August 2020 Updated to the latest Testing Library best practices and recommendations.

March 2020 Updated to React Testing Library 10 and DOM Testing Library 7.

React Testing Library is a small library to test React components, that makes applying testing best practices, we’ve learned in the first article, natural.

This is the third article in a series, where we learn how to test React components with Jest and React Testing Library.

Check out the GitHub repository with all the examples.

Getting started with Jest and React Testing Library

We’ll set up and use these tools:

Jest, a test runner;

React Testing Library, a testing utility for React;

jest-dom, Jest matchers for testing the DOM ;

; @testing-library/user-event, testing user events.

Why Jest and React Testing Library

Jest has many benefits over other test runners:

Very fast.

Interactive watch mode that only runs tests which are relevant to our changes.

Helpful failure messages.

Simple configuration, or even zero configuration.

Mocks and spies.

Coverage reports.

Rich matchers API .

React Testing Library has some benefits over Enzyme:

Much simpler API .

. Convenient queries (form label, image alt, ARIA role).

role). Async queries and utilities.

Better error messages.

Easier setup.

Libraries for other frameworks with the same queries.

Recommended by React team.

React Testing Library helps us write good tests and makes writing bad tests difficult. It allows us to find elements similar to how a user would do that: for example, find form elements and buttons by their labels.

Some of the cons could be:

If you disagree with some of the best practices in this article, Enzyme may be a better choice for you since its API isn’t opinionated.

isn’t opinionated. React Testing Library is a new tool: it’s less mature and the community is smaller than Enzyme, though Testing Library development is more active than Enzyme’s.

Setting up Jest and React Testing Library

First, install all the dependencies, including peer dependencies:

npm install --save-dev jest @testing-library/react @testing-library/jest-dom @testing-library/user-event node-fetch

jest-dom isn’t required to use React Testing Library but it makes tests more readable.

@testing-library/user-event isn’t required, too, but makes testing user interaction closer to how an actual user would interact with the app.

We’ll also need babel-jest for Babel or ts-jest for TypeScript. For projects with webpack, make sure to enable ECMAS cript modules transformation for the test environment in the Babel config.

Create a src/setupTests.js file to customize the Jest environment:

import fetch from 'node-fetch' ; global . fetch = fetch ;

Then update the package.json like this:

{ "name" : "pizza" , "version" : "1.0.0" , "dependencies" : { "react" : "16.9.0" , "react-dom" : "16.9.0" } , "devDependencies" : { "@testing-library/jest-dom" : "^5.11.2" , "@testing-library/react" : "^10.4.8" , "@testing-library/user-event" : "^12.1.0" , "jest" : "26.2.2" , "node-fetch" : "2.6.0" } , "scripts" : { "test" : "jest" , "test:watch" : "jest --watch" , "test:coverage" : "jest --coverage" } , "jest" : { "setupFilesAfterEnv" : [ "@testing-library/jest-dom/extend-expect" , "<rootDir>/src/setupTests.js" ] } }

The setupFilesAfterEnv option tells Jest to load jest-dom matchers and the location of our setup file.

Tip Two ESL int plugins eslint-plugin-testing-library and eslint-plugin-jest-dom helps to avoid common mistakes when using Testing Library. Many of their rules are fixable.

Creating our first test

The best location for a test is close to the source code. For example, if we have a component at src/components/Button.js , a test for this component could be at src/components/__tests__/Button.spec.js . Jest will find and run this file automatically.

So, let’s create out first test:

import React from 'react' ; import { render , screen } from '@testing-library/react' ; test ( 'hello world' , ( ) => { render ( < p > Hello Jest! </ p > ) ; expect ( screen . getByText ( 'Hello Jest!' ) ) . toBeInTheDocument ( ) ; } ) ;

Here we’re rendering a paragraph of text using the Testing Library’s render() method, then testing that a paragraph containing “Hello Jest!” is present on the page using Testing Library’s getByText() method and jest-dom’s toBeInTheDocument() matcher.

We’re also using the screen namespace to access queries.

Running tests

Run npm test (or npm t ) to run all tests. We should see something like this:

Run npm run test:watch to run Jest in watch mode: Jest will run only tests that are related to files changed since the last commit, and Jest will rerun these tests any time we change the code. This is how I usually run Jest. Watch mode is fast enough even on large projects, where running all tests takes many minutes.

Run npm run test:coverage to run all tests and generate coverage report in the coverage folder.

Snapshot testing

Jest snapshots work like this: we tell Jest that we want to be sure that output of this component should never change accidentally and Jest saves the component output, called a snapshot, to a file:

exports [ ` test should render a label 1 ` ] = ` <label className="isBlock"> Hello Jest! </label> ` ;

Every time someone changes the markup, Jest shows a diff and asks whether to update a snapshot, if the change isn’t accidental.

We can use snapshots to store any values: React tree, strings, numbers, object, etc.

Snapshot testing sounds like a good idea, but has several problems:

easy to commit snapshots with bugs;

failures are hard to understand;

a small change can lead to hundreds of failed snapshots;

we tend to update snapshots without thinking;

coupling with low-level modules;

test intentions are hard to understand;

they give a false sense of security.

Avoid snapshot testing except testing short output with clear intent, like class names or error messages, or when we really want to verify that the output is the same.

To keep snapshots short, prefer toMatchInlineSnapshot() over toMatchSnapshot().

For example, instead of snapshotting the whole component output:

test ( 'shows out of cheese error message' , ( ) => { const { container } = render ( < Pizza /> ) ; expect ( container . firstChild ) . toMatchSnapshot ( ) ; } ) ;

Only snapshot a part we’re interested in:

test ( 'shows out of cheese error message' , ( ) => { render ( < Pizza /> ) ; const error = screen . getByRole ( 'alert' ) . textContent ; expect ( error ) . toMatchInlineSnapshot ( ` Error: Out of cheese! ` ) ; } ) ;

Querying DOM elements for tests

Tests should resemble how users interact with the app. That means we shouldn’t rely on implementation details because the implementation can change and we’ll have to update our tests. This also increases the chance of false positives when tests are passing but the actual feature is broken.

Let’s compare different methods of querying DOM elements:

Selector Recommended Notes button Never Worst: too generic .btn.btn-large Never Bad: coupled to styles #main Never Bad: avoid IDs in general [data-testid="cookButton"] Sometimes Okay: not visible to the user, but not an implementation detail, use when better options aren’t available [alt="Chuck Norris"] , [role="banner"] Often Good: still not visible to users, but already part of the app UI [children="Cook pizza!"] Always Best: visible to the user part of the app UI

To summarise:

Text content may change and we’ll need to update our tests. This may not be a problem if our translation library only render string IDs in tests, or if we want our test to work with the actual text users see in the app.

Test IDs clutter the markup with props we only need in tests. Test IDs are also something that users of our app don’t see: if we remove a label from a button, a test with test ID will still pass.

Testing Library has methods for all good queries. There are six variants of query methods:

getBy*() returns the first matching element and throws when an element not found or more than one element found;

returns the first matching element and throws when an element not found or more than one element found; queryBy*() returns the first matching element but doesn’t throw;

returns the first matching element but doesn’t throw; findBy*() returns a promise that resolves with a matching element, or rejects when an element not found after a default timeout or more than one element found;

returns a promise that resolves with a matching element, or rejects when an element not found after a default timeout or more than one element found; getAllBy*() , queryAllBy*() , findAllBy*() : same as above but return all found elements, not just the first one.

And the queries are:

getByLabelText() finds a form element by its <label> ;

finds a form element by its ; getByPlaceholderText() finds a form element by its placeholder text;

finds a form element by its placeholder text; getByText() finds an element by its text content;

finds an element by its text content; getByAltText() finds an image by its alt text;

finds an image by its alt text; getByTitle() finds an element by its title attribute;

finds an element by its attribute; getByDisplayValue() finds a form element by its value;

finds a form element by its value; getByRole() finds an element by its ARIA role;

finds an element by its role; getByTestId() finds an element by its test ID.

Each query is available in all variants. For example, besides getByLabelText() there are also queryByLabelText() , getAllByLabelText() , queryAllByLabelText() , findByLabelText() and findAllByLabelText() .

Let’s see how to use query methods. To select this button in a test:

< button data-testid = " cookButton " > Cook pizza! </ button >

We can either query it by the test ID:

render ( < Pizza /> ) ; screen . getByTestId ( 'cookButton' ) ;

Or query it by its text content:

render ( < Pizza /> ) ; screen . getByText ( /cook pizza!/i ) ;

Note the regular expression ( /cook pizza!/i ) instead of a string literal ( 'Cook pizza!' ) to make the query more resilient to small tweaks and changes in the content.

Or, the best method, query it by its ARIA role and label:

render ( < Pizza /> ) ; screen . getByRole ( 'button' , { name : /cook pizza!/i } ) ;

Benefits of the last method are:

doesn’t clutter the markup with test IDs, that aren’t perceived by users;

doesn’t give false positives when the same text is used in non-interactive content;

makes sure that the button is an actual button element or at least have the button ARIA role.

Check the Testing Library docs for more details on which query to use and inherent roles of HTML elements.

Testing React components

Testing rendering

This kind of test can be useful when our component has several variations and we want to test that a certain prop renders the correct variation.

import React from 'react' ; import { render , screen } from '@testing-library/react' ; import Pizza from '../Pizza' ; test ( 'contains all ingredients' , ( ) => { const ingredients = [ 'bacon' , 'tomato' , 'mozzarella' , 'pineapples' ] ; render ( < Pizza ingredients = { ingredients } /> ) ; for ( const ingredient of ingredients ) { expect ( screen . getByText ( ingredient ) ) . toBeInTheDocument ( ) ; } } ) ;

Here we’re testing that our Pizza component renders all ingredients passed to a component as a prop.

Testing user interaction

To simulate user interaction, like clicking or typing, use user-event methods, and then test the output:

import React from 'react' ; import { render , screen } from '@testing-library/react' ; import userEvent from '@testing-library/user-event' ; import ExpandCollapse from '../ExpandCollapse' ; test ( 'button expands and collapses the content' , ( ) => { const children = 'Hello world' ; render ( < ExpandCollapse excerpt = " Information about dogs " > { children } </ ExpandCollapse > ) ; expect ( screen . queryByText ( children ) ) . not . toBeInTheDocument ( ) ; userEvent . click ( screen . getByRole ( 'button' , { name : /expand/i } ) ) ; expect ( screen . getByText ( children ) ) . toBeInTheDocument ( ) ; userEvent . click ( screen . getByRole ( 'button' , { name : /collapse/i } ) ) ; expect ( screen . queryByText ( children ) ) . not . toBeInTheDocument ( ) ; } ) ;

Here, we have a component that shows some text on the “Expand” button click, and hides it on the “Collapse” button click. Our test verifies this behavior.

We’re using queryByText() method instead of getByText() because the former doesn’t throw when an element isn’t found, so we can test that an element doesn’t exist.

See the next section for a more complex example of testing events.

Testing event handlers

When we unit test a single component, event handlers are often defined in the parent component, and there are no visible changes as a reaction to these events. They also define the API of a component that we want to test.

jest.fn() creates a mock function, or a spy, that allows us to check how many times it was called and with which parameters.

import React from 'react' ; import { render , screen } from '@testing-library/react' ; import userEvent from '@testing-library/user-event' ; import Login from '../Login' ; test ( 'submits username and password' , ( ) => { const username = 'me' ; const password = 'please' ; const onSubmit = jest . fn ( ) ; render ( < Login onSubmit = { onSubmit } /> ) ; userEvent . type ( screen . getByLabelText ( /username/i ) , username ) ; userEvent . type ( screen . getByLabelText ( /password/i ) , password ) ; userEvent . click ( screen . getByRole ( 'button' , { name : /log in/i } ) ) ; expect ( onSubmit ) . toHaveBeenCalledTimes ( 1 ) ; expect ( onSubmit ) . toHaveBeenCalledWith ( { username , password } ) ; } ) ;

Here, we’re using jest.fn() to define a spy for the onSubmit prop of our Login component, then we’re filling the form by typing text into input fields, then we click the submit button, and check that the onSubmit function was called only once and it has received login and password.

In comparison to Enzyme, we don’t have to call a form submit handler directly, which would be testing the implementation. user-event’s click() method will dispatch a click event on the DOM node which is captured and handled by React the same way a real click in a browser would be handled. For example, it will dispatch a form submit event when we “click” a <button type="submit"> , and won’t dispatch it when we “click” a <button type="button"> , which makes our tests more reliable.

Async tests

Asynchronous operations are the most tricky to test. Often developers give up and add random delays to their tests:

const wait = ( time = 0 ) => new Promise ( resolve => { setTimeout ( resolve , time ) ; } ) ; test ( 'something async' , async ( ) => { await wait ( 100 ) . then ( ( ) => { expect ( screen . getByText ( /done!/i ) ) . toBeInTheDocument ( ) ; } ) ; } ) ;

This approach is problematic. The delay will always be a random number. A number that is good enough on a developer’s machine at the time of writing the code. But it can be too long or too short at any other time and in any other environment. When it’s too long, our test will run longer than necessary. When it’s too short, our tests will break. This makes tests flaky.

A better approach would be polling: waiting for something, like a new text on a page, by checking it multiple times with short intervals, until it’s there. Testing Library has the waitFor() method:

import { waitFor } from '@testing-library/react' ; test ( 'something async' , async ( ) => { await waitFor ( ( ) => { expect ( onUpdate ) . toHaveBeenCalledTimes ( 1 ) ; } ) ; } ) ;

For querying elements we can use findBy*() and findAllBy*() methods that could wait for an element to appear:

test ( 'something async' , async ( ) => { expect . assertions ( 1 ) ; expect ( await screen . findByText ( /done!/i ) ) . toBeInTheDocument ( ) ; } ) ;

Now our tests wait as long as necessary but not more.

waitForElementToBeRemoved() is another useful method: it waits until an element is removed from the DOM .

expect.assertions() method is useful for writing async tests: we tell Jest how many assertions we have in the test, and if we mess up something, like forget to return a Promise from test() , this test will fail.

See the next section for more realistic examples.

Testing network requests and mocks

There are many ways to test components that send network requests:

dependency injection;

mocking a service module;

mocking a high-level network API , like fetch ;

, like ; mocking a low-level network API , that catches all ways of making network requests;

, that catches all ways of making network requests; starting a mock server and sending requests to this server instead of a real API .

I’m not mentioning sending a real network request to a real API as an option here, because it’s slow and fragile. Every network problem or change of the data, returned by the API , may break our tests. Also, we’ll need to have the right data for all test cases — hard to achieve with a real API or a database.

Let’s look at some of the methods in more detail.

Dependency injection is when we pass a dependency as a function parameter or a component prop, instead of hardcoding it inside a module. This allows us to pass another implementation in a test. Use default function parameters or default component props to define the default implementation, one that should be used in non-test code. That way we don’t have to pass the dependency every time we use a function or a component:

import React from 'react' ; const defaultFetchIngredients = ( ) => fetch ( 'https://...' ) . then ( r => r . json ( ) ) ; export default function RemotePizza ( { fetchIngredients } ) { const [ ingredients , setIngredients ] = React . useState ( [ ] ) ; const handleCook = ( ) => { fetchIngredients ( ) . then ( response => { setIngredients ( response . args . ingredients ) ; } ) ; } ; return ( < > < h3 > Pizza </ h3 > < button onClick = { handleCook } > Cook </ button > { ingredients . length > 0 && ( < ul > { ingredients . map ( ingredient => ( < li key = { ingredient } > { ingredient } </ li > ) ) } </ ul > ) } </ > ) ; } RemotePizza . defaultProps = { fetchIngredients : defaultFetchIngredients } ;

When we use our component without passing the fetchIngredients prop, it’ll use the default implementation:

< RemotePizza />

But in a test we’re passing a custom implementation, that returns mock data instead of making an actual network request:

import React from 'react' ; import { render , screen } from '@testing-library/react' ; import userEvent from '@testing-library/user-event' ; import RemotePizza from '../RemotePizza' ; const ingredients = [ 'bacon' , 'tomato' , 'mozzarella' , 'pineapples' ] ; test ( 'download ingredients from internets' , async ( ) => { expect . assertions ( 4 ) ; const fetchIngredients = ( ) => Promise . resolve ( { args : { ingredients } } ) ; render ( < RemotePizza fetchIngredients = { fetchIngredients } /> ) ; userEvent . click ( screen . getByRole ( 'button' , { name : /cook/i } ) ) ; for ( const ingredient of ingredients ) { expect ( await screen . findByText ( ingredient ) ) . toBeInTheDocument ( ) ; } } ) ;

Dependency injection is great for unit tests, when we’re rendering a component that accepts an injection directly, but for integration tests it needs too much boilerplate to pass dependencies to deeply nested components.

That’s where request mocking comes in.

Mocking is similar to dependency injection in a way that we’re also replacing a dependency implementation with our own in a test but it works on a deeper level: by modifying how either module loading or browser API s, like fetch , work.

With jest.mock() we can mock any JavaScript module. To make it work in our case, we need to extract our fetching function to its own module, often called a service module:

export const fetchIngredients = ( ) => fetch ( 'https://httpbin.org/anything?ingredients=bacon&ingredients=mozzarella&ingredients=pineapples' ) . then ( r => r . json ( ) ) ;

Then import it in a component:

- const defaultFetchIngredients = () => fetch('https://...').then(r => r.json()); + import { fetchIngredients as defaultFetchIngredients } from '../services';

And now we can mock it in our test:

import React from 'react' ; import { render , screen } from '@testing-library/react' ; import userEvent from '@testing-library/user-event' ; import RemotePizza from '../RemotePizza' ; import { fetchIngredients } from '../../services' ; jest . mock ( '../../services' ) ; afterEach ( ( ) => { fetchIngredients . mockReset ( ) ; } ) ; const ingredients = [ 'bacon' , 'tomato' , 'mozzarella' , 'pineapples' ] ; test ( 'download ingredients from internets' , async ( ) => { expect . assertions ( 4 ) ; fetchIngredients . mockResolvedValue ( { args : { ingredients } } ) ; render ( < RemotePizza /> ) ; userEvent . click ( screen . getByRole ( 'button' , { name : /cook/i } ) ) ; for ( const ingredient of ingredients ) { expect ( await screen . findByText ( ingredient ) ) . toBeInTheDocument ( ) ; } } ) ;

We’re using Jest’s mockResolvedValue method to resolve a Promise with a mock data.

Mocking the network is similar to mocking a method, but instead of importing a method and mocking it with jest.mock() , we’re matching a URL and giving a mock response. And it works on the lowest level, so network requests, sent using fetch or XMLHttpRequest , will be mocked.

We’ll use Nock to mock the network request:

import React from 'react' ; import { render , screen } from '@testing-library/react' ; import userEvent from '@testing-library/user-event' ; import nock from 'nock' ; import RemotePizza from '../RemotePizza' ; const ingredients = [ 'bacon' , 'tomato' , 'mozzarella' , 'pineapples' ] ; afterEach ( ( ) => { nock . restore ( ) ; } ) ; test ( 'download ingredients from internets' , async ( ) => { expect . assertions ( 5 ) ; const scope = nock ( 'https://httpbin.org' ) . get ( '/anything' ) . query ( true ) . reply ( 200 , { args : { ingredients } } ) ; render ( < RemotePizza /> ) ; userEvent . click ( screen . getByRole ( 'button' , { name : /cook/i } ) ) ; for ( const ingredient of ingredients ) { expect ( await screen . findByText ( ingredient ) ) . toBeInTheDocument ( ) ; } expect ( scope . isDone ( ) ) . toBe ( true ) ; } ) ;

Here we’re defining a Nock scope: a mapping of request URL s and mock responses.

query(true) means we’re matching a request with any query parameters, otherwise we can define a specific parameters, like query({quantity: 42}) .

scope.isDone() is true when all requests, defined in the scope, were made.

To summarize the difference between jest.mock() and Nock:

jest.mock() is already available with Jest and we don’t need to set up and learn anything new — it works the same way as mocking any other module.

is already available with Jest and we don’t need to set up and learn anything it works the same way as mocking any other module. Nock has a specialized API to describe network requests and responses, and debugging tools to help us when something isn’t working. It can also record real network requests, so we don’t have to hand-craft mock responses.

Debugging

To check the rendered React tree, use the debug() method:

render ( < p > Hello Jest! </ p > ) ; screen . debug ( ) ;

We can also print an specific element:

screen . debug ( getByText ( /expand/i ) ) ;

And to debug Nock, run tests like so:

DEBUG=nock.* npm test

Resources

Conclusion

We’ve learned how to set up React Testing Library and how to test different React components.

Thanks to Joe Boyle, Kent C. Dodds, Anna Gerus, Patrick Hund, Monica Lent, Morgan Packard, Alexander Plavinski, Giorgio Polvara, Juho Vepsäläinen.