Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Capybara vs Arquillian: What are the differences?
Capybara: Acceptance test framework for web applications. Capybara helps you test web applications by simulating how a real user would interact with your app. It is agnostic about the driver running your tests and comes with Rack::Test and Selenium support built in. WebKit is supported through an external gem; Arquillian: An Innovative Testing Platform for the JVM. It is an integration and functional testing platform that can be used for Java middleware testing. With the main goal of making integration (and functional) tests as simple to write as unit tests, it brings the tests to the runtime environment, freeing developers from managing the runtime from within the test.
Capybara and Arquillian can be primarily classified as "Testing Frameworks" tools.
Some of the features offered by Capybara are:
- No setup necessary for Rails and Rack application. Works out of the box.
- Intuitive API which mimics the language an actual user would use.
- Switch the backend your tests run against from fast headless mode to an actual browser with no changes to your tests.
On the other hand, Arquillian provides the following key features:
- Real Tests
- IDE Friendly
- Test Enrichment
Capybara is an open source tool with 8.88K GitHub stars and 1.3K GitHub forks. Here's a link to Capybara's open source repository on GitHub.
Pros of Arquillian
Pros of Capybara
- Best acceptance test framework for Ruby on Rails apps12
- Synchronous with Rack::Test2
- Fast with Rack::Test1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Arquillian
Cons of Capybara
- Hard to make reproducible tests when using with browser1