We are moving closer to an automated era. Every company, regardless of its size, aims to use automation testing as successfully as possible throughout its release cycles. Automation testing is the execution of tests using software or tools rather than a human. It is one of the best techniques to boost Software testing’s efficiency, test coverage, and execution speed. Simply said, automation testing greatly decreases the work required to validate repeating test scenarios.
Cypress is a cutting-edge front-end testing tool designed for the contemporary web. Developers can create unit tests, integration tests, and end-to-end tests using Cypress. Contrary to other test frameworks,
It operates as a Node server process, which means that it runs in the same event loop as our application under test. Other test frameworks make remote queries to the browser’s API or a standardized API.
Pros of Cypress:
Cypress is better able to produce results that are consistent.
It records an image after each test phase. This makes it possible for the developer to examine the state and activities at each specific test script step.
It enables direct modification of the DOM elements, such as enabling the display of hidden elements.
It has access to the front and back components, allowing it to change everything entering and leaving the browser.
Cons of Cypress:
Cypress is a less popular option when it comes to cross-browser testing because it is only accessible through Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Brave, and Electron browsers.
Cypress is not compatible with remote execution.
It does not by default support multiple browser instances or control more than one browser that is open at once.
Integration with numerous testing tools and frameworks, including Mocha, Jasmine, and Cucumber, is one of WebDriverIO’s primary advantages. As a result, we can pick the testing tools that most closely match our requirements and preferences.
Pros of WebDriverIO:
Its easy-to-use and intuitive API makes it simple to create and maintain automated tests.
It contains a number of built-in commands and assertions that we can use to interact with web page elements and confirm the application’s intended behavior.
Cons of WebDriverIO:
Although it supports a wide range of web browsers, it doesn’t support all browsers. If we need to use an application on the browser that is not supported by WebDriverIO, we may need to use a different automation framework.
Dependant on browser updates: WebDriverIO depends on the WebDriver protocol to control web browsers which could be impacted by changes made to the protocol or the browser. This may cause issues with compatibility or require us to update the tests to accommodate these changes.
It tweaks the Firefox and WebKit browser engines to allow support for its APIs rather than using their default APIs which makes it easy with just one API to test WebKit, Firefox, and Chrome.
Pros of Playwright:
Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit can all be automated using a single API.
Capable of automation for single-page web applications.
Cons of Playwright:
Ruby version of the Playwright API is not yet available.
At the moment, only the most recent releases of Chromium, Firefox, and WebKit are supported. The playwright might not be the ideal choice if you need to test on earlier iterations of these browsers or on different browsers.
Complexity: Playwright is a comprehensive automation framework, that allows us to test a wide range of functionality and scenarios. This may make it more difficult to use than other automation frameworks, which might be more straightforward yet offer fewer features.
Protractor is a framework for end-to-end testing of Angular applications. It enables us to quickly test the behavior and functionality of the Angular app and is built on top of Selenium.
Pros of Protractor:
Protractor automatically synchronizes the test actions with the Angular application, so you don’t have to worry about waiting for the page to render or for items to load.
Protractor allows for the simultaneous execution of many tests, which cuts down on the time needed to complete the test suite.
We can quickly combine Protractor with continuous integration tools like Jenkins to run tests as part of the build and deployment processes.
Testing Angular apps is relatively simpler by its built-in support for Angular-specific elements such as `ng-repeat` and `ng-bind`.
Cons of Protractor:
It only supports Chrome, Firefox, and Edge at the moment, which might not be enough for testing programs that must work with a variety of browsers.
It does not presently offer a mechanism to test mobile applications, thus if we need to test the app on a mobile device, we will need to use another tool.
It uses Selenium to manage the browser, which might add complexity and maintenance burden.
Puppeteer is another Node-based automated testing library that offers an API that enables users to manipulate Chrome by altering the default DevTools protocol. It is not truly a cross-browser testing solution because it only supports Chrome and Chromium.
The Puppeteer team and Mozilla developers have collaborated to make the Firefox nightly builds compatible with Puppeteer as well. For developers who simply need to support Chrome and Chromium, Puppeteer is the preferred test automation framework.
Pros of Puppeteer:
It allows the users to mock resources, preventing concerns with speed, consistency, and reliability.
It offers a straightforward setup. Puppeteer is easy to set up; we just use npm to install it in the project and begin automating.
It offers several benefits that are Google-Chrome friendly.
It comes with active community support.
Cons of Puppeteer:
The main drawback of Puppeteer is that it only functions with Chrome.
We need to rely on other frameworks to test the application across different browsers if the project requires that it be cross-browser compatible.
Pros of Jest:
Due to the fact that it includes mocking support and an assertion library, it offers an out-of-the-box experience with minimal preparation and setup.
It provides strong development tools with less prone to errors in code.
It does not support a lot of tools or libraries, which might occasionally be hard for debugging the test cases in IDEs that do not support Jest.
For larger snapshot files, Jest snapshot testing is not as practical.
Developers can use client scripts and client functions when a more sophisticated level of interaction is required. Additionally, TestCafe automatically waits for page objects to load, reducing the work required of developers to access specific web page parts.
Pros of TestCafe:
It offers flexible community support.
Several desktop browsers, including Chrome, Edge, Safari, and Internet Explorer, are supported.
Cons of TestCafe:
All user actions cannot actually be automated because TestCafe does not manage the browser.
A Frontend Developer and Technical Writer based in India who loves to create and share knowledge on the Internet and the community.
I am a community guy who loves to connect and interact with fellow developers and enthusiasts.
Alongside, I love to listen to podcasts and read books with a keen passion to explore other fields such as Graphic design & VFX.
Testvox is a software testing company help your product reach its full potential. Get full cycle
testing for your mobile and web applications while ensuring all quality assurance standards are
met... Read More