jsverify VS jest

Libraries like JSVerify or Fast-Check offer essential tools to facilitate property-based testing.

I tend to use anything that offers property-testing, since tests are much shorter to write and uncover lots more hidden assumptions.

My go-to choices per language are:

- Python: Hypothesis https://hypothesis.readthedocs.io/en/latest (also compatible with PyTest)

- Scala: ScalaCheck https://scalacheck.org (also compatible with ScalaTest)

- Javascript/Typescript: JSVerify https://jsverify.github.io

- Haskell: LazySmallCheck2012 https://github.com/UoYCS-plasma/LazySmallCheck2012/blob/mast...

- When I wrote PHP (over a decade ago) there was no decent property-based test framework, so I cobbled one together https://github.com/Warbo/php-easycheck

All of the above use the same basic setup: tests can make universally-quantified statements (e.g. "for all (x: Int), foo(x) == foo(foo(x))"), then the framework checks that statement for a bunch of different inputs.

Most property-checking frameworks generate data randomly (with more or less sophistication). The Haskell ecosystem is more interesting:

- QuickCheck was one of the first property-testing frameworks, using random genrators.

- SmallCheck came later, which enumerates data instead (e.g. testing a Float might use 0, 1, -1, 2, -2, 0.5, -0.5, etc.). That's cute, but QuickCheck tends to exercise more code paths with each input.

- LazySmallCheck builds up test data on-demand, using Haskell's pervasive laziness. Tests are run with an error as input: if they pass, we're done; if they fail, we're done; if they trigger the error, they're run again with slightly more-defined inputs. For example, if the input is supposed to be a list, we try again with the two forms of list: empty and "cons" (the arguments to cons are both errors, to begin with). This exercises even more code paths for each input.

- LazySmallCheck2012 is a more versatile "update" to LazySmallCheck; in particular, it's able to generate functions.

The usage of hypothesis is very intuitive and simple, and presents the concept of property-based testing perfectly. So I also wanted to find an equivalent alternative in Node. Two of them have high star ratings on Github, JSVerify with 1.6K stars and fast-check with 2.8K stars. So I took some time to study fast-check a little bit and try to get closer to my daily work.

Systems I've used for this include https://agda.readthedocs.io/en/v2.6.0.1/getting-started/what... https://coq.inria.fr https://www.idris-lang.org and https://isabelle.in.tum.de

An easier alternative is to try disproving the statement, by executing it on thousands of examples and seeing if any fail. That gives us less confidence than a full proof, but can still be better than traditional "there exists" tests. This is called property checking or property-based testing. Systems I've used for this include https://hypothesis.works https://hackage.haskell.org/package/QuickCheck https://scalacheck.org and https://jsverify.github.io

Using create-react-app, you’ll run npm test which uses Jest internally. If you are dealing with a lot of data on the UI, or using TypeScript, use JSVerify for property tests. For end to end tests, Cypress is a great choice.

There are several testing approaches you can take to ascertain the functionality of the auth API. One way would be to automate the testing using unit tests with tools like Jest and Supertest. Alternatively, you can make use of API clients like Postman or the Thunder Client VS Code extension to test the API.

GitHub | Website

Jest

you have selected a testing framework. In my case, it's Jest with Supertest

Jest, created and maintained by Facebook, is a JavaScript testing framework with a focus on simplicity. It is often recognized for its zero-configuration setup and seamless integration, especially with React applications, making it a favored choice for developers in both small-scale projects and large enterprise applications.

Jest (https://jestjs.io/)

console.error Jest encountered an unexpected token Jest failed to parse a file. This happens e.g. when your code or its dependencies use non-standard JavaScript syntax, or when Jest is not configured to support such syntax. Out of the box Jest supports Babel, which will be used to transform your files into valid JS based on your Babel configuration. By default "node\_modules" folder is ignored by transformers. Here's what you can do: • If you are trying to use ECMAScript Modules, see https://jestjs.io/docs/ecmascript-modules for how to enable it. • If you are trying to use TypeScript, see https://jestjs.io/docs/getting-started#using-typescript • To have some of your "node\_modules" files transformed, you can specify a custom "transformIgnorePatterns" in your config. • If you need a custom transformation specify a "transform" option in your config. • If you simply want to mock your non-JS modules (e.g. binary assets) you can stub them out with the "moduleNameMapper" config option. You'll find more details and examples of these config options in the docs: https://jestjs.io/docs/configuration For information about custom transformations, see: https://jestjs.io/docs/code-transformation

Note: I will be using Jest as testing framework throughout the examples.

We use Jest Framework for testing. Jest is not a dogma, and, of course, in its place can be any other test runner, such as Mocha or Ava. Let's focus on tests. I'll provide a short example because I don’t want to waste your time. You can find the full version here. It's crucial to read the comments in the code below. Let's go!

Jest has long been my favorite got to test runner when it comes to UI unit and integration testing. With tools like React Testing Library (Testing Library framework for React) you get the benefit of very easy to write and maintain tests, as well as a quick and efficient way to run our tests.