5 ms·
Wallaby.js – An intelligent test runner that continuously runs your tests
- woah 12y agoWill you be supporting TAP (Test Anything Protocol)?
- flipchart 12y agoNot my product - I would suggest mailing them directly
- wallabyjs 12y agoWe will at some point. Right now working on module loaders support (browserify, webpack), then will be adding more testing frameworks support. TypeScript/CoffeeScript next. Feel free to add feature requests/vote - https://github.com/wallabyjs/public/issues https://github.com/wallabyjs/public/issues
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- TheAceOfHearts 12y agoSeemed interesting until I got to the part where it won't be free, and there's no pricing or licensing information. Why isn't that on top? Once more information is available I'll probably be interested.
- flipchart 12y agoI also missed that at first, and was disappointed. Hopefully the pricing will be reasonable enough because I'm very excited about this - just waiting on VS integration
- wallabyjs 12y agoWe will most likely have a subscription model, so the tool will be very affordable to start using without any significant capital investments. We didn't put the pricing section on top because there's no pricing yet. The section is right next to the download one, so hopefully those who download - see it.
- wallabyjs 12y agoIt's free at the moment, so feel free to try it. We will announce pricing and licensing in advance, so there'll be enough time to decide whether or not to keep using the tool.
- dagw 12y agoSorry, but I've been there done that. "Here, just try it for free", they say. "What harm can it do?", they say. "Licensing costs will be basically nothing", they say. "Trust us", they say. So I try, and I like and I get used to it and then they start with "Oh you wanted to use that one really useful feature, That will be $5000 extra. Oh, you're running on Solaris, that will be $10000 extra. Oh you have more than 2 CPUs, that will be $20000 extra. Oh you want to use it Thursdays as well, that will be $30000 extra". So now I never ever try software until I've seen a complete price list.
- wallabyjs 12y agoFair enough. Wallaby.js will be less expensive than some similar commercial solutions for other languages. In any case, feel free to sign up and to receive the pricing info as soon as it's available.
- jimmcslim 12y agoSo judging by other comments on this article the price ceiling is set at $160USD :-)
- dagw 12y agoHe said " less expensive than some similar" software, not all similar software. So for any given price point all they need is someone somewhere selling something similar for more.
- Nullabillity 12y agoWell, SBT has this built in. For free.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- sspross 12y agointeresting sound choice in the video...
- wallabyjs 12y agoAlways loved to put some epic music in my demos :)
- z3t4 12y agoMakes me feel bad for not writing tests. There's very little done for code analyze in JS, I can't even find an editor that gives me function parameter hints And show me a list of functions. I have even considered making my own editor. Coding without such tools force me to write code that is easy to manage and review though.
- flipchart 12y agoBoth Visual Studio (from Microsoft) and WebStorm (from JetBrains) give you JS intellisense. Granted, JS intellesense is never going to give you as much information as a statically typed language, but Typescript helps the editor as does comment type-hinting in VS (using something along the lines of JSDoc)
- ygra 12y agoYou can annotate types within JSDoc, which can help somewhat. But granted, compared to statically typed languages it's still a clusterfuck. Currently writing documentation comment translation for a C#→Java/JS compiler and I'm injecting as much type-system metadata as I can, but IDE and editors still disagree to what extent they're actually using that.
- rtpg 12y agoUse typescript. I think it will solve a lot of your issues and also give you a basic sanity check
- quickquicker 12y ago+1 for JetBrains IDE's with JSDoc (IntelliJ here)
- jackweirdy 12y agoFacebook made flow https://github.com/facebook/flow https://github.com/facebook/flow and TypeScript has already been mentioned
- leeoniya 12y agorelated: look into http://ternjs.net/ http://ternjs.net/
- kristiandupont 12y agoI've used NCrunch when writing C# code and it makes life tremendously better. I've been longing for a JavaScript equivalent ever since, looks like it might finally be here! Hooray!!
- deitcher 12y agoTextMate or SublimeText support anywhere in the future?
- wallabyjs 12y agoIt is in our plans - http://wallabyjs.com/#plans http://wallabyjs.com/#plans
- dantiberian 12y agoNCrunch, a .NET equivalent of this start at $160 USD, I'd be expecting this to land in the same ballpark to be able to be developed sustainably.
- lancefisher 12y agoThis looks cool. I'll gladly pay for great tools so they can be built and improved. Can't wait to try it. I'd love to see Sublime Text support.
- BinaryIdiot 12y agoOkay this looks pretty interesting. I'll give it a go. Right now my primary editor is Sublime 3 (occasionally atom.io but it's kinda slow) so support for at least Sublime would be awesome. I've been meaning to try IntelliJ so maybe this will give me that excuse. Thanks for sharing!
- jkot 12y agoI have test suite which takes 3 weeks to finish. My test pretty much runs 'continuously' :-)
- richthegeek 12y agoCan I ask what is the point of having tests that take that long to run? Being notified 3 weeks after I made a change that I broke something is pretty useless to me... And what language/framework or other reason could possibly contribute to that long a test suite?
- jkot 12y agoRelease acceptance test for database engine. Terabytes of data, stress tests. I have smaller sets which runs in 10 minutes and overnight. I do not work on SQLite, but here is something similar: http://www.sqlite.org/testing.html http://www.sqlite.org/testing.html
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- prayerslayer 12y agoIf this wasn't a commercial product I'd ask why it's a separate thing instead of a PR to karma.
- wallabyjs 12y agoThese projects' focus is a bit different. Karma was built to run all of your browsers tests in as many different browsers as possible. Wallaby.js focuses on seamless integration with many code editors and on delivering instant feedback from your (both browser and node.js/io.js) tests.
- prayerslayer 12y agoThen the obvious question is: Why not have both? :) http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/538/731/0fc.gif http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/538/731/0fc...
- wallabyjs 12y agoRunning affected tests as fast as possible and running all of them in a variety of different browsers to make sure your code works everywhere - are two different tasks. Not like they are completely mutually exclusive, but it's hard to run something very fast, as you type your code, if you have to do it in multiple versions of IE/Chrome/FF and perhaps a smartphone/tablet at the same time. Easier to just use different tools at different stages - wallaby when you write code and tests, karma when you need to run them all in many browsers.
- jdlshore 12y agoSo how does Wallaby run your front-end tests, if not in a real browser? Even if it does run in a real browser, cross-browser issues are common enough in my work that my TDD loop always includes multiple browsers. I wouldn't be willing to give that up for what Wallaby offers. Part of the reason I'm interested in something like Wallaby is that running in multiple browsers is slow--but if I could run just the right subset, it would be fast enough for my needs. (And Karma still runs about 200 tests / second on my mid-2002 MacBook Pro, across 10 browsers, including IE VMs, so it's not like Karma is that slow.)
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- jfroma 12y ago> It runs your tests as you type I write a lot of tests and I've tried this a lot of times (since it can be done with any test framework plus a file watcher on any language) but it doesn't help on my workflow. The integration with the code editor looks nice as long as it has a way to "jump to the first broken test", and show all the details of the error. I remember when I used to work on c# the test runner of resharper integrated and it was great. My current workflow is, I run the tests in the console and if some test is broken, I search the name of the test across the project to inspect. Parallel test execution in javascript hasn't worked for me, most of the time I depend on some "state" call it DOM (browser), or call it a test database (node). The fact that I can assume that the runner run one test at the time makes my tests and the before/after code simpler.
- wallabyjs 12y agoWallaby.js is very different from a file watcher. File watcher would run all of your JavaScript tests and it can be very time consuming. Wallaby uses sophisticated dependency analysis and lots of other tricks to only run tests affected by your code changes, no more no less, so even in large codebases with lots of tests the feedback is delivered very fast. Yep, wallaby can jump to failing test(s), error sources, show error details inline and much more. Parallel execution in wallaby works fine with browser "state". Imagine running a half of your tests in one browser tab and another one in a second tab - that's what wallaby does but in 6 or 8 or N processes. As long as your tests set up context for themselves and don't depend on each other (and they shouldn't) - it all works.
- jdlshore 12y agoThis looks well-done. One thing that wasn't clear to me was whether Wallaby supports simultaneous cross-browser testing a la Karma. Ideally, I'd want it to just work with Karma. Wallaby folks in this thread, can you clarify this for me?
- wallabyjs 12y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9230987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9230987