Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Cypress vs Enzyme: What are the differences?
Introduction
Cypress and Enzyme are both popular testing frameworks used in JavaScript development for testing web applications. While they serve a similar purpose, there are several key differences between the two.
Execution context: One of the major differences between Cypress and Enzyme is the execution context in which the tests run. Cypress runs tests in the same context as the application being tested, allowing for direct control and manipulation of the application's elements and behavior. On the other hand, Enzyme runs tests in a separate environment, utilizing a simulated DOM, which allows for more isolated component-level testing.
Test syntax: Cypress focuses on a declarative and expressive syntax, providing a simplified way to write tests using methods like
cy.get()
for selecting DOM elements andcy.contains()
for asserting element content. Enzyme, on the other hand, utilizes a more imperative syntax, allowing for shallow rendering and manipulation of React components using methods likewrapper.find()
andwrapper.simulate()
.Debugging capabilities: Cypress provides extensive debugging capabilities, including an interactive test runner that allows developers to see the application in real-time as the tests are running. It also offers features like time-travel debugging and snapshot debugging, making it easier to diagnose and troubleshoot test failures. Enzyme, while lacking the same level of built-in debugging support, integrates well with popular development tools like React Developer Tools, making it easier to debug component-level issues.
Browser support: Cypress is primarily designed for automating modern web applications and is tightly integrated with Chromium-based browsers. It offers a consistent and reliable testing experience across different browsers. Enzyme, on the other hand, is browser-agnostic and can be used with any JavaScript testing framework. It provides a lightweight and flexible testing solution, but it may require additional setup and configuration to work with different browser environments.
Full-stack testing: Cypress is typically used for end-to-end testing, covering the entire stack from the front-end user interface to the back-end API interactions. It allows developers to simulate user interactions and assert the state of the application at different levels. Enzyme, on the other hand, is primarily focused on component testing, allowing developers to test individual React components in isolation. While Enzyme can also be used for integration testing, it may require additional tools and libraries to cover the full-stack testing scenarios.
Community support and ecosystem: Cypress has gained significant popularity and has a growing community, providing a wide range of plugins and extensions to enhance its functionality. It also offers comprehensive documentation and regular updates from the Cypress team. Enzyme, being one of the earliest testing libraries for React, has a mature ecosystem with a large number of community-contributed packages and utilities. It also has good documentation and continues to evolve based on community feedback.
In summary, Cypress and Enzyme differ in their execution context, test syntax, debugging capabilities, browser support, full-stack testing approach, and community support. Choosing the right testing framework depends on the specific requirements and preferences of the project.
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...
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
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
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.
Postman will be used to do integration testing with the backend API we create. It offers a clean interface to create many requests, and you can even organize these requests into collections. It helps to test the backend API first to make sure it's working before using it in the front-end. Jest can also be used for testing and is already embedded into React. Not only does it offer unit testing support in javascript, it can also do snapshot testing for the front-end to make sure components are rendering correctly. Enzyme is complementary to Jest and offers more functions such as shallow rendering. UnitTest will be used for Python testing as it is simple, has a lot of functionality and already built in with python. Sentry will be used for keeping track of errors as it is also easily integratable with Heroku because they offer it as an add-on. LogDNA will be used for tracking logs which are not errors and is also a Heroku add-on. Its good to have a separate service to record logs, monitor, track and even fix errors in real-time so our application can run more smoothly.
Pros of Cypress
- Open source29
- Great documentation22
- Simple usage20
- Fast18
- Cross Browser testing10
- Easy us with CI9
- Npm install cypress only5
- Good for beginner automation engineers1
Pros of Enzyme
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Cypress
- Cypress is weak at cross-browser testing21
- Switch tabs : Cypress can'nt support14
- No iFrame support12
- No page object support9
- No multiple domain support9
- No file upload support8
- No support for multiple tab control8
- No xPath support8
- No support for Safari7
- Cypress doesn't support native app7
- Re-run failed tests retries not supported yet7
- No support for multiple browser control7
- $20/user/thread for reports5
- Adobe4
- Using a non-standard automation protocol4
- Not freeware4
- No 'WD wire protocol' support3