Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
CodeceptJS vs Jest: What are the differences?
Introduction:
CodeceptJS and Jest are both popular testing frameworks used in JavaScript development. While they have similarities, there are some key differences between the two. Let's explore these differences in detail below.
Applicability in Different Testing Scenarios: CodeceptJS is primarily designed for end-to-end testing and supports various testing types like UI, API, unit, and acceptance testing. On the other hand, Jest is more focused on unit testing and provides tools and features specifically tailored for that purpose.
Testing Approach: CodeceptJS follows a behavior-driven development (BDD) approach, where tests are written in a human-readable format using the Gherkin syntax. This makes it easier for non-technical stakeholders to understand the tests. In contrast, Jest follows a more traditional test-driven development (TDD) approach, where tests are written in JavaScript code.
Test Runner and Assertion Library: CodeceptJS uses popular test runners like Mocha or Cucumber.js and assertion libraries like Chai or WebdriverIO's expect to write tests. Jest, on the other hand, comes with its own built-in test runner and assertion library, making it a self-contained solution without the need for additional dependencies.
Mocking and Spying: Jest provides built-in mocking and spying capabilities, allowing developers to easily mock dependencies and spy on function calls. CodeceptJS, on the other hand, requires additional libraries like sinon or Jest's mocking library to achieve similar functionality.
Parallel Execution: CodeceptJS supports parallel test execution out of the box, which can significantly reduce the overall test execution time. Jest also supports parallel execution, but it requires additional configuration and setup.
Community and Ecosystem: Jest has a larger and more active community, with a wide range of plugins and integrations available, making it easier to find support and resources. CodeceptJS, although also having a supportive community, is comparatively smaller and has a more focused scope.
In summary, CodeceptJS focuses on end-to-end testing and supports various testing types, follows BDD approach, uses external test runners and assertion libraries, requires additional libraries for mocking and spying, supports parallel execution, and has a smaller community. Jest, on the other hand, is more focused on unit testing, follows a TDD approach, comes with its own test runner and assertion library, provides built-in mocking and spying capabilities, supports parallel execution, and has a larger community with a broader ecosystem.
As we all know testing is an important part of any application. To assist with our testing we are going to use both Cypress and Jest. We feel these tools complement each other and will help us get good coverage of our code. We will use Cypress for our end to end testing as we've found it quite user friendly. Jest will be used for our unit tests because we've seen how many larger companies use it with great success.
Postman will be used to do integration testing with the backend API we create. It offers a clean interface to create many requests, and you can even organize these requests into collections. It helps to test the backend API first to make sure it's working before using it in the front-end. Jest can also be used for testing and is already embedded into React. Not only does it offer unit testing support in javascript, it can also do snapshot testing for the front-end to make sure components are rendering correctly. Enzyme is complementary to Jest and offers more functions such as shallow rendering. UnitTest will be used for Python testing as it is simple, has a lot of functionality and already built in with python. Sentry will be used for keeping track of errors as it is also easily integratable with Heroku because they offer it as an add-on. LogDNA will be used for tracking logs which are not errors and is also a Heroku add-on. Its good to have a separate service to record logs, monitor, track and even fix errors in real-time so our application can run more smoothly.
Pros of CodeceptJS
- Readability10
- Full browser control9
- Cross browser support9
- Open source8
- Community6
- Flexible Driver5
- Great documentation3
- Agnostic2
Pros of Jest
- Open source36
- Mock by default makes testing much simpler32
- Testing React Native Apps23
- Parallel test running20
- Fast16
- Bundled with JSDOM to enable DOM testing13
- Mock by default screws up your classes, breaking tests8
- Out of the box code coverage7
- Promise support7
- One stop shop for unit testing6
- Great documentation3
- Assert Library Included2
- Built in watch option with interactive filtering menu1
- Preset support1
- Can be used for BDD0
- Karma0
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of CodeceptJS
- Small community2
- Not a framework by itself1
Cons of Jest
- Documentation4
- Ambiguous configuration4
- Difficult3
- Many bugs still not fixed months/years after reporting2
- Multiple error messages for same error2
- Difficult to run single test/describe/file2
- Ambiguous2
- Bugged2
- BeforeAll timing out makes all passing tests fail1
- Slow1
- Reporter is too general1
- Unstable1
- Bad docs1
- Still does't support .mjs files natively1
- Can't fail beforeAll to abort tests1
- Interaction with watch mode on terminal0