Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

Karma

2.6K
602
+ 1
181
Protractor

1K
543
+ 1
33
Add tool

Karma vs Protractor: What are the differences?

Introduction:

Karma and Protractor are both popular testing frameworks in the Angular ecosystem. While they both serve the purpose of testing Angular applications, there are key differences that distinguish them from each other.

  1. Testing Scope: Karma primarily focuses on unit testing, allowing developers to test individual components and services in isolation. On the other hand, Protractor is an end-to-end testing framework designed for testing the functionality of an application from a user's perspective, by simulating real user behavior in a browser environment.

  2. Testing Environment: Karma runs tests in a real browser, providing a more accurate simulation of the application behavior. Protractor, on the other hand, runs tests in a WebDriver-based browser, allowing for automated interactions with the application.

  3. Asynchronous Testing: Protractor has built-in support for handling asynchronous operations in Angular applications, making it easier to write and execute tests that involve asynchronous code. Karma, while capable of handling asynchronous operations, may require additional setup and configuration for testing asynchronous code.

  4. Angular-specific Features: Protractor is specifically designed for testing Angular applications and provides built-in support for Angular-specific features like waiting for Angular to stabilize before performing actions. Karma, while compatible with Angular applications, may require additional plugins or configurations to test Angular-specific features seamlessly.

  5. Integration with Testing Frameworks: Karma integrates seamlessly with popular testing frameworks like Jasmine and Mocha, allowing developers to write tests using their preferred framework. Protractor also integrates with Jasmine and Mocha but is primarily designed to work with the Jasmine testing framework, which is commonly used in Angular testing.

  6. Configuration Complexity: In terms of configuration complexity, Protractor generally requires less setup and configuration compared to Karma. Protractor's configuration file is more straightforward and easier to set up for end-to-end testing, while Karma's configuration may involve more detailed settings for unit testing.

In Summary, when choosing between Karma and Protractor for testing Angular applications, consider the testing scope, environment, asynchronous testing support, Angular-specific features, integration with testing frameworks, and configuration complexity to make an informed decision based on your project's requirements.

Advice on Karma and Protractor
Yildiz Dila
testmanager/automation tester at medicalservice · | 5 upvotes · 269.7K views
Needs advice
on
CypressCypress
and
ProtractorProtractor

In the company I will be building test automation framework and my new company develops apps mainly using AngularJS/TypeScript. I was planning to build Protractor-Jasmine framework but a friend of mine told me about Cypress and heard that its users are very satisfied with it. I am trying to understand the capabilities of Cypress and as the final goal to differentiate these two tools. Can anyone advice me on this in a nutshell pls...

See more
Replies (2)
Kevin Emery
QE Systems Engineer at Discovery, Inc. · | 4 upvotes · 166.1K views
Recommends
on
CypressCypressProtractorProtractor

I've used both Protractor and Cypress extensively. Cypress is the easier and more reliable tool, whereas Protractor is the more powerful tool. Your choice of tool should depend on your specific testing needs. Here are some advantages and disadvantages of each tool:

Cypress advantages:

  • Faster

  • More reliable (tends to throw fewer intermittent false failures)

  • Easier to read code (handles promises gracefully)

Cypress disadvantages:

  • Cannot switch between browser tabs

  • Cannot switch to iFrames

  • Cannot specify clicks or keypresses explicitly as if a real user was interacting

  • Cannot move the mouse to specific co-ordinates

  • Sometimes has trouble switching between different top-level domains, so not good for testing external links

  • Cypress is a newer tool with less extensive documentation and less community support

Protractor advantages:

  • More powerful because it is Selenium-based - it can switch between tabs, it can handle external links to other domains, it can handle iFrames, simulate keypresses and clicks, and move the mouse to specific co-ordinates within the browser.

  • More extensive community support and documentation

Protractor disadvantages:

  • Slower and more brittle - in general there is a higher likelihood of cryptic and/or intermittent errors which may cause your tests to fail even though there is nothing wrong with your application

  • For highly experienced automation engineers, the fundamental "brittle" nature of Selenium can be worked around - it can be reliable but only if you really know what you are doing

  • Less graceful handling of promises - relies on async/await or .then to manage the order of execution. Therefore it is a bit harder to read the code.

  • Harder to set up, and the method of setup impacts its reliability. For example, a hub/node configuration where the selenium jar is on a different physical machine than the browser under test will cause unreliability in your tests. Not everyone knows about this type of thing, so it's common to find Selenium frameworks that are set up poorly.

It's probably better to use Cypress if

  • you're at a smaller company and have a close relationship with developers who can help write hooks or stubs in their code to assist your testing

  • you don't need to do things like switch between tabs or test links to external top-level domains

It's probably better to use Protractor if

  • You might need to switch between tabs or test external links to other domains within the scope of your framework

  • You want to use a more accurate simulation of how a real user interacts with a browser (i.e. click at this location, type these keys)

  • You're at a company where you won't have any support from developers in writing hooks or stubs to make their code more testable in a less powerful framework like Cypress

See more
Jian Wang
Web Engineer at sentaca · | 1 upvotes · 194.9K views
Recommends

Please try Handow, the e2e tool basing on Puppeteer.

Gherkin syntax compatible

Chrome/Chromium orentied, driven by Puppeteer engine

Complete JavaScript programming

Create test suites rapidly without coding (or a little bit), basing on built-in steps library

Schedule test with plans and arrange stories with sequential stages

Fast running, execute story groups in parallel by multi-workers

Built-in single page report render

Cover page view, REST API and cookies test

https://github.com/newlifewj/handow

http://demo.shm.handow.org/reports

See more
Manage your open source components, licenses, and vulnerabilities
Learn More
Pros of Karma
Pros of Protractor
  • 61
    Test Runner
  • 35
    Open source
  • 27
    Continuous Integration
  • 22
    Great for running tests
  • 18
    Test on Real Devices
  • 11
    Backed by google
  • 5
    Easy Debugging
  • 2
    Remote Control
  • 9
    Easy setup
  • 8
    Quick tests implementation
  • 6
    Flexible
  • 5
    Open source
  • 5
    Promise support

Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions

Cons of Karma
Cons of Protractor
  • 1
    Slow, because tests are run in a real browser
  • 1
    Requires the use of hacks to find tests dynamically
  • 4
    Limited

Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions

What is Karma?

Karma is not a testing framework, nor an assertion library. Karma just launches a HTTP server, and generates the test runner HTML file you probably already know from your favourite testing framework. So for testing purposes you can use pretty much anything you like.

What is 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.

Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

What companies use Karma?
What companies use Protractor?
Manage your open source components, licenses, and vulnerabilities
Learn More

Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions

What tools integrate with Karma?
What tools integrate with Protractor?

Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions

What are some alternatives to Karma and Protractor?
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.
Jest
Jest provides you with multiple layers on top of Jasmine.
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.
Git
Git is a free and open source distributed version control system designed to handle everything from small to very large projects with speed and efficiency.
GitHub
GitHub is the best place to share code with friends, co-workers, classmates, and complete strangers. Over three million people use GitHub to build amazing things together.
See all alternatives