Capybara vs Wombat

Overview

Wombat

Stacks4

Followers16

Votes11

Capybara

Stacks858

Followers191

Votes15

Capybara vs Wombat: What are the differences?

Introduction

Capybara and Wombat are both popular web scraping and automation tools used in the Ruby programming language. While they share some similarities, there are several key differences between them that make each tool unique in its own right. In this article, we will explore six of these differences in detail.

Browser Compatibility: Capybara is primarily designed for use with web applications and relies on drivers such as Selenium and Poltergeist to control browsers. On the other hand, Wombat is a scraping-only library that does not require a browser and can work directly with HTML.
Syntax and Expressiveness: Capybara provides a flexible and expressive DSL (Domain-Specific Language) that allows users to write clear and concise code for interacting with web applications. Wombat, on the other hand, utilizes a more traditional programming approach, where users have more control over the code structure but may need to write more lines of code for the same task.
Support for JavaScript: Capybara has built-in support for executing JavaScript within the browser, which enables interaction with dynamic elements and AJAX requests. Wombat, being a scraping-only library, does not have this capability and cannot handle JavaScript-dependent tasks without additional tools or workarounds.
Parallel Execution: Capybara supports parallel execution of tests, allowing multiple tests to run concurrently and potentially reducing overall execution time. Wombat, being a non-test-focused library, does not have built-in support for parallel execution.
Documentation and Community Support: Capybara has a large and active community, extensive documentation, and numerous online resources available. This makes it easier for beginners to find help and solutions to common problems. Wombat, while still having a community and documentation, may not have the same level of resources and support available.
Popularity and Stability: Capybara is widely used in the Ruby community and has been around for a longer time, making it a more well-established and stable choice. Wombat, while gaining popularity, may not have the same level of maturity and stability as Capybara.

In summary, Capybara and Wombat differ in terms of browser compatibility, syntax and expressiveness, support for JavaScript, parallel execution, documentation and community support, as well as overall popularity and stability. These differences should be carefully considered when choosing between the two tools for web scraping and automation tasks.

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

Detailed Comparison

Wombat	Capybara
Automate your store in no time: Wombat is an ecommerce integration platform that quickly connects your storefront with all your favorite 3rd party services. Comprehensive enough for large ecommerce stores and easy enough for small merchants	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.
Connect any ecommerce storefront to any service or application; No custom code required; Pre-built integrations get you up and running in just minutes; Manages and automates your back-end; Keeps your data in-sync across multiple channels; Automatic error-checking; Awesome 24/7 support; Sleek, easy-to-use interface.	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
Stacks 4	Stacks 858
Followers 16	Followers 191
Votes 11	Votes 15
Pros & Cons
Pros 3 The versatility of integrations that Wombat offers. 3 Great e-commerce automation 3 Keeps my storefront code clean 2 Completely Customizable	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
Integrations
No integrations available	Rails

What are some alternatives to Wombat, Capybara?

PrestaShop

PrestaShop is written in PHP, is highly customizable, supports all the major payment services, is translated in many languages and localized for many countries, and is fully responsive (both front- and back-office).

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.

Magento

Magento Community Edition is perfect if you’re a developer who wants to build your own solution with flexible eCommerce technology. You can modify the core code and add a wide variety of features and functionality.

Shopify

Shopify powers tens of thousands of online retailers including General Electric, Amnesty International, CrossFit, Tesla Motors, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Foo Fighters, GitHub, and more. Our platform allows users to easily and quickly create their own online store without all the technical work involved in developing their own website, or the huge expense of having someone else build it. Shopify lets merchants manage all aspects of their shops: uploading products, changing the design, accepting credit card orders, and viewing their incoming orders and completed transactions.

Spree

The Spree storefront offers a full feature set and is built on common standards, so you don't have to compromise speed to market, efficiency or innovation. The modular platform allows you to easily configure, supplement or replace any functionality you need, so that you can build the exact storefront that you want.

Saleor

Saleor is a rapidly-growing open source e-commerce platform that has served high-volume companies from branches like publishing and apparel since 2012. Based on Python and Django, the latest major update introduces a modular front end powered by a GraphQL API and written with React and TypeScript.

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.

Related Comparisons

Capybara vs Wombat: What are the differences?

Introduction

Browser Compatibility: Capybara is primarily designed for use with web applications and relies on drivers such as Selenium and Poltergeist to control browsers. On the other hand, Wombat is a scraping-only library that does not require a browser and can work directly with HTML.
Syntax and Expressiveness: Capybara provides a flexible and expressive DSL (Domain-Specific Language) that allows users to write clear and concise code for interacting with web applications. Wombat, on the other hand, utilizes a more traditional programming approach, where users have more control over the code structure but may need to write more lines of code for the same task.
Support for JavaScript: Capybara has built-in support for executing JavaScript within the browser, which enables interaction with dynamic elements and AJAX requests. Wombat, being a scraping-only library, does not have this capability and cannot handle JavaScript-dependent tasks without additional tools or workarounds.
Parallel Execution: Capybara supports parallel execution of tests, allowing multiple tests to run concurrently and potentially reducing overall execution time. Wombat, being a non-test-focused library, does not have built-in support for parallel execution.
Documentation and Community Support: Capybara has a large and active community, extensive documentation, and numerous online resources available. This makes it easier for beginners to find help and solutions to common problems. Wombat, while still having a community and documentation, may not have the same level of resources and support available.
Popularity and Stability: Capybara is widely used in the Ruby community and has been around for a longer time, making it a more well-established and stable choice. Wombat, while gaining popularity, may not have the same level of maturity and stability as Capybara.

Capybara vs Wombat

Overview

Capybara vs Wombat: What are the differences?