Mocking the DOM has its drawbacks, but also its advantages: you're typically much faster than starting a full-blown browser; it doesn't need a graphical interface to run on the CI/CD infrastructure (e.g. wayland or X if running linux).
However, that's not the only way to run jest; it supports different environments, e.g. webdriver (using selenium to run tests directly in the browser); jsdom is only the default for convenience reasons. The lack of ESM support is a definite drawback, though.
Jest is neither bad nor deceiving, just weakly documented, opinionated and somewhat overengineered. I only recently wrote a post about testing Solid.js code in jest and the slow test runs in jest made me follow up with another article on how to test it with uvu and tape.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Mocking the DOM has its drawbacks, but also its advantages: you're typically much faster than starting a full-blown browser; it doesn't need a graphical interface to run on the CI/CD infrastructure (e.g. wayland or X if running linux).
However, that's not the only way to run jest; it supports different environments, e.g. webdriver (using selenium to run tests directly in the browser); jsdom is only the default for convenience reasons. The lack of ESM support is a definite drawback, though.
Uvu is really great, but lacks a junit output. If you need that, you may want to try tape.
Jest is neither bad nor deceiving, just weakly documented, opinionated and somewhat overengineered. I only recently wrote a post about testing Solid.js code in jest and the slow test runs in jest made me follow up with another article on how to test it with uvu and tape.