Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Jasmine vs Jest vs Mocha: What are the differences?
Introduction
Jasmine, Jest, and Mocha are popular JavaScript testing frameworks used for testing JavaScript code. While they have similarities, there are key differences between them in terms of features and functionality.
Testing Framework Design and Syntax: Jasmine is a behavior-driven development (BDD) testing framework with a clean and descriptive syntax, making it easy to read and write tests. On the other hand, Jest is a testing framework developed by Facebook, known for its simplicity and ease of use. It focuses on providing a zero-configuration experience and comes with built-in mocking capabilities. Mocha, on the other hand, is a flexible testing framework that allows developers to choose their preferred assertion library, making it highly customizable.
Asynchronous Testing: A major difference between these frameworks lies in their approach to handling asynchronous code. Jasmine uses a callback-based approach for handling asynchronous code, which can often lead to nested and complex test code. Jest, on the other hand, provides built-in support for handling async/await and promises, making it easier to write and understand asynchronous tests. Mocha is similar to Jasmine and also relies on callback-based functions for handling asynchronous code.
Mocking and Spies: Another important difference lies in the mocking and spying capabilities of these frameworks. Jasmine provides a built-in mocking functionality, allowing developers to create test doubles or mock objects. It also provides spies that can track the calls made to a function. Jest, on the other hand, comes with powerful built-in mocking capabilities, allowing developers to easily mock functions and modules. It also provides spies, similar to Jasmine. Mocha, however, does not provide built-in mocking or spying features, but it can be easily extended using libraries like Sinon.js for this functionality.
Performance and Speed: Performance and speed can also vary among these frameworks. Jest is known for its optimized test runner that parallelizes test execution, speeding up the overall test execution time. It also utilizes a clever caching mechanism to provide faster feedback on subsequent test runs. Jasmine, on the other hand, may suffer from slower test execution times, especially in larger test suites. Mocha is generally fast and performs well, but it does not have the parallel execution capabilities provided by Jest.
Ecosystem and Community Support: The popularity and community support for a testing framework are important factors to consider. Jasmine has been around for a longer time and has a larger community, which means there is a wealth of resources and plugins available. Jest, being developed by Facebook, also has a strong community and is actively maintained. Mocha, although not backed by a specific company, has a large user base and extensive community support, making it a popular choice with a vast ecosystem of plugins and libraries.
Configuration and Setup: The ease of setup and configuration can also differ among these frameworks. Jasmine and Mocha have a simpler setup and configuration process, with Mocha relying on a simple JavaScript file for configuration. Jest, however, provides a zero-configuration experience, meaning it comes with a pre-set configuration that works out of the box. This can be helpful for developers who prefer less configuration and want to start testing quickly.
In summary, Jasmine, Jest, and Mocha have distinct differences in their design, asynchronous testing capabilities, mocking and spying features, performance, ecosystem and community support, and configuration and setup processes. These differences make each framework suitable for different use cases and developer preferences.
We were able to combine multiple tools with Jest and React Testing Library (e.g. sinon, enzyme, chai). Jest has powerful cli options and increased performance including from parallel testing processes. Migrating was reasonably straight forward as there is a code transformation script to do most of the leg work. Jest's documentation is excellent.
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.
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.
Pros of Jasmine
- Can also be used for tdd64
- Open source49
- Originally from RSpec18
- Great community15
- No dependencies, not even DOM14
- Easy to setup10
- Simple8
- Created by Pivotal-Labs3
- Works with KarmaJs2
- Jasmine is faster than selenium in angular application1
- SpyOn to fake calls1
- Async and promises are easy calls with "done"1
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
Pros of Mocha
- Open source137
- Simple102
- Promise support81
- Flexible48
- Easy to add support for Generators29
- For browser and server testing12
- Curstom assertion libraries7
- Works with Karma5
- No other better tools3
- Simple setup1
- Works with saucelabs1
- Lots of tutorials and help online1
- Default reporter is nice, clean, and itemized1
- Works with BrowserStack1
- Simple integration testing1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Jasmine
- Unfriendly error logs2
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
Cons of Mocha
- Cannot test a promisified functions without assertion3
- No assertion count in results2
- Not as many reporter options as Jest1