5 ms·

Zombie.js -- headless full-stack testing using node.js

110 points by johnm 16y ago

wmwong 16y ago
This looks interesting. Would anyone be able to explain why I would use this over something like Capybara? Side note: This is the same guy who gave us Vanity! Thanks!
- sleight42 16y ago
  1. Capybara is Ruby-specific (but generally awesome). This appears to be a pure JS solution as far as I can tell. 2. Capybara (currently) uses envjs for headless full-stack testing. 3. JSDOM, used by Zombie.js, certainly has different characteristics that may make it better/worse under some conditions. 4. If you're thinking Ruby, I doubt that any gems currently integrate with Zombie.js. However, that is also (somewhat easily) changed. Sadly, full-stack testing in Ruby still kind of sucks. We spent a whole session at Ruby DCamp 2010 discussing the state of affairs. As much as we'd all like a robust headless solution, at the moment, the best browser simulator is still a browser. YMMV. I've had mixed results with env.js. While not as sexy, I've been using Capybara with the Selenium driver with more success lately.
  - hgimenez 16y ago
    akephalos is also worth a look, as opposed to env.js. We've had much better support for things like jquery live() using (a slightly hacked) akephalos: http://robots.thoughtbot.com/post/1658763359/thoughtbot-and-the-holy-grail http://robots.thoughtbot.com/post/1658763359/thoughtbot-and-...
Stuk 16y ago
This looks very interesting. If you're interested in testing on browsers with their heads intact, have a look at the Watir project, for which Opera has just released an implementation to complete the set: http://operawatir.com http://operawatir.com Disclaimer: I work for Opera.
- whimsy 16y ago
  http://operawatir.com/ http://operawatir.com/ appears to be down.
  - ks 16y ago
    Correct URL: http://operawatir.org/ http://operawatir.org/
shadowpwner 16y ago
I'm not too good with Javascript, but this would only work on domains you own, correct?
- udp 16y ago
  It'd work on any domain you like, but you need to run it on your own system. I bet this could be used to write some very interesting Javascript-aware crawlers/scrapers.
  - shadowpwner 16y ago
    Oh wow. Couldn't this easily be abused, if someone visited my Javascript page, that automatically entered a form under their IP?
    - nlco 16y ago
      it runs on node.js (a server side software), not a browser. So no need to worry about hijacking someones ip.
endtime 16y ago
Does this support SVG? Would it work for server-side rendering of Raphael.JS drawings?
karterk 16y ago
Very interesting. At my work, we use Selenium for writing automated functional tests. I'm wondering how this will stack up against that... Is there a way to capture a screen shot when an assert fails? Often, that has been very useful in error resolution.
- sleight42 16y ago
  A "screenshot" wouldn't be easily done without a browser. ;-) However, there ought to be a way to dump the DOM as HTML that can then be viewed in a browser. If the feature doesn't exist, it couldn't be all that difficult to write.
hanibash 16y ago
Oh wow. If this lets me test the bookmarklet I'm developing without setting up a fake environment, you have made my life much easier. Will try it out real soon.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

110 points by johnm 16y ago

This looks interesting. Would anyone be able to explain why I would use this over something like Capybara? Side note: This is the same guy who gave us Vanity! Thanks!

sleight42 16y ago
1. Capybara is Ruby-specific (but generally awesome). This appears to be a pure JS solution as far as I can tell. 2. Capybara (currently) uses envjs for headless full-stack testing. 3. JSDOM, used by Zombie.js, certainly has different characteristics that may make it better/worse under some conditions. 4. If you're thinking Ruby, I doubt that any gems currently integrate with Zombie.js. However, that is also (somewhat easily) changed. Sadly, full-stack testing in Ruby still kind of sucks. We spent a whole session at Ruby DCamp 2010 discussing the state of affairs. As much as we'd all like a robust headless solution, at the moment, the best browser simulator is still a browser. YMMV. I've had mixed results with env.js. While not as sexy, I've been using Capybara with the Selenium driver with more success lately.
- hgimenez 16y ago
  akephalos is also worth a look, as opposed to env.js. We've had much better support for things like jquery live() using (a slightly hacked) akephalos: http://robots.thoughtbot.com/post/1658763359/thoughtbot-and-the-holy-grail http://robots.thoughtbot.com/post/1658763359/thoughtbot-and-...

Stuk 16y ago

This looks very interesting. If you're interested in testing on browsers with their heads intact, have a look at the Watir project, for which Opera has just released an implementation to complete the set: http://operawatir.com http://operawatir.com Disclaimer: I work for Opera.

whimsy 16y ago
http://operawatir.com/ http://operawatir.com/ appears to be down.
- ks 16y ago
  Correct URL: http://operawatir.org/ http://operawatir.org/

shadowpwner 16y ago

I'm not too good with Javascript, but this would only work on domains you own, correct?

udp 16y ago
It'd work on any domain you like, but you need to run it on your own system. I bet this could be used to write some very interesting Javascript-aware crawlers/scrapers.
- shadowpwner 16y ago
  Oh wow. Couldn't this easily be abused, if someone visited my Javascript page, that automatically entered a form under their IP?
  - nlco 16y ago
    it runs on node.js (a server side software), not a browser. So no need to worry about hijacking someones ip.

endtime 16y ago

Does this support SVG? Would it work for server-side rendering of Raphael.JS drawings?

karterk 16y ago

Very interesting. At my work, we use Selenium for writing automated functional tests. I'm wondering how this will stack up against that... Is there a way to capture a screen shot when an assert fails? Often, that has been very useful in error resolution.

sleight42 16y ago
A "screenshot" wouldn't be easily done without a browser. ;-) However, there ought to be a way to dump the DOM as HTML that can then be viewed in a browser. If the feature doesn't exist, it couldn't be all that difficult to write.

hanibash 16y ago

Oh wow. If this lets me test the bookmarklet I'm developing without setting up a fake environment, you have made my life much easier. Will try it out real soon.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]