Developer UX comparison of javascript testing libraries

Hi, over a year ago I made this project for personal use, with intention to share the results once it was good enough. Since this might never happen, here it is for those who want to help improve it, give me some tips or just might otherwise make something useful out of it.

https://github.com/icetbr/comparing-testing-libraries

What I'm looking for in a testing experience

• fast single test run
  • "flicker free" watch mode, that is I hit "CTRL + S" and VScode's terminal shows my test result without even blinking
• pretty print string comparison diff
  • I use almost exclusively deep equal comparison in all of my tests
• async support
• no special syntax
  • it should be easy to change between testing libraries
  • makes for a more consistent experience when reading other people code with different test frameworks
• clean stack traces
  • I only need one line of stacktrace to find my error, I don't want it to be the 5th of 10 lines
• clear terminal before run
• bail on error
  • if the change I made broke hundreds of test, I don't need to see all of them
• easy toggle serial/parallel tests
  • unit run in parallel, integration in serial

My impressions

• this is by no means a complete comparison, there is way to much to talk about each library
• all of these libraries are awesome and i could use any of them for my needs. Having the choice, I'm being very picky In order to choose one
• less maintained libraries usually have deprecated dependencies, it would be ideal to avoid them
  • this include many of the tap reporters
• popular libraries benefit from an active community, which translates to better assistance, more examples, plugins, etc
• the library performance is not as simple as it look like
  • for one off tests, some need to be run in watch mode because of the costly startup time (Jest)
  • for the whole test suite, some need to run in parallel mode to really shine
  • some are fast regardless how you use them (zora, tape)
• I couldn't find any tap reporter that I like as it is
  • the best one, tap-difflet needed to be merged with tap-dot for less verbose outputs
• big projects like Ava and Jest have some interesting features, like running only the tests affected by the changed code
  • currently I don't need these

Jest

• initial configuration: hard if not using defaults
  • needed to include testEnvironment
  • huge performance cost otherwise (~80% on cold start tests)
  • needed to include testRegex
  • didn't recognize my command line pattern
• very active development
• too many lines of useless output when in watch mode
• very user focused, readability in mind (ex: many useful assertions)
• bail doesn't work for tests in the same file (bug)
• problems identifying test files (ex: camel case userTest.js vs user.test.js)
• polluted diff result, impossible to have inline diff
• ridiculously slow cold start
• Jest doesn't always try to run test suites in parallel
  • weird errors when improper mocking
• expect doesn't accept error messages
• asymetricMatchers produce output structure different then equals

Mocha

• very active development
• my flicker free dream come true!
• questionable choices: tests don't force exit when done
• stack trace clean level: 1 (minor details)

Ava

• very active development
• no support for nested tests
• parallel by default, but can use --serial cli
• annoying messages in watch mode
• the slowest of all watchers

Lab

• somewhat active development
• best (not by much) equal diff
• makes sense to use if you're using hapi (I am)
• stack trace clean level: 2 (some internal calls)
• flicker speed: has some delay

Tape

• no support for async (use tape-promise or other)
• need a tap reporter
• special syntax (t.test)

Zora

• interesting idea, it is "just" javascript
• fast no matter how you run it
• paralel tests by default, it takes extra work to make then synchronous, bad for integration tests
• weird integrations with nodemon that makes it sometimes hang
• the tap reporters I like are old and unmaintained
  • has its own reporter, but only if using its own runner
• special syntax (t.test, await test, and others)

Benchmarks

• I started using npm scripts, but they have a overhead when first invoking them
• bash scripts give me more flexibility
• NOT using a SSD if I remember correctly

Watcher

• results based on observation using the fastest of the watchers
• 10 is instant feedback

mocha	10
zora	9
tape	8
jest	7
lab	7
ava	6

Cold start

• the time to run 10 tests from the ground up
• don't be fooled by the numbers, this is not a huge issue
  • most of the time people run tests in a batch, not like this
• checkout [zora's][https://github.com/lorenzofox3/zora] more interesting yet still not a huge issue benchmark
• if you have an interesting benchmark, please send me the link
• ava and jest have an aditional large start cost when first run
• ./perf.sh to run all

zoraSingle	0,37
zora	0,52
tape	0,70
zoraReport	1,12
tapeReport	1,26
mocha	1,72
lab	3,60
tap	5,40
ava	8,06
jest	9,52