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

Chai

3.8K
195
+ 1
0
Jasmine

2.6K
1.5K
+ 1
186
Add tool

Chai vs Jasmine: What are the differences?

Introduction: When comparing Chai and Jasmine, two popular JavaScript testing frameworks, there are key differences that developers should be aware of to make an informed decision on which one to use for their projects.

  1. Assertion Style: Chai offers multiple assertion styles including should, expect, and assert, giving developers the flexibility to choose the style that best fits their coding preferences. On the other hand, Jasmine uses a behavior-driven development (BDD) style, where test cases are written in a more human-readable format, making it easier for non-developers to understand the test cases.

  2. Spying and Mocking: Chai requires additional plugins like Sinon.js for spying and mocking functionalities, while Jasmine has built-in support for spies and mocks. This makes Jasmine more convenient for developers who rely heavily on these features in their testing.

  3. Error Messaging: Chai provides more detailed and customizable error messages, helping developers pinpoint issues in their code more efficiently. Jasmine, however, offers less verbose error messages which can sometimes make troubleshooting more challenging.

  4. Community Support: Jasmine has a larger and more established community compared to Chai, which means developers are more likely to find resources, tutorials, and plugins for Jasmine. Chai, while popular, may have slightly fewer community resources available.

  5. Integration with Testing Frameworks: Chai can seamlessly integrate with various testing frameworks like Mocha and Jest, providing developers with more flexibility in their testing setup. Jasmine, on the other hand, is a complete testing framework by itself and may not be as easily integrated with other frameworks.

  6. Syntax Readability: Chai's syntax is more concise and expressive, making it easier for developers to write and understand test cases quickly. Jasmine's syntax, although human-readable, can sometimes be more verbose, leading to longer test case code.

In Summary, Chai and Jasmine differ in assertion styles, spying and mocking capabilities, error messaging, community support, integration with testing frameworks, and syntax readability, offering developers a range of considerations when choosing a testing framework for their JavaScript projects.

Decisions about Chai and Jasmine

We use Mocha for our FDA verification testing. It's integrated into Meteor, our upstream web application framework. We like how battle tested it is, its' syntax, its' options of reporters, and countless other features. Most everybody can agree on mocha, and that gets us half-way through our FDA verification and validation (V&V) testing strategy.

See more
Get Advice from developers at your company using StackShare Enterprise. Sign up for StackShare Enterprise.
Learn More
Pros of Chai
Pros of Jasmine
    Be the first to leave a pro
    • 64
      Can also be used for tdd
    • 49
      Open source
    • 18
      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
      Jasmine is faster than selenium in angular application
    • 1
      SpyOn to fake calls
    • 1
      Async and promises are easy calls with "done"

    Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions

    Cons of Chai
    Cons of Jasmine
      Be the first to leave a con
      • 2
        Unfriendly error logs

      Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions

      - No public GitHub repository available -

      What is 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.

      What is 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.

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

      What companies use Chai?
      What companies use Jasmine?
      See which teams inside your own company are using Chai or Jasmine.
      Sign up for StackShare EnterpriseLearn More

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

      What tools integrate with Chai?
      What tools integrate with Jasmine?

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

      What are some alternatives to Chai and 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.
      Matcha
      Matcha is a package for building iOS and Android applications and frameworks in Go. Matcha provides a UI component library similar to ReactNative and exposes bindings to Objective-C and Java code through reflection. The library also provides Go APIs for common app tasks.
      Jest
      Jest provides you with multiple layers on top of Jasmine.
      JavaScript
      JavaScript is most known as the scripting language for Web pages, but used in many non-browser environments as well such as node.js or Apache CouchDB. It is a prototype-based, multi-paradigm scripting language that is dynamic,and supports object-oriented, imperative, and functional programming styles.
      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.
      See all alternatives