Assertion Libraries vs Manual Testing

Developers should learn and use assertion libraries to improve test quality and reliability, especially when writing automated tests in frameworks like Jest, Mocha, or Jasmine meets developers should learn manual testing to gain a user-centric perspective on software quality, catch edge cases early in development, and perform exploratory testing where automation is impractical. Here's our take.

Assertion Libraries

Nice Pick

Developers should learn and use assertion libraries to improve test quality and reliability, especially when writing automated tests in frameworks like Jest, Mocha, or Jasmine

Pros

• They are essential for catching bugs early in development, validating API responses, and ensuring code correctness in applications ranging from web development to backend systems
• Related to: unit-testing, integration-testing

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

Manual Testing

Developers should learn manual testing to gain a user-centric perspective on software quality, catch edge cases early in development, and perform exploratory testing where automation is impractical

Pros

• It's particularly valuable for usability testing, ad-hoc bug hunting, and validating new features before investing in automation scripts, helping ensure software meets real-world expectations and reducing post-release issues
• Related to: test-planning, bug-reporting

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. Assertion Libraries is a library while Manual Testing is a methodology. We picked Assertion Libraries based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Assertion Libraries wins

Based on overall popularity. Assertion Libraries is more widely used, but Manual Testing excels in its own space.