Grunt vs Jest: What are the differences?
"Configuration " is the primary reason why developers consider Grunt over the competitors, whereas "Open source" was stated as the key factor in picking Jest.
Grunt and Jest are both open source tools. Jest with 26.1K GitHub stars and 3.53K forks on GitHub appears to be more popular than Grunt with 11.9K GitHub stars and 1.55K GitHub forks.
According to the StackShare community, Grunt has a broader approval, being mentioned in 794 company stacks & 421 developers stacks; compared to Jest, which is listed in 263 company stacks and 150 developer stacks.
What is Grunt?
What is Jest?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Sign up to add, upvote and see more prosMake informed product decisions
What are the cons of using Grunt?
What are the cons of using Jest?
Sign up to add, upvote and see more consMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
I use both mocha and Jest because:
I don't care whether teams use Jest or Mocha. But jest is way too overhyped. Most devs are writing integration tests and think that it's so much better but frankly I don't write integration tests as the way to get both design feedback and confidence when I code. I adhere to the test pyramid, not ice cream cone or the dumb "trophy"
I TDD, so I only ever use the "API" of test frameworks. I don't do a lot of integration tests for TDD and all the bells and whistles Jest provides you from the command-line I just don't need. And I certainly do not care about or touch Jest Snapshots, I despise them
My tests are fast enough because I write isolated tests with TDD, so I don't run into performance issues. Example: I write my tests in a way that I can run 300 tests in literally 1 second with mocha. So the Jest ability to pinpoint and only run those tests which are affected by code changes. I want to run all of them every time when I TDD. It's a different mindset when you TDD
I also mainly code in IntelliJ or WebStorm because I feel the tools in that IDE far surpass VSCode and I also love running the test UI runner in it vs. lousy command-line
I feel both mocha and Jest read just fine in terms of code readability. Jest might have shorter assertion syntax but I don't really care. I just care that I can read the damn test and my tests are written well and my test descriptions, as well as the code itself including constants represent business language, not technical. I care most about BDD, clean code, 4 rules of simple design, and SOLID
I don't like using mock frameworks so no I don't use Jest's Mocking framework. I don't have to mock a lot in my tests due to the nature of how I strive to code...I keep my design simple and modular using principals such as clean code and 4 rules of simple design. If I must mock, I create very simple custom mocks with JS
On the contrary to the belief that integration tests and mount are the way to go (this belief drives me absolutely crazy, especially Dodd's promoting that), I TDD with shallow & enzyme. My tests are simple. My design is driven by my tests and my tests give me quick and useful feedback. I have a course I'm working on coming out soon on TDD with React to show you how to truly test the FE and why the ice cream cone and trophy suck (you're being scammed people). Watch for that here: https://twitter.com/DaveSchinkel/status/1062267649235791873
Don't forget to upvote this post!
We use Jest because when we rebooted our "front end" stack earlier last year, we need to have a testing solution (we didn't have any front-end tests before that!). Jest is fast and convenient and it has plenty of community support behind it. It let's us run our unit tests with Enzyme and snapshot tests.
This is an area that we are constantly reviewing to see what can be improved, both in terms of developer needs, accuracy, test maintainability, and coverage.
I'm currently exploring using React Storybook to be the record of snapshot tests and using some online services, such as Happo.io and Percy in our CI pipeline.
We used to Mocha for as our primary Node.js test framework. We've now switched to Jest and haven't looked back.
Jest is faster and requires less setup and configuration. The Mocha API and eco-system is vast and verified, but that also brings complexity.
It you want to get in, write tests, execute them and get out, try Jest 😀
Using Webpack is one of the best decision ever. I have used to Grunt and gulp previously, but the experience is not the same, and despite I know there are other bundlers like Parcel, Webpack gives me the perfect balance between automatization and configuration. The ecosystem of tools and loaders is amazing, and with WebPack #merge, you can modularize your build and define standard pieces to assemble different build configurations. I don't like processes where you cannot see their guts, and you have to trust in magic a little bit too much for my taste. But also I don't want to reinvent the wheel and lose too much time configuring my build processes. And of course, I love #WebPackDevServer and hot reloading.
I really enjoy using Jest as my testing framework. I also use Enzyme to complement, and both together are amazing. Jest is fast and easy to use, It has all you need together under the same tool, and it's pretty easy to create all kind of test, even asynchronous ones. I was responsible for implant it in our company projects, and it was the best decision for testing.
We use JUnit and Jest to perform the bulk of our automated test scenarios, with additional work with Apache JMeter for performance testing - for example, the Atlassian Data Center compliance testing is performed with JMeter. Jest provides testing for the React interfaces, which make up the backend of our App offerings. JUnit is used for Unit Testing our Server-based Apps. Mocha is another tool we use.
We are in the process of adopting Next.js as our React framework and using Storybook to help build our React components in isolation. This new part of our frontend is written in TypeScript, and we use Emotion for CSS/styling. For delivering data, we use GraphQL and Apollo. Jest, Percy, and Cypress are used for testing.
Grunt is all based on configuration. Some of the configuration is well documented, and some pre-built Gruntfiles can be dropped in and work like a charm. But if you are ever in the position where you have to make any changes to your large and complicated Gruntfile, set aside a few days to work on it. The deeper you get into it, the less intuitive you will find it, and the more strange behaviors you will find from plugins with some 'automagical' undocumented configuration or behavior. If you want a build process that you can understand, and that six months from now you will still understand, you are better off using Gulp.
I'm using Jest for 3 months in a Vue JS project . I need to use a lot of custom search of related topics in jest docs because it's not clear. The examples are very poor too.
Jest is my unit-testing tool of choice.
Almost all unit testing suites (Mocha, Jasmine, etc.) are more or less the same.
The main advantage I guess, is that it integrates pretty well with React and Enzyme.
Using ES7 async/await make the whole tooling chain "problem" disappear. No more code - no grunt tasks, no problems. We don't use grunt anymore.
We use it in development for the main application and is responsible for generating the Electron binary artifacts for the client application.