatter. This is another part of the Batman villain trilogy I was talking about with The Mad Hatter coming in. I always like The Mad Hatter in concept in Batman. I think he's very underrated as Batman villains go, and I thought Maximus Doctor wears a lot of hats, so combine the two and make sense. It's kind of also like a zombie story in a way, because as soon as you put the hat on, you're sort of slave to The Mad Hatter. It's a very short one too. Short and sweet. That's what the early ones needed to be. Christmas Eccleston didn't need to be 30 minutes long. It's short and sweet. It's quite funny in places. I enjoy it. Also, Tom Baker saves the day, which is quite rare. You have to. I don't see no contract. That's because you won't open the door. I'm holding it in my hand. Look, it says right here, Chris must be nice to Matt at the very least on his birthday every year.  Number nine, The Three Doctors. This is the second and currently last episode written by Hudson Media. And the better of the two, by far, because, what, his other one was number 35, and this one's number nine. Again, it's a simple one. Take The Three Doctors, the episode, make it funny, make it Doctor Who Road themed, and there you go. It was also the first one I filmed in Me and Gemma's first flat, which is quite notable. The first one of Phase Four as well. It's also three doctors that I don't often film as, Pertwee Trampton Hartnell, and it's got a terrific performance, again, by Hudson Media, of the Cyberman villain, Mrs. Muah. I love Mrs. Muah.  It's also got a really good effect of the, what are they called, the gel guards, where I used a shot of them lifting their arm up and it lights up. It was against like a white floor background, so I greenscreened it to put it in the flat, and it totally worked. Again, it's a very simple one. It's a very funny one. Harry got very good at the humour when he did the Tenant and Tom Baker mini-sodes, as well as Three Doctors, so well done. Maybe I'll get you to write something for Phase Five, like a mini-sode or something. Hello? Gosh, it is so apparent how much cooler my ear is to yours. Isn't it just? Thank you for agreeing. Number eight, Middle of the Night. The first one of Phase Three that kicked off the ongoing story that it's still kind of happening now. It sets up Eccleston and Whitaker's ongoing story. Sim passes away, he rests in peace John Sim's character. And again, there's the side story of the midnight elementate, hence, middle of the night, where Tenant, Hartnell, Sylvester McCoy and Colin Baker all get trapped in this room with Adam Mitchell, who is the Sky Sylvester of the episode. I think it's a fun one. It's a really fun one. Also, everything filmed in that green room was my brother's old room, which he's actually moved in. Moved back in since then. So it gives that room like a very unique colour palette. You know, it's just good. It's good. Don't question me. It's good. It's also the first sort of hints of Chibnall being a bad guy, if you're really, really read between the lines. Is he talking about Thasmin? Or is he talking about Xeval Plants? Chibnall. Tenants just disappeared. Number seven, Joker's Revenge. Yes, the final of the Batman villain trilogy. I should probably explain what that was. Basically, the Batman villains had a bet between each other as to who could take down a road first, and they hoed Dindal Doctor Who Road. Hence, so the Mad Hatter came through and tried it. Scarecrow came through and tried it. And finally, Joker comes through and fucks it up. This was the second to last episode of Phase Three and had the first ever Doctor Death and was a foreshadowing of what was to come in the following ending. I think my portrayal of the Joker was okay. In hindsight, I could have done better, but I did the makeup pretty well. I had the costume pretty well. I was clearly trying to mimic Heath Ledger in the look and Mark Hamill in the voice, because they're the two best ones. What I'm gonna do, Jared Lowe. Damage! It's also one that takes itself mostly seriously. You know, there's some good few jokes here and there about the Batman villains themselves, because Joker turns each doctor into a Batman villain. Basically, just an excuse to get all the villains I didn't get to use in there, like the Riddler, for example, and Catwoman. You'll enjoy what I did there. And it has a really good ending. You know, if I stick the landing of an episode, which I don't do a lot of the time, like for example, the cracking time where I mentioned, I didn't stick the ending there. Personally, I didn't stick the landing, so hence why it's quite low. But with Joker's Revenge, I stuck the landing, and it worked out for the best. So tell me, what would have been the point? What's there to giggle about? For once, I haven't walked into your obvious trap. Because, Smithy Boy! Number six, and the best of phase two, Moffat's Revenge. Of course it's this high. It is the most viewed episode of Doctor Who Road. It was the finale of phase two, and was, at the time, the biggest ever episode I'd ever made. It might still hold the record for being the longest. I'm not sure, actually, hold on. Yeah, an hour and 10 minutes.  Aside from some cameos from old friends that I'm not on very good terms with anymore, popping up at the end, it's a really good one.   Just to give you an idea of why the thumbnail looks like that. Yeah, I had a clear idea in mind as to what I wanted out of that one. Infinity War was the way to go. It's also when we thought we finally said goodbye to Evil Moffat, but he's back now! I brought him back! But not for long. Try opening it. Go on. Yeah, I did I. Now we're at the top five. Here we go. Number five! Day of Steel! I hold the two episodes of phase five in quite high regard. I'm very proud of both of them. Hence why Day of Steel, the most recent, is already at number five. It took me a very long time to make both episodes of phase five, because this is around the time I started the community show, of course. Tyler especially took me just over a year, because I started Tyler, then I made the community show which took up all my time. It was a whole plava. But even with the spread out time schedule of filming it, I think it turned out really, really good. I was nervous about doing a Cyberman invasion, mainly for the costume, but which I cheated on. I made it sort of blood of the Cybermen-esque with the boiler zoo. But there's some really good jokes in there about all the doctors' different encounters with the Cybermen. It has a killer cliffhanger. It also rekindles Matt Smith and David Tennant's story. They become friends again, of course. It continues Eccleston's now current story with Bezzy Mate, Rose Tyler, and yet it's just a very entertaining watch. 40 minutes flies by, I believe. And again, I stuck the landing. You always got to stick the landing.  Number four, Return of Omega! The second to last episode of phase four, and the best one, I believe, of phase four, because I tried something very different. Apart from the opening scene, the whole thing takes place in a parallel, or alternate, or whatever the fuck, universe where the doctor's world is real.  Again, bar the first scene, it only features Paul McGahn pretending to be the doctor and living his best life on Gallifrey, hanging out with Ramana, battling with Davros. And again, it's got some really cool effects in there. I think I did very well to try and turn my small flat into Gallifrey with the black backdrop and such. And yeah, I think I balanced the sort of trying to tell a doctor who story, but also being a sort of parody, pretty well. It's my curse of fatal death. I should have had a sofa of reasonable comfort. Looks like they found us. There you are. We've been waiting for our escort. You will follow us to Davros. Yes, obviously. Not exactly here for a holiday. Lead on. Number three, Tyler. The first episode of Phase Five, I think I smashed it. I did very well on that one if I do say so myself. With Phase Five, each episode is based around a series of Doctor Who, so Day of Steel was very series two orientated. OBS. Hence why at hand, you know, David Tennant had the 3D glasses. It had the Cybermen featuring, you know, Day of Steel and Doomsday and such references. But Tyler, of course, is series one based, hence why it focuses around Eccleston Rose and new old comer, Captain Jack Harkness. And again, I nailed the ending. Very important. I had a very good cliffhanger with Rose being revealed to have been from Eccleston's original road because he had to change roads, you see, which I'll explain in a minute. It's just an enjoyable one. I had an Auton invasion. There's a lot of invasions so far with Phase Five. But again, it's 50 minutes long, but it's still really enjoyable. It's still fun. It still flies by. And again, I nailed the ending. Check it out if you haven't. More to come. I'm currently writing episode three called The Family of Masters. Number two, Attack of the Dreamlord. I love this one. Phase three is brilliant across the board, but I love Attack of the Dreamlord. You want to know why? That villain. I loved playing the Dreamlord. I wanted the Dreamlord to come back anyway in the show in some form, but I found this voice. I don't know whose voice it was, but it's down here. Tweet, tweet. Tumnously. You see, it's good. I like it. It's also the first proper reveal that Chibnall is the secret bad guy pulling the strings behind the scenes this time. And again, it's just a fun one. It features every single doctor in their magical dreamscape. It's basically physician's fears done well, but also the opposite, because it's not nightmares, it's dreams. Watch that one if you haven't, because I'm very proud of it. I like Attack of the Dreamlord. It's got a good opening too, following on from companion conundrum before that, where you're in the companion house, he's seen, he's taken it down. It's quite cool. I like it. It's also got that dope shot where I walk into focus, and it's just here. Oh, I love it. Nice. Finally, number one. What else would it be? Rise of the Chib, the finale of Phase 3, the culmination of all the storytelling of mainly Phase 3. Phase 3 had an underlying theme of the Star Wars prequels, so middle of the night was kind of Santa Menace-esque, although kind of very vaguely, mainly with the training. Then Attack of the Dreamlord was essentially a bit of Attack of the Clone's energy, hence the name. And then finally Rise of the Chib was the most blatant of all, which basically follows almost exactly the story of Revenge of the Sith, but hopefully better acting at this point. It's probably the only episode I would consider to be perfect. I wouldn't change a single thing about Rise of the Chib. I'm very proud of how it ends. I think it's got one of the best, no, THE best, ending with the use of Murray Gold's track. I forget the name. I think a rueful fate of Donna Noble. Oh, dude. I'm so proud of it. Rise of the Chib, there's not much I can say except for I am extremely proud of it. Also, John Hurt is in it. That's fun. He very rarely got to play a part in Doctor Who, right? So John Hurt's there. Rise of the Chib is currently the pinnacle of my Doctor Who Road series. I don't know if I will ever outdo it, but I'm certainly going to try. And there we go. There is my rankings. There is my top 10 or top 5, however I want to do it. It was quite fun trying to put this list together again. I did one back in 2019 where it went up to, I think, Dream Lord episode. I wonder how it compares because I didn't watch that ranking to make this one because I wanted a fresh mind on it. So I did this very much based on my general feelings now towards each one. But yes, that is where I will end it. I'd love to see your rankings. Please, please put your rankings in the comments below. I'd love to see them. You don't have to rank all of them. Just rank like your top 10, top 5. What have you? I look forward to seeing them. I will respond to all the comments as I try to do. And with that, I will bid you farewell. Goodbye.


Okay, I'm going to start because yeah, because Sam is now possibly waving at me to start or either to that or giving me the thinker I can't tell because of the lights. So hi, how's the conference going for you all so far? Good? Yeah? All right, cool. I can fix that right now. So sometimes this happens to me at conferences. Thank you, you made the exact same sound in the audience. You made the exact same sound in the audience actually made when this happened. It actually is still this laptop. It survived. It's going to be put to pasture in about two weeks. So this is his last conference or raw, so I'm very excited. So this is the talk about test doubles. It is not the talk from the head of test double that was before lunch. That was Justin. If you came here expecting to see Justin, you were like about two hours late and I'm sorry. Justin is not here. He couldn't stick around. So I am allowed to mock him, but in keeping with the theme of the talk, I'm going to mock him in our spec syntax. So I'm just going to say you can all expect Justin to receive this talk and return polite dissent. Justin is actually tremendously polite to disagree with, so I recommend it if you ever find that situation. If you ever find yourself in that situation, I recommend disagreeing with Justin. That's the first.  I've written a couple. And particularly this one, which you should buy, it's great. It's not the point of the talk. But the point of the talk is that I wrote this book called Take My Money, Accepting Payments on the Web, which you can get at prag.com. Not that that's the point here or anything. But the thing about writing a book like this is you have to write example code. And code for a book length sample project is this sort of weird version of software engineering where some of your constraints go away, like the constraint that this actually has to be valid in a production environment. And yet some of your other constraints are super strong, like you have a certain constraint around you want the code to be extra clear and extra idiomatic because it's a teaching exercise or an explaining exercise. So you have an extra burden towards that, at least I feel that way. So the relevant point for this talk is that pursuant to writing this book and writing this example, I wrote some tests. I am a Ruby engineer. I am known for writing tests. I felt like I needed to write tests to go along with my sample application. So I did. And I thought I'm going to do this the super purest way. I have these middleware workflow kind of objects. They are not the active record objects, but they deal with the active record objects. I'm going to write tests that use a lot of test doubles.  And we'll talk about the details of what this actually does in about 10 minutes. But essentially this is rather than, I think you might be able to get it just from the first few lines of code where you have a couple of ticket objects and this discount object. And rather than them being active record objects, there are spec spies, their test doubles. And this worked fine, but eventually as the sample application progressed, I wound up kind of unwriting them in the sense that if you look at later examples in the book, and I don't really make a point of this in the book itself, but if you look through the code samples, those tests eventually wind up looking more like this, where I'm actually creating active record objects. And these are not the actual, these are somewhat simplified examples. Do I wind up creating the actual active record objects and they're not doubles, they're actual active record objects. And I'm doing what would be considered like a more standard test. And this is, this talk to some extent is about why I do that. Like why I start off writing, trying to test double all the things. And why I often, especially in a Rails context, wind up pulling back and replacing them all with real objects. Cuz I do this a bit. I have been somewhat ambivalent about how to use test doubles for years. Sometimes people call my writing about the stuff non-dogmatic, which is kind, or pragmatic, which I think of as polite way of saying ambivalent or unsure. But I can actually prove this because like I said, I write and I actually have a paper trail here. This was written in 2011, it was published in 2011, written in probably 2010. And it says, as much as I love using mocks and stubs to cover hard to reach objects and states, my own history with very strict behavior-based mock test structures hasn't been great. My experience was that writing all the mocks around a given object tended to be a drag on the test process. But I'm open to the possibility that the method works better for others or that I'm not doing it right. Three years later, I did not intend this, when I actually proposed this talk, I did not intend this to be a tour through my entire library. But it is, and you're all just like captive audience. Three years later in 2014, I rewrote the entire book basically top to bottom. But I said basically the same thing. My opinion about the best way to use mock objects changes every few months. I'll try some, they'll work well, I'll start using more mocks, they'll start getting in the way. I'll back off and then I'll think, let's try some mocks. This cycle has been going on for years and I have no reason to think that it's going to change anytime soon. I hope, I suspect that this describes at least some of you in the audience. Don't clap or anything, you can nod or at least look up from your laptops or something like that. So why does this happen to me? Like I'll watch a Justin Searles talk or I will read something, a book like Growing Object, Growing In Software. And I will think, mock objects, test doubles are really the way to go for this testing and then I will try them in practice and I will roll back. And so this is what I'm writing, and more to the point, what can I do about this? Like is this a useful process? Should I pick a side and stay there? Like what should I do? So this is my talk, test doubles are not to be mocked. My name is Noel Rappin, I work for a consulting company in Chicago called TableXI, and you can find me on Twitter at Noel Rapp. And there's some other URLs there at the bottom of the footer here that might be of interest to you. So to be clear about one thing, there's one usage of test doubles that I consider not controversial and is not what I'm talking about. So a really common use case is this is, again, not a real test. But I'm using a test double in the first line to wrap a stripe charge. Which is Stripe Payment Gateway, this is wrapping an interaction with a third party API that would normally be called over the network. So I'm doing this, I'm using this test double to avoid having to either make this complicated network call or to put this system in a state that might be hard to actually replicate line by line. So I'm actually using it as a pure stub to replace something or to help me get in a certain state. That is not the controversial use that I'm talking about. So the non-controversial piece here to replace a heavyweight object or to specify failure states, that's great, I do that all the time. I expect to continue to do that and that's not really the focus here. But I wanted to back up before I show a couple of examples here and introduce sort of a framework for this discussion. What we talk about like tests being useful, tests being not being useful, like what makes me want to pull these tests back, what makes a test good? And I have a kind of a tortured acronym for this, SWIFT, straightforward, well-defined, independent, fast, and truthful. Straightforward means that you can tell what the test does from looking at it. It's easy to read. Well-defined means that it will basically replicate itself. It will always pass, it's not dependent on state, sorry. Well-defined means it is adeptenent, basically that it will continue to return the same result no matter how often it's run. Independent means it doesn't depend on other tests or other state of the code, fast I think is self-evident. And truthful means that it is an accurate representation of the code. If the code is broken, the test fails, if the code works, the test passes. So that's how I'm gonna evaluate the test samples on the show. And in the long term, the priorities for tests, so one of the things about tests is that they are in aid immediately in development. But then they stay in your test suite forever. So something like fast might be a much more important priority later in the test suite than it is when you're actually developing code. And ultimately, a good test leads to well-designed code, which is a whole other rabbit hole about what well-designed code is, which I'm not gonna really get into very much other than to say, I would consider well-defined code here to be clear and easy to change. And tests enable us to get to well-defined code in kind of three ways, more or less. Tests let you do domain discovery. This is the test-driven development sort of theory. You write your test first, it lets you learn something about your domain as you write the tests so that you understand it. The act of writing the tests cause you to understand the code that you're about to write. Also, obviously, tests validate behavior, and then they act as a safety net when you're trying to change your code. So you know that you can change it without breaking anything. So, I wanna talk about two tests that more or less do the same thing. The code under test here calculates the total price of multiple tickets given a discount, this is the example code. It's for a small theater, they're selling tickets. They sometimes give out discount codes. There's a calculator that needs to put that all together into a number. So one way to write this test is to write sort of a, I hate to say traditional, but of like a standard state-based test. Create two tickets, I create a discount code. I pass all of those off to my price calculator, tell the calculator to go. And at the end of it, I expect the calculator to come out with, in this case $30, two $20 tickets with a $25 discount. I think that most of us would not blink if we came upon a code review and someone wrote this spec. This is a fairly standard way to write this spec. Another way to write this spec is to say that the price calculator should not depend on actually having tickets or actually having discount codes, we can use spies. So this is using our spec syntax, our spec test double syntax. Instead of creating two tickets and a discount, I'm creating three spy objects. I am passing them to a real price calculator as before and I'm doing the calculation. And I actually am making the same expectation here. But more importantly, I have an expectation in the last two lines that I'm expecting the calculator in the part of the course of its action. I'm expecting the calculator to call this price check method on the tickets. So there's two differences that I want to, in addition, sorry. In addition to that difference and how the tests work, the other difference that I want to call out here between the two tests is that in the first test, I'm setting a base attribute, the price of the ticket. And in the second test, I'm setting the expectation of a derived attribute, the price check, okay? Because I don't actually care with the, the price calculator doesn't actually care what the underlying actual cost of the ticket is. All it cares about is what comes out of when I call this price check method, okay? And I actually could make this final line here, the price sense line. I actually could make that another behavior expectation. It just got really kind of convoluted. And so in the, in the, keeping this a little bit clear. So this test is, is making the same check of what the behavior of the price calculator is. And it is also making it, it is also checking that the calculator does certain things along the way. So the state test is using real objects and it is making an expectation on the state of the world at the end of those tests. The spy test is using test doubles and it is making expectations on the behavior of the calculator along the way. So that's a difference in philosophy, but does it actually, how does that actually affect the way that these tests live in our test suite over time and the way that they interact with the rest of our code? So I wanna go through this, those five swift checks really quick. Straight forward, which test is more straightforward? The state test, I think. I think most people will have an easier time understanding the state test and the test double test. Unless you've done a lot of testing with test doubles. That's generally been my experience. Well defined, they're both, they're both equally well defined. They will both equally behave, they will both equally replicate themselves over time. The spy test is more independent because the, the state test depends on the behavior of the ticket object and the spy test does not, we'll go on that, go talk about that more in a second. The spy test is also faster. The way that I have this written, the state test is actually creating database objects, which makes the spy test a lot faster. If it wasn't doing that, the spy test would probably still be a little bit faster. Truthful is interesting though. So one of the things that I like to do when I think about what tests I'm writing next or what tests I should be writing is to think about the circumstance in which the test fails. When I write a test, what will cause this test to fail? And in the case of these two tests, they will fail under different situations, possibly. So if the actual, that actual price calculator has a bug. So if there's actually a bug, after it gets the information from the tickets, and before it converts that into a, into a final price, both of these tests will fail. But if the ticket has a bug, if there's a flaw in that price check method that the ticket is using, the state test will still fail, but the spy test will pass. Because the spy test doesn't actually touch that part. Okay, is that clear so far as this? And even if the ticket class doesn't exist at all, if that code has not yet been written, the state test will fail, but the spy test will still pass. And this is where a lot of people jump off the mock object bandwagon. A lot of people say, this is, this is a terrible situation. The code can be wrong and the test will still pass. And this is a huge problem. And a lot of people I think my experience is, a lot of people give up on test double testing at that point. But what I wanna argue here is that saying the code can be wrong and the double test will still pass is actually kind of a matter of perspective. Because the double test implies the existence of other tests in a way that the state test necessarily does not. So if I'm saying that this test that uses test doubles to test this calculator object but doesn't test this ticket object, I'm implying that somewhere else I'm gonna write tests that do touch that ticket object and do test that behavior. And that those tests, in other words, I'm asserting that that is a different unit that's gonna have different unit tests. And so another way of looking at the truthfulness of these two tests is that if the discount logic were to get more complicated, if they were introducing double coupon Wednesdays or something like that. Then you get a situation here where the ticket API would change and the double test would still pass and the state test would fail. And this is weird from a truthfulness standpoint because in the situation I'm describing, the only changes were to the ticket. The calculator, neither the calculator test nor the code that it is nominally testing will have changed, right? But the test will now fail. And this becomes a problem in long. So the test fails, even though the test is nominally right, the breakage in the code is not in the thing being tested but the test still fails. And this can be a real problem on larger test suites. If the tests are not independent, you can write some code and you get a bunch of test failures on the other side of the planet. And it is very hard to track down where they are because the test failures are not in the things that are nominally being tested. So this leads to kind of a design goal that is one of the things that sort of pushes me into using more test doubles. Which is the idea that a failure state causes exactly one test to fail. This is impossible in practice, in part because you probably have integration tests and unit tests that cover the same ground. But it's a good way to think about isolating tests. If this test fails, I know to look here for this, for the remedy to it, because this test is isolated from the rest of the code base. Another way of thinking about that is that the test double version of the test tests both the behavior, both sort of the code and also the design of the code. In that I'm making strong claims about the design of the code that need to be true for this test to pass. Sometimes one of the complaints about using heavy use of test doubles is that using test doubles makes it harder to refactor because you're changing the design and that's breaking tests. I would argue at least potentially that is, I was gonna say that's by design, but that's a confusing, overloaded term. That's actually part of what you're getting when you use mock objects. You're making claims about the structure of the test. If you make good claims about the structure of the test, then you're refactoring won't necessarily have problems if you limit the things that you stub out to public API methods or something like that. But if you make poor choices about what you're asserting in the design, then you're gonna have pain in much the same way that you have pain if you make poor choices about what parts of the status, the state of the code that you assert on. And the double version of the test encourages the creation of additional tests. It encourages more isolated unit tests because of what we already said, that the tests can pass even though the code is incomplete. It encourages you to write tests for each individual unit going on. If you start with just the state test that I had before, you might start putting a lot of logic in the ticket class and not writing a new test for it because it's nominally already covered by the existing state test. And that can become a problem. It leads to slower tests. And again, it leads to a lot of not super well unit tested logic, because those units happen to get called by another piece of test. So creating additional tests is a good thing, because it kind of encourages good design practices. One of the things that I think I'm saying here is that, in a lot of the same way that Betsy talked about boring code leading to better tests, the structure of the way you test your code and the things that you are looking to make easy to test have really strong implications on the way that your code is designed. And if you write your tests in such a way that you encourage the creation of smaller units, then you will get smaller units. If you write your tests in such a way that all you have are integration tests, then you don't have a design pressure pushing you to create smaller units, for good or for real. Writing a lot of unit tests, writing extra unit tests in this case is bad. Like I said, the design might change. And I think a lot of people find it hard to drive the next failing test. So they get to that situation, they write that test with the test doubles. It passes, but the code isn't complete. And a lot of time in my experience, people have trouble like getting to the next step, understanding what the next step is. They need to, the things that are stubbed out by that double test, need to be themselves written and tested. One of the advantages of what gets called outside in testing, where you start with an end-to-end integration test, and then fill it in piece by piece, is that then you have that failing integration test that helps you drive the next piece of unit testing that you need to write. So one of the things about writing a lot of tests with test doubles is it implies a lot of test and code isolation. And I think what this comes down to actually, is that it implies more isolation than many people are comfortable committing to up front. I think, and this is again my experience with teams and object-oriented design, is that a lot of teams are reluctant at the beginning of a project to commit to really elaborate object-oriented structures. Even if they really do seem like they're gonna be necessary later on, there's a sense that adding all of these individual units or adding super and subclasses or adding indirect, indirections as classes is really, it really feels like overkill in a small project. And I feel there's a certain amount of like, a lot of people have an intuitive sense that that's too much at the beginning of a project. Even though there's also a sense that getting those things in at the beginning of the project will be beneficial in the long term. And in that sense, I think that test doubles testing is like a design canary. If you are actually listing all of the collaborators with a given method, if you actually have to enumerate all of the collaborators of a certain method in the test because you need to stub them one by one, then you are gonna be very, very sensitive to the amount of collaborators you have. And it's going to cause, having extra collaborators, having extra dependencies is going to cause like noticeable pain in writing the test. The test, writing the test is going to get longer, it's going to be more set up, it's going to be clear that there's a lot of set up. And one of the ways that people react to that is by stop using test doubles. And one of the ways that people react to that is by making their designs, making the code into smaller design units. And I think that both of those can be the right thing in certain situations. I think that a lot of set up can mean a poorly factored design, or it can mean that you really do have a lot of complexity in that the things that you might do to isolate those actually wind up making the code less clear. When DHH had the whole TDD is dead thing and they had those conversations with Kemp back in Martin Fowler. One of the, I thought, one of the best points that David made against TDD, even though I tended to not like most of that argument. One of the best points that he made against TDD was that the possibility that strict TDD, strict test driven development, would lead you to code that had what he called low cohesion. Meaning that responsibility was that the code was so isolated that responsibility was spread so far across so many small pieces of code that it would become very hard to understand that there was no center. And I think that that's something, definitely something to worry about, and definitely something that I kind of find when I use doubles heavily, they push me in this sense of a lot of very small methods, which I tend to like because they're isolated. But then it also becomes kind of hard to look at the code and say, this happens here. Because what then tends to happen is part of this thing happens here, and part of it happens over there, and part of it happens over there. And that can be also very hard to explain to new people learning the code base for the first time.  That is a bad place to be. He says, not at all, from experience in any way she performed. If you are the only person who is isolating code like this, this is a completely separate story, actually. I once walked into a project that had, it was an 8,000 line Python script. And the first line of the Python script was if colon, and then it was 4,000 lines, and then an else, and then 4,000 more lines. And they were all heavily duplicated, and I thought, I'm a software engineer. I am going to break up this duplication so that this can be tested.  And the end users of this tool hated it. Hated it because they liked that they could walk through this. They liked that the shape of the code matched the way that they thought about the thing that the script was actually building. It was building a configuration file. And they found that the 8,000 line Python script matched their mental model in a way that made it really easy for them to follow. And then once I split it off into what almost everybody in this room would consider better code because it was split into methods, they didn't know where anything was. So design can be a little subjective, I guess is the moral of that story. And again, I've been on a case where I was the only person on a team who was writing tests, or the only person on a team who was trying to use test doubles. And if nobody else is doing it, then nobody else is building up the level of design isolation that you need to write this kind of code without a bunch of setup. So you come into a project and there's no way to create this object without creating seven other objects. So you already have 20 lines of test setup before you even get to the point. That's hard. Also, certain third-party frameworks can make using test doubles hard. Many people in this room use such a framework. It's called Rails. Rails is designed for developer simplicity in many places. This is a wonderful thing. I have used Rails professionally for most of the last eight years. I like it for the most part. It is not, it is explicitly not designed to a level of encapsulation that makes it easy to test double. In particular, association proxies, when you do an active record association, those are nearly impossible to use test doubles to cover without losing, without isolating them in such a way that you take away most of the Rails functionality. Also, Rails encourages, one of the things I tried to do in the book examples, the first round, the first draft of the book examples, was I tried to get really cute about only saving objects at the end of a process and not intermediate saving things. Rails doesn't like that. Rails really kind of wants you to use their update methods and things like that. Rails really makes it hard. And the reason I did that was so that I could stub one save method and completely isolate from the database. Rails doesn't like doing that. So this kind of thing can make hard. So this is kind of what happened. I wrote those spy tests and I got to a point where either the Rails piece or the complexity of the underlying logic made it hard for code isolation and I threw out my hands. I was unwilling or unable to make the changes to code isolated to keep the doubles in the tests. And I might say I was unwilling to because it made the code less clear and that particularly in a book example, I did not want low cohesion. I wanted people to be able to see things. Somebody else can easily look at that and say I was unable to because I'm not a good enough software designer to actually do it the right way. I can't actually say no to that. It's entirely possible that somebody smarter than me might have done a better job of that. But ultimately, I wound up rewriting them. And this is again, this is emblematic of a process that happens in my actual code development. If this is easy to do, but it breaks encapsulation, but it's easy. And at some point, that's a design tension, right? We talk about, generally I love encapsulation, but it definitely has costs, okay? So a couple things to take away from this. I have no idea where I am on time. So I'm assuming time has continued to flow forward during this talk. Possibly, for some of you, maybe it's flowing very slowly for me very fast. So one of the takeaways of this is Conway's law applies to tests. Conway's law says that the structure of your code will match the structure of your organization. It's sometimes implied that if you have four teams working on a compiler, you get a four pass compiler. And it applies to your test, Becky was making, Betsy, sorry, was making a similar point this morning. That the way that you approach your testing and the structures that you bring to your testing are going to have implications about the way that you design your code. Because you're going to be designing for testability along certain axes. That's a good thing. Designing for testability, I think, is a perfectly valid thing to do. But you need to be aware that that's going to be one of the things that's going to happen. I think it's really important when you're writing tests, especially if you're doing test driven development, to divide the test up by thinking about what will make the test fail. Not what will make the test pass. So this test will fail under this certain circumstance. This test will fail under this circumstance. I think there are definitely cases where it's worth trying doubles. In cases where behavior is more important than state. I don't write a lot of Rails controller tests anymore. When I did, those were almost exclusively doubled tests. Because the ending status was not at all important. And the important part was that they actually called specific methods on my active record classes. That's a great idea if you have service objects or things like that, which mostly do traffic flow. Those are really great places to do test double testing. And I think everybody should try, really try once to write a small toy Rails app and try to write all the tests completely isolated from database and try to put all the code isolated from active record. It is a very interesting exercise and you'll probably come out of it understanding a little bit more about the good and bad parts of Rails's design and the good and bad parts of isolating your test design. And it's definitely worth taking a couple hours and trying it. Also, if you're going to use heavy, a lot of test double tests, you should have an actual integration end-to-end test that makes sure that all the pieces line up nicely. That will help you have a test failure to continue to drive to know where the next unit test needs to be. That's pretty much all I have. There's my lovely book again. I have a couple things to just self-indulgent again. The current new book is called Take My Money. It's about payments, payment gateways, administrating payments. If you do stuff where your application takes credit card data, you should look at this. It will save you time and stress, I hope. You can find me online on Twitter. I'm AtnolRap, also atnolrapping.com. Like I said, I work at TableXI. If you want to work for or with a cool consulting place in Chicago, you can find them on TableXI.com. We just redesigned our careers and our job page to be way more representative of the people there and the kind of work we do and the kind of culture we have. So I encourage you to check it out. I was hoping to announce a new project today, but it is not ready. But I am announcing a mailing list at tinyletter.com slash nolrap. If you go there, you can also get there from nolrap.com. Then you will find out when I announce what the project is, if hopefully some of you will care. Because if none of you care, then it's going to be a very, very short of a project. And anyway, the book is available at praggprague.com. And our web pay for the take my money book, Rails Test Prescriptions is at NR Test 2. Thank you for indulging the last minute of shameless self-promotion.  And I have ten minutes for questions. Wow, I did go short. Everybody's been going short at this conference. It's really interesting. So does anybody have any questions, comments, thoughts? So the question was, can I expound on what thinking about how you think about what's going to make your test fail? And I think that a lot of times when you approach, I need to write this test because I need to cover certain error cases. And so just the way, I just encourage thinking about that in a slightly inverted way. This test will fail if I don't have a handler for nil. This test will fail if the code doesn't handle this particular edge case correctly. This test will fail if the collaborating object doesn't work. This test will fail if this third-party thing will down. I think there's a tendency to write tests and think about tests in terms of what will make them succeed. And I think that it's kind of beneficial to think about them in terms of how they will fail. Does that make more sense? A little bit? Right, so yeah, so the question was whether using LAT or other R-spec tools lets you have a lot of collaborators without realizing it. And I think yeah, it does. There's a tension here between trying to make yourself, trying to make your test easier by solving the underlying problem or trying to make your test easier by putting a band-aid on the symptom. I use LAT a lot and it's there to make setup easier. And most of the time, that's a good thing. And sometimes that's a bad thing because it's blocking you from seeing some sort of problem in the code. Another thing that's worth trying there a little bit maybe is to try and write a test or two in R-spec Given, which will, it has a lot of the same features of LAT, but it's a little bit more explicit about this is a setup, this is setup, this is setup. And it can sometimes, you might find that it makes it easier to see. On the other hand, that could lead to you writing with a test suite that is like half an R-spec Given and half a normal R-spec, which I can tell you from personal experience, is not a good long-term look. How do I feel about verifying test doubles in the R-spec, like the R-spec verified doubles? Yeah, so R-spec added relatively recently this concept of verified doubles, where you say this is double should match the API of a given class or a given instance. And what that does is it prevents a really common failure mode where the double refers to a method or an attribute that doesn't exist. The code under test also refers to that method, but the whole thing doesn't work because that method or attribute doesn't actually exist. I think that for the most part, they do solve that problem. They also introduce a partial dependency, because you're now partially dependent on what, there's not a whole lot of difference between an R-spec verified double and factory girls build stubbed, which takes an active record, Sam just almost had a heart attack. But in practice, you're getting the same place. You're getting that API, but you're preventing the most dangerous or the most time consuming database actions from happening. I see them, I understand that in an underlying sense, they're very different. I see them functionally, having very little difference between them and how the tests get written. So I think that they do solve a problem. I think that the problem that they kind of solve is a little bit of a straw man, because if you have an actual integration test, you'll still have a failing test, even if you have that misspelling. So I think they're fine. I don't have a problem with them. I use them. To some degree, they solve a problem. They solve a problem of bad use of doubles. But if you were using the doubles well, you probably wouldn't have that problem. Now Sam agrees. I can stay here for another minute. So the question is, where do you draw the line on knowing what to test in integration tests? So one thing I didn't really get to in this talk is the idea of the testing pyramid, which is that you have a lot of relatively fast unit tests and a relatively low amount of slower integration tests. And the way that I operationalize that often is that I generally do the happy path through the integration test and handle the errors in unit tests. Because it's often very, very hard to set up error conditions in an integration test, and it's easier to set up error conditions with a well-placed test double or something like that in a unit test. So the question is for integration tests, in a Rails context specifically, for the higher level stuff and to the controller level stuff. I actually think of this as being kind of a multiple layer thing where I will write, so the way that I often write my Rails applications is the controller has almost nothing, most of the business logic is in the service object, and then there's active record stuff. So a lot of times I will have an end-to-end happy path case that will use the Cappy Bar or whatever higher level syntax. And then I will have an inside out a sort of integration test that will test the workflow and do some error checking there. And then also tests at the unit level. So I think of this as being something that might have multiple layers rather than just like integration test unit tests that sometimes there's a middle ground there. Cool, thank you. On behalf of all of the whole testing track in SAM, thanks for those of you that came out to any of the talks this morning. We really appreciate your time.