Alternatives to SuperTest logo

Alternatives to SuperTest

Chai, jsdom, Jest, axios, and Postman are the most popular alternatives and competitors to SuperTest.
432
51
+ 1
0

What is SuperTest and what are its top alternatives?

It is a super-agent driven library for testing node.js HTTP servers using a fluent API. It provides a high-level abstraction for testing HTTP, while still allowing you to drop down to the lower-level API provided by superagent.
SuperTest is a tool in the Javascript Testing Framework category of a tech stack.
SuperTest is an open source tool with 11.3K GitHub stars and 716 GitHub forks. Here’s a link to SuperTest's open source repository on GitHub

Top Alternatives to SuperTest

  • Chai

    Chai

    It is a BDD / TDD assertion library for node and the browser that can be delightfully paired with any javascript testing framework. It has several interfaces that allow the developer to choose the most comfortable. The chain-capable BDD styles provide an expressive language & readable style, while the TDD assert style provides a more classical feel. ...

  • jsdom

    jsdom

    It is a pure-JavaScript implementation of many web standards, notably the WHATWG DOM and HTML Standards, for use with Node.js. In general, the goal of the project is to emulate enough of a subset of a web browser to be useful for testing and scraping real-world web applications. ...

  • Jest

    Jest

    Jest provides you with multiple layers on top of Jasmine.

  • axios

    axios

    It is a Javascript library used to make http requests from node.js or XMLHttpRequests from the browser and it supports the Promise API that is native to JS ES6. ...

  • Postman

    Postman

    It is the only complete API development environment, used by nearly five million developers and more than 100,000 companies worldwide. ...

  • Mocha

    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. ...

  • Cypress

    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. ...

  • Jasmine

    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. ...

SuperTest alternatives & related posts

Chai logo

Chai

776
143
0
A BDD / TDD assertion library
776
143
+ 1
0
PROS OF CHAI
    Be the first to leave a pro
    CONS OF CHAI
      Be the first to leave a con

      related Chai posts

      Joshua Dean Küpper
      CEO at Scrayos UG (haftungsbeschränkt) · | 6 upvotes · 87.8K views

      For our internal team and collaboration panel we use Nuxt.js (with TypeScript that is transpiled into ES6), Webpack and npm. We enjoy the opinionated nature of Nuxt.js over vanilla Vue.js, as we would end up using all of the components Nuxt.js incorporates anyways and we can adhere to the conventions setup by the Nuxt.js project, which allows us to get better support in case we run into any dead ends. Webpack allows us to create reproducable builds and also debug our application with hot reloads, which greately increased the pace at which we are able to perform and test changes. We also incorporated a lot of testing (ESLint, Chai, Jasmine, Nightwatchjs) into our pipelines and can trigger those jobs through GitLab CI. All packages are fetched through npm, so that we can keep our git repositories slim and are notified of new updates aswell as reported security flaws.

      See more

      React LoopBack Node.js ExpressJS Elasticsearch Kibana Logstash Sequelize Mocha Chai Visual Studio Code are the combo of technologies being used by me to build BestPrice Extension with all its micro-services & Web-based fragments

      See more
      jsdom logo

      jsdom

      175
      32
      0
      A JavaScript implementation of the WHATWG DOM and HTML standards, for use with node.js
      175
      32
      + 1
      0
      PROS OF JSDOM
        Be the first to leave a pro
        CONS OF JSDOM
          Be the first to leave a con

          related jsdom posts

          Jest logo

          Jest

          3.5K
          2.4K
          162
          Painless JavaScript Unit Testing
          3.5K
          2.4K
          + 1
          162
          PROS OF JEST
          • 34
            Open source
          • 30
            Mock by default makes testing much simpler
          • 21
            Testing React Native Apps
          • 18
            Parallel test running
          • 14
            Fast
          • 13
            Bundled with JSDOM to enable DOM testing
          • 7
            Mock by default screws up your classes, breaking tests
          • 7
            Out of the box code coverage
          • 6
            One stop shop for unit testing
          • 6
            Promise support
          • 3
            Great documentation
          • 1
            Preset support
          • 1
            Built in watch option with interactive filtering menu
          • 1
            Assert Library Included
          • 0
            Can be used for BDD
          CONS OF JEST
          • 2
            Many bugs still not fixed months/years after reporting
          • 2
            Multiple error messages for same error
          • 2
            Documentation
          • 2
            Ambiguous configuration
          • 1
            Bugged
          • 1
            Unstable
          • 1
            Bad docs
          • 1
            Ambiguous
          • 1
            Still does't support .mjs files natively
          • 1
            Can't fail beforeAll to abort tests
          • 1
            Difficult to run single test/describe/file
          • 1
            Meh
          • 1
            Difficult
          • 1
            BeforeAll timing out makes all passing tests fail
          • 1
            Reporter is too general
          • 0
            Interaction with watch mode on terminal

          related Jest posts

          Robert Zuber

          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.

          See more
          Shared insights
          on
          Cypress
          Jest

          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.

          See more
          axios logo

          axios

          837
          275
          0
          Promise based HTTP client for the browser and node.js
          837
          275
          + 1
          0
          PROS OF AXIOS
            Be the first to leave a pro
            CONS OF AXIOS
              Be the first to leave a con

              related axios posts

              Postman logo

              Postman

              57.6K
              45.9K
              1.7K
              Only complete API development environment
              57.6K
              45.9K
              + 1
              1.7K
              PROS OF POSTMAN
              • 481
                Easy to use
              • 366
                Great tool
              • 274
                Makes developing rest api's easy peasy
              • 154
                Easy setup, looks good
              • 142
                The best api workflow out there
              • 53
                History feature
              • 53
                It's the best
              • 43
                Adds real value to my workflow
              • 41
                Great interface that magically predicts your needs
              • 34
                The best in class app
              • 10
                Can save and share script
              • 9
                Fully featured without looking cluttered
              • 7
                Collections
              • 6
                Global/Environment Variables
              • 6
                Shareable Collections
              • 6
                Dead simple and useful. Excellent
              • 6
                Dark theme easy on the eyes
              • 6
                Option to run scrips
              • 5
                Awesome customer support
              • 5
                Great integration with newman
              • 4
                The test script is useful
              • 3
                This has simplified my testing significantly
              • 3
                Easy as pie
              • 3
                Simple
              • 3
                Documentation
              • 3
                Makes testing API's as easy as 1,2,3
              • 3
                Saves responses
              • 2
                API-network
              • 2
                Mocking API calls with predefined response
              • 2
                I'd recommend it to everyone who works with apis
              • 1
                Pre-request Script and Test attributes are invaluable
              • 1
                Postman Runner CI Integration
              • 1
                Now supports GraphQL
              • 1
                Continuous integration using newman
              • 1
                Easy to setup, test and provides test storage
              • 1
                Graph
              • 0
                <a href="http://fixbit.com/">useful tool</a>
              • 0
                Runner
              CONS OF POSTMAN
              • 8
                Stores credentials in HTTP
              • 7
                Poor GraphQL support
              • 6
                Bloated features and UI
              • 5
                Cumbersome to switch authentication tokens
              • 2
                Expensive
              • 1
                Can't prompt for per-request variables

              related Postman posts

              Noah Zoschke
              Engineering Manager at Segment · | 30 upvotes · 2M views

              We just launched the Segment Config API (try it out for yourself here) — a set of public REST APIs that enable you to manage your Segment configuration. A public API is only as good as its #documentation. For the API reference doc we are using Postman.

              Postman is an “API development environment”. You download the desktop app, and build API requests by URL and payload. Over time you can build up a set of requests and organize them into a “Postman Collection”. You can generalize a collection with “collection variables”. This allows you to parameterize things like username, password and workspace_name so a user can fill their own values in before making an API call. This makes it possible to use Postman for one-off API tasks instead of writing code.

              Then you can add Markdown content to the entire collection, a folder of related methods, and/or every API method to explain how the APIs work. You can publish a collection and easily share it with a URL.

              This turns Postman from a personal #API utility to full-blown public interactive API documentation. The result is a great looking web page with all the API calls, docs and sample requests and responses in one place. Check out the results here.

              Postman’s powers don’t end here. You can automate Postman with “test scripts” and have it periodically run a collection scripts as “monitors”. We now have #QA around all the APIs in public docs to make sure they are always correct

              Along the way we tried other techniques for documenting APIs like ReadMe.io or Swagger UI. These required a lot of effort to customize.

              Writing and maintaining a Postman collection takes some work, but the resulting documentation site, interactivity and API testing tools are well worth it.

              See more
              Simon Reymann
              Senior Fullstack Developer at QUANTUSflow Software GmbH · | 24 upvotes · 1.8M views

              Our whole Node.js backend stack consists of the following tools:

              • Lerna as a tool for multi package and multi repository management
              • npm as package manager
              • NestJS as Node.js framework
              • TypeScript as programming language
              • ExpressJS as web server
              • Swagger UI for visualizing and interacting with the API’s resources
              • Postman as a tool for API development
              • TypeORM as object relational mapping layer
              • JSON Web Token for access token management

              The main reason we have chosen Node.js over PHP is related to the following artifacts:

              • Made for the web and widely in use: Node.js is a software platform for developing server-side network services. Well-known projects that rely on Node.js include the blogging software Ghost, the project management tool Trello and the operating system WebOS. Node.js requires the JavaScript runtime environment V8, which was specially developed by Google for the popular Chrome browser. This guarantees a very resource-saving architecture, which qualifies Node.js especially for the operation of a web server. Ryan Dahl, the developer of Node.js, released the first stable version on May 27, 2009. He developed Node.js out of dissatisfaction with the possibilities that JavaScript offered at the time. The basic functionality of Node.js has been mapped with JavaScript since the first version, which can be expanded with a large number of different modules. The current package managers (npm or Yarn) for Node.js know more than 1,000,000 of these modules.
              • Fast server-side solutions: Node.js adopts the JavaScript "event-loop" to create non-blocking I/O applications that conveniently serve simultaneous events. With the standard available asynchronous processing within JavaScript/TypeScript, highly scalable, server-side solutions can be realized. The efficient use of the CPU and the RAM is maximized and more simultaneous requests can be processed than with conventional multi-thread servers.
              • A language along the entire stack: Widely used frameworks such as React or AngularJS or Vue.js, which we prefer, are written in JavaScript/TypeScript. If Node.js is now used on the server side, you can use all the advantages of a uniform script language throughout the entire application development. The same language in the back- and frontend simplifies the maintenance of the application and also the coordination within the development team.
              • Flexibility: Node.js sets very few strict dependencies, rules and guidelines and thus grants a high degree of flexibility in application development. There are no strict conventions so that the appropriate architecture, design structures, modules and features can be freely selected for the development.
              See more
              Mocha logo

              Mocha

              3.5K
              2.5K
              425
              Simple, flexible, fun javascript test framework for node.js & the browser
              3.5K
              2.5K
              + 1
              425
              PROS OF MOCHA
              • 136
                Open source
              • 100
                Simple
              • 81
                Promise support
              • 48
                Flexible
              • 28
                Easy to add support for Generators
              • 12
                For browser and server testing
              • 7
                Curstom assertion libraries
              • 4
                Works with Karma
              • 3
                No other better tools
              • 1
                Simple integration testing
              • 1
                Default reporter is nice, clean, and itemized
              • 1
                Simple setup
              • 1
                Works with saucelabs
              • 1
                Lots of tutorials and help online
              • 1
                Works with BrowserStack
              CONS OF MOCHA
              • 3
                Cannot test a promisified functions without assertion
              • 1
                Not as many reporter options as Jest
              • 1
                No assertion count in results

              related Mocha posts

              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!

              Mocha Jest JavaScript React @jsdom Enzyme #tdd #bdd #testdrivendevelopment

              See more
              Jack Graves
              Head of Product Development at Automation Consultants · | 3 upvotes · 112.1K views

              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.

              See more
              Cypress logo

              Cypress

              1.2K
              1.3K
              88
              When testing is easy, developers build better things faster and with confidence.
              1.2K
              1.3K
              + 1
              88
              PROS OF CYPRESS
              • 22
                Open source
              • 16
                Great documentation
              • 15
                Fast
              • 14
                Simple usage
              • 9
                Cross Browser testing
              • 8
                Easy us with CI
              • 4
                Npm install cypress only
              CONS OF CYPRESS
              • 16
                Cypress is weak at cross-browser testing
              • 11
                Switch tabs : Cypress can'nt support
              • 10
                No iFrame support
              • 8
                No file upload support
              • 8
                No xPath support
              • 8
                No multiple domain support
              • 8
                No page object support
              • 7
                Re-run failed tests retries not supported yet
              • 7
                Cypress doesn't support native app
              • 7
                No support for multiple tab control
              • 6
                No support for multiple browser control
              • 6
                No support for Safari
              • 4
                $20/user/thread for reports
              • 4
                Not freeware
              • 4
                Adobe
              • 3
                No 'WD wire protocol' support
              • 3
                Using a non-standard automation protocol

              related Cypress posts

              Kamil Kowalski
              Lead Architect at Fresha · | 27 upvotes · 989.1K views

              When you think about test automation, it’s crucial to make it everyone’s responsibility (not just QA Engineers'). We started with Selenium and Java, but with our platform revolving around Ruby, Elixir and JavaScript, QA Engineers were left alone to automate tests. Cypress was the answer, as we could switch to JS and simply involve more people from day one. There's a downside too, as it meant testing on Chrome only, but that was "good enough" for us + if really needed we can always cover some specific cases in a different way.

              See more
              Robert Zuber

              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.

              See more
              Jasmine logo

              Jasmine

              1.2K
              1.2K
              182
              DOM-less simple JavaScript testing framework
              1.2K
              1.2K
              + 1
              182
              PROS OF JASMINE
              • 61
                Can also be used for tdd
              • 49
                Open source
              • 17
                Originally from RSpec
              • 15
                Great community
              • 14
                No dependencies, not even DOM
              • 10
                Easy to setup
              • 8
                Simple
              • 3
                Created by Pivotal-Labs
              • 2
                Works with KarmaJs
              • 1
                Async and promises are easy calls with "done"
              • 1
                Jasmine is faster than selenium in angular application
              • 1
                SpyOn to fake calls
              CONS OF JASMINE
              • 2
                Unfriendly error logs

              related Jasmine posts

              Joshua Dean Küpper
              CEO at Scrayos UG (haftungsbeschränkt) · | 6 upvotes · 87.8K views

              For our internal team and collaboration panel we use Nuxt.js (with TypeScript that is transpiled into ES6), Webpack and npm. We enjoy the opinionated nature of Nuxt.js over vanilla Vue.js, as we would end up using all of the components Nuxt.js incorporates anyways and we can adhere to the conventions setup by the Nuxt.js project, which allows us to get better support in case we run into any dead ends. Webpack allows us to create reproducable builds and also debug our application with hot reloads, which greately increased the pace at which we are able to perform and test changes. We also incorporated a lot of testing (ESLint, Chai, Jasmine, Nightwatchjs) into our pipelines and can trigger those jobs through GitLab CI. All packages are fetched through npm, so that we can keep our git repositories slim and are notified of new updates aswell as reported security flaws.

              See more

              Switched from Jasmine with Karma that come setup by Angular CLI to use Jest instead, since Jasmine and Karma were very finicky in my setup and had to be reconfigured frequently to run tests properly.

              Jest was also easier to integrate into my workflow with Visual Studio Code.

              See more