Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
40 lines (31 loc) · 1.39 KB

readme.md

File metadata and controls

40 lines (31 loc) · 1.39 KB
Raw

Comparison of three major javascript unit testing frameworks

qUnit

Pros:

  • Lots of support across the board, from Q&A to CI server support

Cons:

  • Lacks fluent syntax
  • Configuration is a headache, and must constantly be maintained
  • Makes including 3rd party libraries (like assertion libraries) relatively difficult
  • Asynchronous testing can be a bit of a headache
  • No baked-in headless run support

Jasmine

Pros:

  • Simple setup for node through jasmine-node
  • Headless running out of the box
  • Nice fluent syntax for assertions built-in, and does play pretty well with other assertion libraries
  • Supported by many CI servers (TeamCity, Codeship, etc.) and some that don't support natively have plugins (jenkins has a maven plugin)
  • Descriptive syntax for BDD paradigm

Cons:

  • Asynchronous testing can be a bit of a headache
  • Expects a specific suffix to all test files (*spec.js by default)

Mocha

Pros:

  • Simple setup
  • Headless running out of the box
  • Allows use of any assertion library that will throw exceptions on failure, such as Chai
  • Supported by some CI servers and plugins for others (jenkins has a maven plugin)
  • Has aliases for functions to be more BDD-oriented or TDD-oriented
  • Highly extensible
  • Asynchronous testing is a breeze

Cons:

  • Newer to the field, so support might be lacking in certain areas