CodeceptJS vs Mocha

Overview

Mocha

Stacks10.8K

Followers3.0K

Votes430

CodeceptJS

Stacks117

Followers217

Votes52

CodeceptJS vs Mocha: What are the differences?

Introduction

CodeceptJS and Mocha are both popular JavaScript testing frameworks used for automated testing in software development. While they share some similarities, there are several key differences that set them apart. In this article, we will explore these differences in detail.

Execution Flow: In CodeceptJS, the execution flow is driven by the concept of actors and scenarios. Actors are individual entities or roles that interact with the system under test. Scenarios define the sequence of actions performed by actors. On the other hand, Mocha follows a more traditional approach, where tests are organized using test suites and test cases. Test suites contain test cases, and the execution flow is determined by the order in which the test cases are defined.
Test Syntax: CodeceptJS provides a high-level API for testing, which makes test scenarios more readable and expressive. It uses natural language-like syntax, making it easy to understand for non-technical stakeholders. Mocha, on the other hand, uses a more traditional syntax, with describe(), it(), and other testing keywords, which may require more familiarity with testing concepts.
Support for Multiple Test Runners: CodeceptJS supports multiple test runners, including WebDriverIO, Puppeteer, and Protractor, allowing developers to choose the most appropriate one for their needs. Mocha, on the other hand, does not provide built-in support for different test runners, requiring developers to choose and configure a test runner separately.
Built-in Support for Page Objects: CodeceptJS includes built-in support for Page Objects, a design pattern that helps organize and reuse code for interacting with web pages. This makes it easier to write and maintain test scripts for complex web applications. Mocha does not have built-in support for Page Objects, although they can still be implemented using custom code or third-party libraries.
Parallel Test Execution: CodeceptJS supports parallel test execution out of the box, allowing developers to run multiple test scenarios simultaneously. This can significantly reduce the overall test execution time, especially for large test suites. Mocha, on the other hand, does not have built-in support for parallel test execution, although it can be achieved using external tools or libraries.
Test Reporting and Output: CodeceptJS provides detailed test reports and output, including screenshots and HTML reports, which can be useful for debugging and analyzing test failures. Mocha also provides test reporting and output, but the level of detail may not be as comprehensive as in CodeceptJS.

In summary, CodeceptJS provides a more user-friendly and expressive syntax for test scenarios, built-in support for multiple test runners and Page Objects, parallel test execution capability, and detailed test reporting. On the other hand, Mocha follows a more traditional syntax, does not have built-in support for multiple test runners or Page Objects, and may require additional configuration for parallel test execution.

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 Mocha, CodeceptJS

Abigail

Dec 10, 2019

Decided

We use Mocha for our FDA verification testing. It's integrated into Meteor, our upstream web application framework. We like how battle tested it is, its' syntax, its' options of reporters, and countless other features. Most everybody can agree on mocha, and that gets us half-way through our FDA verification and validation (V&V) testing strategy.

231k views231k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Mocha	CodeceptJS
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.	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.
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	Behavior Driven Development; Acceptance Testing; Data Driven Tests
Statistics
Stacks 10.8K	Stacks 117
Followers 3.0K	Followers 217
Votes 430	Votes 52
Pros & Cons
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	Pros 10 Readability 9 Full browser control 9 Cross browser support 8 Open source 6 Community Cons 2 Small community 1 Not a framework by itself
Integrations
No integrations available	JavaScript SilverStripe Wallaby.js MockIt (open source) Glamorous Majestic GUI

What are some alternatives to Mocha, CodeceptJS?

Jasmine

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.

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.

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

CodeceptJS vs Mocha: What are the differences?

Introduction

Execution Flow: In CodeceptJS, the execution flow is driven by the concept of actors and scenarios. Actors are individual entities or roles that interact with the system under test. Scenarios define the sequence of actions performed by actors. On the other hand, Mocha follows a more traditional approach, where tests are organized using test suites and test cases. Test suites contain test cases, and the execution flow is determined by the order in which the test cases are defined.
Test Syntax: CodeceptJS provides a high-level API for testing, which makes test scenarios more readable and expressive. It uses natural language-like syntax, making it easy to understand for non-technical stakeholders. Mocha, on the other hand, uses a more traditional syntax, with describe(), it(), and other testing keywords, which may require more familiarity with testing concepts.
Support for Multiple Test Runners: CodeceptJS supports multiple test runners, including WebDriverIO, Puppeteer, and Protractor, allowing developers to choose the most appropriate one for their needs. Mocha, on the other hand, does not provide built-in support for different test runners, requiring developers to choose and configure a test runner separately.
Built-in Support for Page Objects: CodeceptJS includes built-in support for Page Objects, a design pattern that helps organize and reuse code for interacting with web pages. This makes it easier to write and maintain test scripts for complex web applications. Mocha does not have built-in support for Page Objects, although they can still be implemented using custom code or third-party libraries.
Parallel Test Execution: CodeceptJS supports parallel test execution out of the box, allowing developers to run multiple test scenarios simultaneously. This can significantly reduce the overall test execution time, especially for large test suites. Mocha, on the other hand, does not have built-in support for parallel test execution, although it can be achieved using external tools or libraries.
Test Reporting and Output: CodeceptJS provides detailed test reports and output, including screenshots and HTML reports, which can be useful for debugging and analyzing test failures. Mocha also provides test reporting and output, but the level of detail may not be as comprehensive as in CodeceptJS.

CodeceptJS vs Mocha

Overview

CodeceptJS vs Mocha: What are the differences?