Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Jest vs QUnit: What are the differences?
Introduction
In this article, we will be discussing the key differences between Jest and QUnit. Both Jest and QUnit are popular JavaScript testing frameworks used by developers to write unit tests for their code. While they share some similarities, there are noticeable differences that set them apart from each other.
- Framework Design and Usage:
Jest is a testing framework developed by Facebook and is commonly used in conjunction with React applications. It provides a comprehensive set of tools and features that enable developers to write tests, mock functions, and perform snapshot testing. On the other hand, QUnit is a lightweight testing framework designed for simplicity and ease of use. It is typically used for testing non-interactive JavaScript, making it a popular choice for testing libraries and frameworks.
- Syntax and API:
Jest uses a more modern and expressive syntax compared to QUnit. It provides a rich set of matchers and makes use of global functions such as describe
and it
to structure test cases. Jest also has built-in support for asynchronous testing using promises or async/await syntax. QUnit, on the other hand, follows a more traditional syntax with assertions performed using the assert
object. It does not have native support for asynchronous testing but provides ways to handle asynchronous code using callbacks or modules like QUnit.asyncTest
.
- Mocking and Stubs:
Jest comes with powerful mocking capabilities out of the box. It provides functions like jest.mock
and jest.spyOn
that make it easy to create and manage mocks and stubs. Jest also has built-in support for creating mock modules and functions. QUnit, on the other hand, does not have built-in mocking capabilities. Developers using QUnit usually rely on third-party libraries like Sinon.js for mocking and stubbing.
- Test Coverage:
Jest includes a built-in code coverage feature that allows developers to measure the quality of their tests by determining how much of their code is covered. It generates detailed reports on code coverage and highlights areas that need more testing. QUnit, on the other hand, does not have built-in code coverage support. Developers using QUnit often rely on external tools and plugins for code coverage analysis.
- Integration with Ecosystem:
Jest has excellent integration with other tools commonly used in the JavaScript ecosystem. It works seamlessly with libraries like React and has built-in support for popular features like snapshot testing and code coverage. QUnit, on the other hand, is agnostic to the surrounding ecosystem and can be used with any JavaScript framework or library.
- Community and Documentation:
Jest has gained a significant traction in the JavaScript community and has a larger user base compared to QUnit. It benefits from extensive documentation, a large number of tutorials, and a vibrant community. QUnit, although less popular, still has a dedicated user base and provides comprehensive documentation and resources for users.
In Summary, Jest and QUnit differ in their framework design and usage, syntax and API, mocking and stubbing capabilities, support for test coverage, integration with other tools and libraries, and the size and activity of their respective communities. These differences should be taken into consideration when choosing a testing framework for a JavaScript project.
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.
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 QUnit
- Simple6
- Open Source4
- Promise support3
- Easy setup3
- Excellent GUI1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
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