3 ms·
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!
by 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 ago1. 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 agoakephalos 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-...