Alternatives to react-testing-library logo

Alternatives to react-testing-library

Enzyme, Cypress, Jest, JUnit, and xUnit are the most popular alternatives and competitors to react-testing-library.
246
144
+ 1
4

What is react-testing-library and what are its top alternatives?

It is a simple and complete React DOM testing utility that encourage good testing practices. It provides light utility functions on top of react-dom and react-dom/test-utils, in a way that encourages better testing practices.
react-testing-library is a tool in the Testing Frameworks category of a tech stack.
react-testing-library is an open source tool with GitHub stars and GitHub forks. Here’s a link to react-testing-library's open source repository on GitHub

Top Alternatives to react-testing-library

  • Enzyme
    Enzyme

    Enzyme is a JavaScript Testing utility for React that makes it easier to assert, manipulate, and traverse your React Components' output. ...

  • 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. ...

  • Jest
    Jest

    Jest provides you with multiple layers on top of Jasmine.

  • JUnit
    JUnit

    JUnit is a simple framework to write repeatable tests. It is an instance of the xUnit architecture for unit testing frameworks. ...

  • xUnit
    xUnit

    It is a free, open source, community-focused unit testing tool for the .NET Framework. It is the latest technology for unit testing C#, F#, VB.NET and other .NET languages. It works with ReSharper, CodeRush, TestDriven.NET and Xamarin. ...

  • Moq
    Moq

    It is a mocking library for .NET developed from scratch to take full advantage of .NET Linq expression trees and lambda expressions, which makes it the most productive, type-safe and refactoring-friendly mocking library available. And it supports mocking interfaces as well as classes. ...

  • Mockito
    Mockito

    It is a mocking framework that tastes really good. It lets you write beautiful tests with a clean & simple API. It doesn’t give you hangover because the tests are very readable and they produce clean verification errors. ...

  • pytest
    pytest

    A framework makes it easy to write small tests, yet scales to support complex functional testing for applications and libraries. It is a mature full-featured Python testing tool. ...

react-testing-library alternatives & related posts

Enzyme logo

Enzyme

941
346
0
JavaScript Testing utilities for React, by Airbnb
941
346
+ 1
0
PROS OF ENZYME
    Be the first to leave a pro
    CONS OF ENZYME
      Be the first to leave a con

      related Enzyme posts

      Russel Werner
      Lead Engineer at StackShare · | 7 upvotes · 161.5K views

      We use Jest because when we rebooted our "front end" stack earlier last year, we need to have a testing solution (we didn't have any front-end tests before that!). Jest is fast and convenient and it has plenty of community support behind it. It let's us run our unit tests with Enzyme and snapshot tests.

      This is an area that we are constantly reviewing to see what can be improved, both in terms of developer needs, accuracy, test maintainability, and coverage.

      I'm currently exploring using React Storybook to be the record of snapshot tests and using some online services, such as Happo.io and Percy in our CI pipeline.

      See more

      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
      Cypress logo

      Cypress

      2.2K
      1.9K
      115
      When testing is easy, developers build better things faster and with confidence.
      2.2K
      1.9K
      + 1
      115
      PROS OF CYPRESS
      • 29
        Open source
      • 22
        Great documentation
      • 20
        Simple usage
      • 18
        Fast
      • 10
        Cross Browser testing
      • 9
        Easy us with CI
      • 5
        Npm install cypress only
      • 1
        Não faz café
      • 1
        Good for beginner automation engineers
      • 0
        1
      CONS OF CYPRESS
      • 21
        Cypress is weak at cross-browser testing
      • 14
        Switch tabs : Cypress can'nt support
      • 12
        No iFrame support
      • 9
        No page object support
      • 9
        No multiple domain support
      • 8
        No file upload support
      • 8
        No support for multiple tab control
      • 8
        No xPath support
      • 7
        No support for Safari
      • 7
        Cypress doesn't support native app
      • 7
        Re-run failed tests retries not supported yet
      • 7
        No support for multiple browser control
      • 5
        $20/user/thread for reports
      • 4
        Adobe
      • 4
        Using a non-standard automation protocol
      • 4
        Not freeware
      • 3
        No 'WD wire protocol' support

      related Cypress posts

      Kamil Kowalski
      Lead Architect at Fresha · | 28 upvotes · 1.8M 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
      Jest logo

      Jest

      7K
      2.9K
      170
      Painless JavaScript Unit Testing
      7K
      2.9K
      + 1
      170
      PROS OF JEST
      • 35
        Open source
      • 31
        Mock by default makes testing much simpler
      • 23
        Testing React Native Apps
      • 19
        Parallel test running
      • 15
        Fast
      • 13
        Bundled with JSDOM to enable DOM testing
      • 8
        Mock by default screws up your classes, breaking tests
      • 7
        Out of the box code coverage
      • 6
        Promise support
      • 6
        One stop shop for unit testing
      • 3
        Great documentation
      • 2
        Assert Library Included
      • 1
        Built in watch option with interactive filtering menu
      • 1
        Preset support
      • 0
        Karma
      • 0
        Can be used for BDD
      CONS OF JEST
      • 3
        Ambiguous configuration
      • 3
        Difficult
      • 3
        Documentation
      • 2
        Many bugs still not fixed months/years after reporting
      • 2
        Multiple error messages for same error
      • 2
        Difficult to run single test/describe/file
      • 2
        Ambiguous
      • 2
        Bugged
      • 1
        Slow
      • 1
        Reporter is too general
      • 1
        BeforeAll timing out makes all passing tests fail
      • 1
        Unstable
      • 1
        Bad docs
      • 1
        Still does't support .mjs files natively
      • 1
        Can't fail beforeAll to abort tests
      • 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
      CypressCypressJestJest

      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
      JUnit logo

      JUnit

      3.9K
      556
      0
      A programmer-oriented testing framework for Java
      3.9K
      556
      + 1
      0
      PROS OF JUNIT
        Be the first to leave a pro
        CONS OF JUNIT
          Be the first to leave a con

          related JUnit posts

          We are looking for a Testing Tool that can integrate with Java/ React/ Go/ Python/ Node.js. Which amongst the three tools JUnit, NUnit & Selenium would be the best for this use case?

          See more
          Joshua Dean Küpper
          CEO at Scrayos UG (haftungsbeschränkt) · | 1 upvote · 434.7K views

          We use JUnit for our Java Unit and Integration tests in Version 5. Combined with @JMockit2 and @truth (from Google) we perform all kinds of tests on our minecraft, standalone and microservice architecture.

          We prefer JUnit over TestNG because of the bigger community, better support and the generally more agile development. JUnit integrates nicely with most software, while TestNG support is a little more limited.

          See more
          xUnit logo

          xUnit

          2.7K
          104
          0
          An open source, community-focused unit testing tool
          2.7K
          104
          + 1
          0
          PROS OF XUNIT
            Be the first to leave a pro
            CONS OF XUNIT
              Be the first to leave a con

              related xUnit posts

              Moq logo

              Moq

              2.4K
              19
              0
              The most popular and friendly mocking framework for .NET
              2.4K
              19
              + 1
              0
              PROS OF MOQ
                Be the first to leave a pro
                CONS OF MOQ
                  Be the first to leave a con

                  related Moq posts

                  Mockito logo

                  Mockito

                  1.8K
                  160
                  0
                  Tasty mocking framework for unit tests in Java
                  1.8K
                  160
                  + 1
                  0
                  PROS OF MOCKITO
                    Be the first to leave a pro
                    CONS OF MOCKITO
                      Be the first to leave a con

                      related Mockito posts

                      pytest logo

                      pytest

                      1.5K
                      262
                      0
                      A full-featured Python testing tool to help you write better programs
                      1.5K
                      262
                      + 1
                      0
                      PROS OF PYTEST
                        Be the first to leave a pro
                        CONS OF PYTEST
                          Be the first to leave a con

                          related pytest posts