Jasmine vs QUnit

Overview

Jasmine

Stacks4.8K

Followers1.5K

Votes187

QUnit

Stacks914

Followers82

Votes17

Jasmine vs QUnit: What are the differences?

Introduction

This Markdown code presents the key differences between Jasmine and QUnit, two popular JavaScript testing frameworks.

Syntax: Jasmine uses a behavior-driven development (BDD) syntax, which makes tests more readable and understandable to non-technical stakeholders. On the other hand, QUnit follows a more traditional, assertion-based syntax that is familiar to developers experienced with unit testing frameworks like JUnit.
Matchers: Jasmine provides a rich set of built-in matchers, allowing for expressive and flexible expectations when writing tests. QUnit, on the other hand, has a limited set of built-in matchers but allows for custom assertion methods to be created for more complex scenarios.
Asynchronous Testing Support: Jasmine includes built-in support for asynchronous testing through the use of the done function, making it easier to handle asynchronous operations and assertions. In QUnit, asynchronous testing support is achieved by using the async module, which requires additional setup and teardown code.
Test Organization: Jasmine allows tests to be organized into suites and specs, providing a hierarchical structure for organizing test cases and increasing readability. QUnit, on the other hand, follows a flat structure where tests are defined as functions, without a built-in mechanism for hierarchical organization.
Integration: Jasmine provides built-in support for integration with popular JavaScript frameworks and libraries like AngularJS and jQuery. This allows for seamless integration with existing projects and simplifies the setup process. QUnit does not have the same level of built-in integration with other frameworks, requiring additional setup and configuration.
Test Runner: Jasmine includes its own test runner, which provides a simple and intuitive interface for running tests, viewing test results, and generating test reports. QUnit, on the other hand, does not include a built-in test runner, requiring a separate test runner or custom setup for execution.

In summary, Jasmine and QUnit have key differences in their syntax, matcher capabilities, asynchronous testing support, test organization, integration with other frameworks, and test runner availability.

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 Jasmine, QUnit

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

Jasmine	QUnit
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.	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!
Statistics
Stacks 4.8K	Stacks 914
Followers 1.5K	Followers 82
Votes 187	Votes 17
Pros & Cons
Pros 64 Can also be used for tdd 49 Open source 19 Originally from RSpec 15 Great community 14 No dependencies, not even DOM Cons 2 Unfriendly error logs	Pros 6 Simple 4 Open Source 3 Easy setup 3 Promise support 1 Excellent GUI

What are some alternatives to Jasmine, QUnit?

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.

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.

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.

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

Jasmine vs QUnit: What are the differences?

Introduction

This Markdown code presents the key differences between Jasmine and QUnit, two popular JavaScript testing frameworks.

Syntax: Jasmine uses a behavior-driven development (BDD) syntax, which makes tests more readable and understandable to non-technical stakeholders. On the other hand, QUnit follows a more traditional, assertion-based syntax that is familiar to developers experienced with unit testing frameworks like JUnit.
Matchers: Jasmine provides a rich set of built-in matchers, allowing for expressive and flexible expectations when writing tests. QUnit, on the other hand, has a limited set of built-in matchers but allows for custom assertion methods to be created for more complex scenarios.
Asynchronous Testing Support: Jasmine includes built-in support for asynchronous testing through the use of the done function, making it easier to handle asynchronous operations and assertions. In QUnit, asynchronous testing support is achieved by using the async module, which requires additional setup and teardown code.
Test Organization: Jasmine allows tests to be organized into suites and specs, providing a hierarchical structure for organizing test cases and increasing readability. QUnit, on the other hand, follows a flat structure where tests are defined as functions, without a built-in mechanism for hierarchical organization.
Integration: Jasmine provides built-in support for integration with popular JavaScript frameworks and libraries like AngularJS and jQuery. This allows for seamless integration with existing projects and simplifies the setup process. QUnit does not have the same level of built-in integration with other frameworks, requiring additional setup and configuration.
Test Runner: Jasmine includes its own test runner, which provides a simple and intuitive interface for running tests, viewing test results, and generating test reports. QUnit, on the other hand, does not include a built-in test runner, requiring a separate test runner or custom setup for execution.

Jasmine vs QUnit

Overview

Jasmine vs QUnit: What are the differences?