3 ms·
The thing that strikes me as weird about Cypress is that, while the DX is quite nice, their core claim of being an end-to-end testing experience is, for the mos
by taion 6y ago
The thing that strikes me as weird about Cypress is that, while the DX is quite nice, their core claim of being an end-to-end testing experience is, for the most part, not true. You can see that in how most events are simulated instead of native. As such, we're not really simulating user experience, and in fact the accuracy of testing doesn't seem to be meaningfully better than what's available in Karma.
DX is fantastic, of course, but I'd feel quite uncomfortable in committing to a commercial offering that I thought was being less than fully honest in what they were offering, just as a matter of trust.
It really is a great test runner on its own merits, though.
- bluntfang 6y agoTotally agree with this! cypress seems like a good unit/integration testing tool.
- MetaWhirledPeas 6y agoI'm not sure I agree with your first sentence. Simulated or not, the tests are accurate enough that you're going to be identifying real-world user experience failures the vast majority of the time. It won't be perfect, but then again neither is Selenium despite the difference in approach.