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

Jest

9.6K
3.9K
+ 1
175
QUnit

597
82
+ 1
17
Add tool

Jest vs QUnit: What are the differences?

Introduction

In this article, we will be discussing the key differences between Jest and QUnit. Both Jest and QUnit are popular JavaScript testing frameworks used by developers to write unit tests for their code. While they share some similarities, there are noticeable differences that set them apart from each other.

  1. Framework Design and Usage:

Jest is a testing framework developed by Facebook and is commonly used in conjunction with React applications. It provides a comprehensive set of tools and features that enable developers to write tests, mock functions, and perform snapshot testing. On the other hand, QUnit is a lightweight testing framework designed for simplicity and ease of use. It is typically used for testing non-interactive JavaScript, making it a popular choice for testing libraries and frameworks.

  1. Syntax and API:

Jest uses a more modern and expressive syntax compared to QUnit. It provides a rich set of matchers and makes use of global functions such as describe and it to structure test cases. Jest also has built-in support for asynchronous testing using promises or async/await syntax. QUnit, on the other hand, follows a more traditional syntax with assertions performed using the assert object. It does not have native support for asynchronous testing but provides ways to handle asynchronous code using callbacks or modules like QUnit.asyncTest.

  1. Mocking and Stubs:

Jest comes with powerful mocking capabilities out of the box. It provides functions like jest.mock and jest.spyOn that make it easy to create and manage mocks and stubs. Jest also has built-in support for creating mock modules and functions. QUnit, on the other hand, does not have built-in mocking capabilities. Developers using QUnit usually rely on third-party libraries like Sinon.js for mocking and stubbing.

  1. Test Coverage:

Jest includes a built-in code coverage feature that allows developers to measure the quality of their tests by determining how much of their code is covered. It generates detailed reports on code coverage and highlights areas that need more testing. QUnit, on the other hand, does not have built-in code coverage support. Developers using QUnit often rely on external tools and plugins for code coverage analysis.

  1. Integration with Ecosystem:

Jest has excellent integration with other tools commonly used in the JavaScript ecosystem. It works seamlessly with libraries like React and has built-in support for popular features like snapshot testing and code coverage. QUnit, on the other hand, is agnostic to the surrounding ecosystem and can be used with any JavaScript framework or library.

  1. Community and Documentation:

Jest has gained a significant traction in the JavaScript community and has a larger user base compared to QUnit. It benefits from extensive documentation, a large number of tutorials, and a vibrant community. QUnit, although less popular, still has a dedicated user base and provides comprehensive documentation and resources for users.

In Summary, Jest and QUnit differ in their framework design and usage, syntax and API, mocking and stubbing capabilities, support for test coverage, integration with other tools and libraries, and the size and activity of their respective communities. These differences should be taken into consideration when choosing a testing framework for a JavaScript project.

Decisions about Jest and QUnit
Ben Herbert
Lead Front End Developer at Crunch | 4 upvotes 路 45.3K views

We were able to combine multiple tools with Jest and React Testing Library (e.g. sinon, enzyme, chai). Jest has powerful cli options and increased performance including from parallel testing processes. Migrating was reasonably straight forward as there is a code transformation script to do most of the leg work. Jest's documentation is excellent.

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

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.

See more
Get Advice from developers at your company using StackShare Enterprise. Sign up for StackShare Enterprise.
Learn More
Pros of Jest
Pros of QUnit
  • 36
    Open source
  • 32
    Mock by default makes testing much simpler
  • 23
    Testing React Native Apps
  • 20
    Parallel test running
  • 16
    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
  • 7
    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
    Can be used for BDD
  • 0
    Karma
  • 6
    Simple
  • 4
    Open Source
  • 3
    Promise support
  • 3
    Easy setup
  • 1
    Excellent GUI

Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions

Cons of Jest
Cons of QUnit
  • 4
    Documentation
  • 4
    Ambiguous configuration
  • 3
    Difficult
  • 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
    BeforeAll timing out makes all passing tests fail
  • 1
    Slow
  • 1
    Reporter is too general
  • 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
    Be the first to leave a con

    Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions

    What is Jest?

    Jest provides you with multiple layers on top of Jasmine.

    What is QUnit?

    QUnit is a powerful, easy-to-use JavaScript unit testing framework. It's used by the jQuery, jQuery UI and jQuery Mobile projects and is capable of testing any generic JavaScript code, including itself!

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

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

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

    What tools integrate with Jest?
    What tools integrate with QUnit?

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

    Blog Posts

    What are some alternatives to Jest and QUnit?
    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.
    Selenium
    Selenium automates browsers. That's it! What you do with that power is entirely up to you. Primarily, it is for automating web applications for testing purposes, but is certainly not limited to just that. Boring web-based administration tasks can (and should!) also be automated as well.
    AVA
    Even though JavaScript is single-threaded, IO in Node.js can happen in parallel due to its async nature. AVA takes advantage of this and runs your tests concurrently, which is especially beneficial for IO heavy tests. In addition, test files are run in parallel as separate processes, giving you even better performance and an isolated environment for each test file.
    Enzyme
    Enzyme is a JavaScript Testing utility for React that makes it easier to assert, manipulate, and traverse your React Components' output.
    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.
    See all alternatives