Jasmine vs Mocha

Overview

Jasmine

Stacks4.8K

Followers1.5K

Votes187

Mocha

Stacks10.8K

Followers3.0K

Votes430

Jasmine vs Mocha: What are the differences?

Introduction

Jasmine and Mocha are both popular JavaScript testing frameworks used for testing JavaScript applications. While they both serve the purpose of writing efficient and effective unit tests, there are key differences between the two.

Test Syntax: Jasmine uses a behavior-driven development (BDD) syntax, which focuses on writing tests in a more human-readable format. On the other hand, Mocha uses a more traditional syntax, allowing developers to use any style of testing (BDD, TDD, or even a combination of both). This provides more flexibility in writing tests based on personal preferences and project requirements.
Assertions: Jasmine provides its own built-in assertion library, offering a wide range of assertion functions. This eliminates the need for an external library for assertions. Mocha, on the other hand, does not include an assertion library by default. It provides a testing framework and hooks for integrating external assertion libraries like Chai or should.js. This allows developers to choose their preferred assertion library and customize it to their needs.
Asynchronous Testing Support: Mocha has built-in support for asynchronous testing, making it easier to write tests for code that involves asynchronous operations. It supports testing promises, callbacks, and other asynchronous patterns out of the box. Jasmine also supports asynchronous testing but requires the use of additional functions like done() or async/await to handle asynchronous operations.
Test Runner: Mocha provides a test runner that can be integrated with various build systems and frameworks, allowing developers to execute tests in different environments (e.g., browser, Node.js). Jasmine, on the other hand, includes its own test runner, making it easier to set up and execute tests without additional configuration.
Mocking and Spies: Jasmine includes built-in support for mocking functions and creating spies, which are objects that track function calls and return values. This makes it easier to stub or spy on functions during tests. Mocha does not have built-in features for mocking or spying, but it can be paired with other libraries like Sinon.js to achieve similar functionality.
Community and Ecosystem: Both Jasmine and Mocha have active communities and a wide range of plugins and extensions available. However, Mocha has a larger ecosystem due to its flexibility and compatibility with different assertion libraries and test runners. This makes it easier to find community support, examples, and integrations for specific use cases.

In summary, Jasmine and Mocha differ in test syntax, assertion libraries, asynchronous testing support, test runner, mocking capabilities, and community size. These differences make them suited for different preferences and project requirements in JavaScript testing.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Advice on Jasmine, Mocha

Ben

Lead Front End Developer at Crunch

Jan 28, 2022

Decided

We were able to combine multiple tools with Jest and React Testing Library (e.g. sinon, enzyme, chai). Jest has powerful cli options and increased performance including from parallel testing processes. Migrating was reasonably straight forward as there is a code transformation script to do most of the leg work. Jest's documentation is excellent.

47.8k views47.8k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Jasmine	Mocha
Jasmine is a Behavior Driven Development testing framework for JavaScript. It does not rely on browsers, DOM, or any JavaScript framework. Thus it's suited for websites, Node.js projects, or anywhere that JavaScript can run.	Mocha is a feature-rich JavaScript test framework running on node.js and the browser, making asynchronous testing simple and fun. Mocha tests run serially, allowing for flexible and accurate reporting, while mapping uncaught exceptions to the correct test cases.
-	browser support;simple async support, including promises;test coverage reporting;string diff support;javascript API for running tests;proper exit status for CI support etc;auto-detects and disables coloring for non-ttys;maps uncaught exceptions to the correct test case;async test timeout support;test-specific timeouts;growl notification support;reports test durations;highlights slow tests;file watcher support;global variable leak detection
Statistics
Stacks 4.8K	Stacks 10.8K
Followers 1.5K	Followers 3.0K
Votes 187	Votes 430
Pros & Cons
Pros 64 Can also be used for tdd 49 Open source 19 Originally from RSpec 15 Great community 14 No dependencies, not even DOM Cons 2 Unfriendly error logs	Pros 137 Open source 102 Simple 81 Promise support 48 Flexible 29 Easy to add support for Generators Cons 3 Cannot test a promisified functions without assertion 2 No assertion count in results 1 Not as many reporter options as Jest

What are some alternatives to Jasmine, Mocha?

Jest

Jest provides you with multiple layers on top of Jasmine.

Cypress

Cypress is a front end automated testing application created for the modern web. Cypress is built on a new architecture and runs in the same run-loop as the application being tested. As a result Cypress provides better, faster, and more reliable testing for anything that runs in a browser. Cypress works on any front-end framework or website.

CodeceptJS

It is a modern end to end testing framework with a special BDD-style syntax. The test is written as a linear scenario of user's action on a site. Each test is described inside a Scenario function with I object passed into it.

Protractor

Protractor is an end-to-end test framework for Angular and AngularJS applications. Protractor runs tests against your application running in a real browser, interacting with it as a user would.

AVA

Even though JavaScript is single-threaded, IO in Node.js can happen in parallel due to its async nature. AVA takes advantage of this and runs your tests concurrently, which is especially beneficial for IO heavy tests. In addition, test files are run in parallel as separate processes, giving you even better performance and an isolated environment for each test file.

Ghost Inspector

It lets you create and manage UI tests that check specific functionality in your website or application. We execute these automated browser tests continuously from the cloud and alert you if anything breaks.

QUnit

QUnit is a powerful, easy-to-use JavaScript unit testing framework. It's used by the jQuery, jQuery UI and jQuery Mobile projects and is capable of testing any generic JavaScript code, including itself!

Sorry-cypress

Open-source, self-hosted alternative Cypress Dashboard.

Baretest

It is a fast and simple JavaScript test runner. It offers near-instant performance and a brainless API. It makes testing tolerable.

SinonJS

It is a really helpful library when you want to unit test your code. It supports spies, stubs, and mocks. The library has cross browser support and also can run on the server using Node.js.

Related Comparisons

Jasmine vs Mocha: What are the differences?

Introduction

Test Syntax: Jasmine uses a behavior-driven development (BDD) syntax, which focuses on writing tests in a more human-readable format. On the other hand, Mocha uses a more traditional syntax, allowing developers to use any style of testing (BDD, TDD, or even a combination of both). This provides more flexibility in writing tests based on personal preferences and project requirements.
Assertions: Jasmine provides its own built-in assertion library, offering a wide range of assertion functions. This eliminates the need for an external library for assertions. Mocha, on the other hand, does not include an assertion library by default. It provides a testing framework and hooks for integrating external assertion libraries like Chai or should.js. This allows developers to choose their preferred assertion library and customize it to their needs.
Asynchronous Testing Support: Mocha has built-in support for asynchronous testing, making it easier to write tests for code that involves asynchronous operations. It supports testing promises, callbacks, and other asynchronous patterns out of the box. Jasmine also supports asynchronous testing but requires the use of additional functions like done() or async/await to handle asynchronous operations.
Test Runner: Mocha provides a test runner that can be integrated with various build systems and frameworks, allowing developers to execute tests in different environments (e.g., browser, Node.js). Jasmine, on the other hand, includes its own test runner, making it easier to set up and execute tests without additional configuration.
Mocking and Spies: Jasmine includes built-in support for mocking functions and creating spies, which are objects that track function calls and return values. This makes it easier to stub or spy on functions during tests. Mocha does not have built-in features for mocking or spying, but it can be paired with other libraries like Sinon.js to achieve similar functionality.
Community and Ecosystem: Both Jasmine and Mocha have active communities and a wide range of plugins and extensions available. However, Mocha has a larger ecosystem due to its flexibility and compatibility with different assertion libraries and test runners. This makes it easier to find community support, examples, and integrations for specific use cases.

Jasmine vs Mocha

Overview

Jasmine vs Mocha: What are the differences?