Coveralls vs Jest

Overview

Coveralls

Stacks1.7K

Followers278

Votes68

Jest

Stacks15.2K

Followers4.1K

Votes175

Coveralls vs Jest: What are the differences?

Coveralls: Track your project's code coverage over time, changes to files, and badge your GitHub repo. Coveralls works with your CI server and sifts through your coverage data to find issues you didn't even know you had before they become a problem. Free for open source, pro accounts for private repos, instant sign up with GitHub OAuth; Jest: Painless JavaScript Unit Testing. Jest provides you with multiple layers on top of Jasmine.

Coveralls belongs to "Code Coverage" category of the tech stack, while Jest can be primarily classified under "Javascript Testing Framework".

Some of the features offered by Coveralls are:

Repository Coverage Statistics
Individual File Coverage Reports
Line By Line Coverage

On the other hand, Jest provides the following key features:

Familiar Approach: Built on top of the Jasmine test framework, using familiar expect(value).toBe(other) assertions
Mock by Default: Automatically mocks CommonJS modules returned by require(), making most existing code testable
Short Feedback Loop: DOM APIs are mocked and tests run in parallel via a small node.js command line utility

"Free for public repositories" is the top reason why over 44 developers like Coveralls, while over 24 developers mention "Open source" as the leading cause for choosing Jest.

Jest is an open source tool with 26.4K GitHub stars and 3.57K GitHub forks. Here's a link to Jest's open source repository on GitHub.

According to the StackShare community, Jest has a broader approval, being mentioned in 271 company stacks & 161 developers stacks; compared to Coveralls, which is listed in 58 company stacks and 45 developer stacks.

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 Coveralls, Jest

Dane

Feb 7, 2020

Needs adviceon

Cypress

Jest

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.

836k views836k

Comments

Felipe

May 24, 2020

Needs advice

My website is brand new and one of the few requirements of testings I had to implement was code coverage. Never though it was so hard to implement using a #docker container.
Given my lack of experience, every attempt I tried on making a simple code coverage test using the 4 combinations of #TravisCI, #CircleCi with #Coveralls, #Codecov I failed. The main problem was I was generating the .coverage file within the docker container and couldn't access it with #TravisCi or #CircleCi, every attempt to solve this problem seems to be very hacky and this was not the kind of complexity I want to introduce to my newborn website.
This problem was solved using a specific action for #GitHubActions, it was a 3 line solution I had to put in my github workflow file and I was able to access the .coverage file from my docker container and get the coverage report with #Codecov.

198k views198k

Comments

Anonymous

Feb 6, 2020

Needs advice

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.

290k views290k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Coveralls	Jest
Coveralls works with your CI server and sifts through your coverage data to find issues you didn't even know you had before they become a problem. Free for open source, pro accounts for private repos, instant sign up with GitHub OAuth.	Jest provides you with multiple layers on top of Jasmine.
Repository Coverage Statistics;Individual File Coverage Reports;Line By Line Coverage;Repository Overview	Familiar Approach: Built on top of the Jasmine test framework, using familiar expect(value).toBe(other) assertions;Mock by Default: Automatically mocks CommonJS modules returned by require(), making most existing code testable;Short Feedback Loop: DOM APIs are mocked and tests run in parallel via a small node.js command line utility
Statistics
Stacks 1.7K	Stacks 15.2K
Followers 278	Followers 4.1K
Votes 68	Votes 175
Pros & Cons
Pros 45 Free for public repositories 13 Code coverage 7 Ease of integration 2 More stable than Codecov 1 Combines coverage from multiple/parallel test runs	Pros 36 Open source 32 Mock by default makes testing much simpler 23 Testing React Native Apps 20 Parallel test running 16 Fast Cons 4 Ambiguous configuration 4 Documentation 3 Difficult 2 Multiple error messages for same error 2 Difficult to run single test/describe/file
Integrations
Travis CI CircleCI Semaphore Jenkins Codeship	No integrations available

What are some alternatives to Coveralls, Jest?

Mocha

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.

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.

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.

Codecov

Our patrons rave about our elegant coverage reports, integrated pull request comments, interactive commit graphs, our Chrome plugin and security.

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.

Related Comparisons

Bitbucket vs GitHub vs GitLab

AWS CodeCommit vs Bitbucket vs GitHub

Docker Swarm vs Kubernetes vs Rancher

Grunt vs Webpack vs gulp

Grafana vs Graphite vs Kibana

Coveralls vs Jest: What are the differences?

Coveralls belongs to "Code Coverage" category of the tech stack, while Jest can be primarily classified under "Javascript Testing Framework".

Some of the features offered by Coveralls are:

Repository Coverage Statistics
Individual File Coverage Reports
Line By Line Coverage

On the other hand, Jest provides the following key features:

Familiar Approach: Built on top of the Jasmine test framework, using familiar expect(value).toBe(other) assertions
Mock by Default: Automatically mocks CommonJS modules returned by require(), making most existing code testable
Short Feedback Loop: DOM APIs are mocked and tests run in parallel via a small node.js command line utility

"Free for public repositories" is the top reason why over 44 developers like Coveralls, while over 24 developers mention "Open source" as the leading cause for choosing Jest.

Jest is an open source tool with 26.4K GitHub stars and 3.57K GitHub forks. Here's a link to Jest's open source repository on GitHub.