Wer nutzt diese Software?

Front-End-Entwickler und QA-Ingenieure, die automatisierte Tests schreiben sind müde vom ewigen Testen und haben Kopfschmerzen. Cypress machen Tests für sie schneller, einfacher und viel zuverlässiger.

Durchschnittliche Bewertung

42 Bewertungen
  • Gesamt 4.8 / 5
  • Benutzerfreundlichkeit 4.9 / 5
  • Kundenservice 4.8 / 5
  • Funktionen 4.6 / 5
  • Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis 4.7 / 5

Produktdetails

  • Startpreis 99,00 $/Monat
  • Kostenlose Version Ja
  • Kostenlose Testversion Ja
  • Einsatz Installiert - Mac
    Installiert - Windows
  • Training Webinare
    Dokumentation
  • Kundenbetreuung Support während der Geschäftszeiten
    Online

Angaben zum Hersteller

  • Cypress.io
  • https://www.cypress.io
  • Gegründet 2015

Über Cypress

Cypress testet alles, was in einem Browser ausgeführt wird. Der Cypress-Test-Runner ist derart erstellt, dass er besonders gut modernes JavaScript-Frameworks handzuhaben vermag. Wir haben hunderte von Projekten mit den neuesten React-, Angular-, Vue-, Elm-, und weiteren Frameworks. Cypress arbeitet auch ebenso gut auf dem Server mit seinent Anwendungen. Der Cypress-Dashboard-Service ist ein optionaler Web-basierter Begleiter zu unserem Test-Runner. Es zeichnet Tests, die im System Continuous Integration laufen, sodass du Ausfälle verstehen und Ergebnisse mit deinem Team teilen kannst.

Cypress Funktionen

  • Anforderungsbasiertes Testen
  • Parametrisierte Tests
  • Sicherheit testen
  • Testskript-Bewertungen
  • Unicode-Compliance
  • Unterstützt parallele Ausführung
  • Verschieben und kopieren
  • hierarchische Ansicht

Die hilfreichsten Reviews für Cypress

This is a fantastic product for testing Javascript front ends. Quick & easy to become productive.

Bewertet am 19.11.2017
Dan S.
Product Architect
Verwendete die Software für: 1-5 Monate
Quelle des Nutzers 
5/5
Gesamt
5 / 5
Benutzerfreundlichkeit
5 / 5
Eigenschaften & Funktionalitäten
5 / 5
Kundenbetreuung
5 / 5
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis
Wahrscheinlichkeit der Weiterempfehlung:
Unwahrscheinlich Äußerst wahrscheinlich

Kommentare: Cypress.io has made writing Javascript tests a pure pleasure. It even allowed me to do testing (integration and end-to-end) on software that was written only with JQuery and mostly anonymous functions that, as a consequence of this structure, was not able to be unit tested (which Cypress can also handle). This software is more full-featured than competing Javascript testing suites, and it makes the use of Selenium purely optional (and not necessary for me).

Vorteile: Second-to-none documentation. Open source with a paid model for special services (but the open-source portion is complete). Comes bundled with JQuery, mocha, and a number of other extremely useful libraries. A key point to understand in starting with this software is that all selectors (such as cy.get() ) will keep trying until a timeout is reached. You can do either a positive selector or negate the selector (test for element to not be present in the DOM). This approach is extremely powerful. The selectors themselves, in this case, act sort of like assertions in that tests fail if the selector condition times out. Each subsequent cy.xxxx() command is only executed after the previous cy.xxxx() command completes - either the selection condition is met or it times out, so it's easy to prevent undesirable asynchronous behavior. Assertions are made using Chai, and tests are framed using Mocha syntax. I love that assertions are very English-like. Cypress.io comes with client software that spins up a browser and runs the tests. After the tests complete, you can review DOM snapshots of the test, which provides a way to play the state of the tests back over time. You can write not only unit tests, but full integration and end-to-end tests. I can't say enough good about Cypress.io. I thoroughly enjoy writing tests now, and need no other testing product for the front end.

Nachteile: I've only found one small thing - the way the cy.visit() command is set up. The command is set up like this cy.visit(baseUrl + the url). I would like to see it set up to be cy.visit(host + baseUrl + url).

Cypress is by far and away the easiest automation framework to implement and use.

Bewertet am 21.5.2018
Verifizierter Rezensent
Software Automation Engineer
Sportartikel
Verwendete die Software für: 6-12 Monate
Quelle des Nutzers 
5/5
Gesamt
5 / 5
Benutzerfreundlichkeit
5 / 5
Eigenschaften & Funktionalitäten
5 / 5
Kundenbetreuung
5 / 5
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis

Vorteile: For me, the ease of use of getting up and running with automated testing using Cypress is one of the best things about it. From the initial install to running in CI/CD, Cypress makes your life so much easier when it comes to testing. The framework is incredibly user-friendly and easy to navigate, and you do not have any scaffolding to set up to use Cypress (no web drivers, no servers, etc.). I also love the debugging capabilities available within Cypress; taking snapshots of the DOM and having the ability to go back and see the state every step of the way has proven to be incredibly helpful. I performed a test in Winter 2017 of all current testing frameworks, including Cypress, TestCafe, NightwatchJS, and a few others; Cypress came out on top then and I believe that it still does now.

Nachteile: I have experienced weird OOM (out of memory) and random crashes when using Chrome while running long e2e tests with many steps; the Team has been amazing to work with and has helped me troubleshoot, but it still occurs with certain tests. Some Product Owners/Business Stakeholders do not like that it only runs on Chrome, but I do know that the Cypress Team is developing a Firefox implementation, so that issue should be resolved soon.

A Must Have Tool

Bewertet am 3.10.2019
Verifizierter Rezensent
Ecommerce Business Analyst
Sportartikel, 501-1.000 Mitarbeiter
Verwendete die Software für: Mehr als 2 Jahre
Quelle des Nutzers 
5/5
Gesamt
3 / 5
Benutzerfreundlichkeit
5 / 5
Eigenschaften & Funktionalitäten
Kundenbetreuung
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis
Wahrscheinlichkeit der Weiterempfehlung:
Unwahrscheinlich Äußerst wahrscheinlich

Kommentare: We absolutely love Cypress. Life before using it seems like the stone age. We are consistently pumping out better code and a better experience for our users because of Cypress all while having to manually test less.

Vorteile: Cypress has reduced the amount of manual QA work and dev review and rework that we experience by an incredible amount. It is hard to imagine how we worked before using Cypress. Cypress is very easy to jump in to, but also offers incredibly deep tools to run basically any kind of test you would like to see.

Nachteile: As mentioned above, Cypress can get as complex as you want. We have spent a lot of time setting up tests, which seems like a lot of work in the moment, but the amount of time it saves us down the road more than makes up for it. Sorry, this isn't much of a con...

It's the first OSS e2e testing I'm happy to use

Bewertet am 24.1.2019
Luciano G.
Lead Developer
Informationstechnologie & -dienste, Selbstständig
Verwendete die Software für: 1-5 Monate
Quelle des Nutzers 
4/5
Gesamt
4 / 5
Benutzerfreundlichkeit
4 / 5
Eigenschaften & Funktionalitäten
5 / 5
Kundenbetreuung
5 / 5
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis
Wahrscheinlichkeit der Weiterempfehlung:
Unwahrscheinlich Äußerst wahrscheinlich

Kommentare: I started using it with a personal project. It's a validation library that aims to provide plugins for vanillaJS, vue, react, angular and svelte (at least for now, I guess). I want to see if I can write an easy lib for multiple tools, allowing reuse a lot, while changing the underlying technology. Cypress helps me write e2e tests only once, and run it for every plugin I write. This ensures cross-framework compatibility!

Vorteile: - UI/UX: I'm _extremely_ amazed how intuitive is the test runner. I can check the app's state before and after an action! It helps me to find the best query selector for cypress to access an element. And they help with that with a good documentation about recommendations, best/bad practices, and the hierarchy that cypress uses when deciding what it's the best query selector.
- Fast: Tests run fast. Really fast. At least comparing it with selenium and its forks.
- Reliable: One thing Selenium frustrated me the most was how unreliable was when running tests. Sometimes they passed, sometimes not, but then again passed. Instead, Cypress has _always_ failed/passed tests consistently.
- Friendly: tests are really simple to write. I don't have to write a lot of boilerplate of my own just to wait a page to render and then be able to check if I can click a button, for example.
- It's just JS!

Nachteile: - It doesn't support other browsers than Chrome. Although there's an issue: https://github.com/cypress-io/cypress/issues/310
- It doesn't have a `tab()` function that triggers the tab key. It seems they expect to add it in v4, though.
I really didn't use it to tests a big app, so I'm sure there are a lot of things they need to improve. Kudos for the team! Because e2e is not easy!

Great time to test

Bewertet am 28.9.2018
Duc D.
CTO
Informationstechnologie & -dienste, 13-50 Mitarbeiter
Verwendete die Software für: 6-12 Monate
Quelle des Nutzers 
5/5
Gesamt
5 / 5
Benutzerfreundlichkeit
4 / 5
Eigenschaften & Funktionalitäten
Kundenbetreuung
Preis-Leistungs-Verhältnis
Wahrscheinlichkeit der Weiterempfehlung:
Unwahrscheinlich Äußerst wahrscheinlich

Kommentare: We have been happy using Cypress as Cypress covered all of our needs (we don't need to support any browser than Chrome). It is fast, more reliable than Selenium. Troubleshooting failed test cases are great in general. Just wish they have more sophisticated feature to offer for the asking price

Vorteile: Cypress comes with an unbeatable test development experience. Out of the box, you are armed with a very helpful snapshot, time travel, debugger, hair-picking on a flaky test is not really a case using Cypress. The test execution speed and report is good, provide all needs for medium size project. Video capturing, when combined with the dashboard, is quite a killer combination, failed test cases are quite easy to be replicated.

Nachteile: 1. It is somewhat pricey, given we have to execute test on our own servers (think of the extra cost to maintain those servers).
2. Cross-browser testing is not yet there
3. Running test in parallel on multiple servers is still somewhat limited

Lies weitere Bewertungen