Capybara vs Poltergeist

Overview

Capybara

Stacks625

Followers191

Votes15

Poltergeist

Stacks17

Followers24

Votes0

GitHub Stars2.5K

Forks414

Capybara vs Poltergeist: What are the differences?

## Introduction

Capbybara and Poltergeist are both popular tools used for testing web applications, but they have distinct differences that make each tool unique. 

## 1. Capybara vs Poltergeist - Browser Automation
Capybara uses a real browser for automation, whereas Poltergeist uses a headless browser powered by PhantomJS. This means Capybara can perform tests in various browsers while Poltergeist is limited to a headless environment.

## 2. Capybara vs Poltergeist - Javascript Execution
Capybara relies on the browser's own javascript capabilities for execution, whereas Poltergeist has built-in javascript execution capabilities. This enables Poltergeist to have better control over javascript interactions during testing.

## 3. Capybara vs Poltergeist - Speed
Capybara tends to be slower compared to Poltergeist due to its reliance on external browsers for automation. On the other hand, Poltergeist's headless nature makes it faster in running tests as it does not require a graphical interface.

## 4. Capybara vs Poltergeist - Debugging Capabilities
Capybara offers a more user-friendly interface for debugging tests, providing detailed error messages and easier traceability of issues. Poltergeist, on the other hand, may require more effort in pinpointing errors and debugging due to its headless nature.

## 5. Capybara vs Poltergeist - Dependencies
Capybara has more dependencies compared to Poltergeist since it relies on external browsers for automation. Poltergeist, being headless, has fewer dependencies, making it easier to set up and use in testing environments that require minimal configuration.

## 6. Capybara vs Poltergeist - Community Support
Capybara has a larger and more active community support compared to Poltergeist, which means more resources, tutorials, and updates are available for users. Poltergeist, on the other hand, may have fewer resources and updates due to its smaller community base.

In Summary, Capybara and Poltergeist offer distinct differences in browser automation, javascript execution, speed, debugging capabilities, dependencies, and community support, making each tool suitable for specific testing requirements.

Detailed Comparison

Capybara	Poltergeist
Capybara helps you test web applications by simulating how a real user would interact with your app. It is agnostic about the driver running your tests and comes with Rack::Test and Selenium support built in. WebKit is supported through an external gem.	Poltergeist is a driver for Capybara. It allows you to run your Capybara tests on a headless WebKit browser, provided by PhantomJS.
No setup necessary for Rails and Rack application. Works out of the box.;Intuitive API which mimics the language an actual user would use.;Switch the backend your tests run against from fast headless mode to an actual browser with no changes to your tests.;Powerful synchronization features mean you never have to manually wait for asynchronous processes to complete.	-
Statistics
GitHub Stars -	GitHub Stars 2.5K
GitHub Forks -	GitHub Forks 414
Stacks 625	Stacks 17
Followers 191	Followers 24
Votes 15	Votes 0
Pros & Cons
Pros 12 Best acceptance test framework for Ruby on Rails apps 2 Synchronous with Rack::Test 1 Fast with Rack::Test Cons 1 Hard to make reproducible tests when using with browser	No community feedback yet
Integrations
Rails	PhantomJS

What are some alternatives to Capybara, Poltergeist?

Robot Framework

It is a generic test automation framework for acceptance testing and acceptance test-driven development. It has easy-to-use tabular test data syntax and it utilizes the keyword-driven testing approach. Its testing capabilities can be extended by test libraries implemented either with Python or Java, and users can create new higher-level keywords from existing ones using the same syntax that is used for creating test cases.

Karate DSL

Combines API test-automation, mocks and performance-testing into a single, unified framework. The BDD syntax popularized by Cucumber is language-neutral, and easy for even non-programmers. Besides powerful JSON & XML assertions, you can run tests in parallel for speed - which is critical for HTTP API testing.

Cucumber

Cucumber is a tool that supports Behaviour-Driven Development (BDD) - a software development process that aims to enhance software quality and reduce maintenance costs.

TestCafe

It is a pure node.js end-to-end solution for testing web apps. It takes care of all the stages: starting browsers, running tests, gathering test results and generating reports.

Spock Framework

It is a testing and specification framework for Java and Groovy applications. What makes it stand out from the crowd is its beautiful and highly expressive specification language. It is compatible with most IDEs, build tools, and continuous integration servers.

Selenide

It is a library for writing concise, readable, boilerplate-free tests in Java using Selenium WebDriver.

PHPUnit

PHPUnit is a programmer-oriented testing framework for PHP. It is an instance of the xUnit architecture for unit testing frameworks.

Detox

High velocity native mobile development requires us to adopt continuous integration workflows, which means our reliance on manual QA has to drop significantly. It tests your mobile app while it's running in a real device/simulator, interacting with it just like a real user.

Imagium

Imagium provides AI based visual testing solution for various forms of testing. It makes the job easier for QA Automation, Mobile Testers, DevOps and Compliance teams. Imagium is easy to integrate with any programing language

react-testing-library

It is a simple and complete React DOM testing utility that encourage good testing practices. It provides light utility functions on top of react-dom and react-dom/test-utils, in a way that encourages better testing practices.

Related Comparisons

Capybara vs Poltergeist: What are the differences?

## Introduction

Capbybara and Poltergeist are both popular tools used for testing web applications, but they have distinct differences that make each tool unique. 

## 1. Capybara vs Poltergeist - Browser Automation
Capybara uses a real browser for automation, whereas Poltergeist uses a headless browser powered by PhantomJS. This means Capybara can perform tests in various browsers while Poltergeist is limited to a headless environment.

## 2. Capybara vs Poltergeist - Javascript Execution
Capybara relies on the browser's own javascript capabilities for execution, whereas Poltergeist has built-in javascript execution capabilities. This enables Poltergeist to have better control over javascript interactions during testing.

## 3. Capybara vs Poltergeist - Speed
Capybara tends to be slower compared to Poltergeist due to its reliance on external browsers for automation. On the other hand, Poltergeist's headless nature makes it faster in running tests as it does not require a graphical interface.

## 4. Capybara vs Poltergeist - Debugging Capabilities
Capybara offers a more user-friendly interface for debugging tests, providing detailed error messages and easier traceability of issues. Poltergeist, on the other hand, may require more effort in pinpointing errors and debugging due to its headless nature.

## 5. Capybara vs Poltergeist - Dependencies
Capybara has more dependencies compared to Poltergeist since it relies on external browsers for automation. Poltergeist, being headless, has fewer dependencies, making it easier to set up and use in testing environments that require minimal configuration.

## 6. Capybara vs Poltergeist - Community Support
Capybara has a larger and more active community support compared to Poltergeist, which means more resources, tutorials, and updates are available for users. Poltergeist, on the other hand, may have fewer resources and updates due to its smaller community base.

In Summary, Capybara and Poltergeist offer distinct differences in browser automation, javascript execution, speed, debugging capabilities, dependencies, and community support, making each tool suitable for specific testing requirements.

Capybara vs Poltergeist

Overview

Capybara vs Poltergeist: What are the differences?

Detailed Comparison