Modern React testing, part 3: Jest and React Testing Library

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 best practices, we’ve learned in the first article, easy.

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

Getting started with Jest and React Testing Library

We’ll set up and use these tools:

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 your 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).
  • 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 you write good tests and makes writing bad test hard. It allows you to query elements similar to how a user would do that: for example, query form elements and buttons by their labels.

Some of the cons could be:

  • If you disagree with some of the best practices in this articles, Enzyme may be a better choice for you, since its API 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 alive 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 node-fetch

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

You’ll also need babel-jest for Babel or ts-jest for TypeScript. If you’re using webpack, make sure to enable ECMAScript modules transformation for the test environment in your Babel config.

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

// If you're using the fetch API
import fetch from 'node-fetch';
global.fetch = fetch;

Then update your 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": "^5.1.1",
    "@testing-library/react": "^10.0.1",
    "jest": "25.1.0",
    "node-fetch": "2.6.0"
  "scripts": {
    "test": "jest",
    "test:watch": "jest --watch",
    "test:coverage": "jest --coverage"
  "jest": {
    "setupFilesAfterEnv": [

The setupFilesAfterEnv option tells Jest to load jest-dom matchers and about our setup file, that we’ve created at the previous step.

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 } from '@testing-library/react';

test('hello world', () => {
  const { getByText } = render(<p>Hello Jest!</p>);
  expect(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!” was rendered using Testing Library’s getByText() method to find it and jest-dom’s toBeInTheDocument() matcher.

Running tests

Run npm test (or npm t) to run all tests. You’ll see something like this:

Running Jest and React Testing Library tests in the terminal

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 in large projects, where running all tests takes many minutes.

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

Snapshot testing

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

exports[`test should render a label 1`] = `
  Hello Jest!

Every time you, or someone in your team, change your markup Jest will show a diff and ask to update a snapshot if the change was intended.

You 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 unless you’re testing very short output with clear intent, like class names or error messages, or when you really want to verify that the output is the same.

If you use snapshots keep them short and prefer toMatchInlineSnapshot() over toMatchSnapshot().

For example, instead of snapshotting the whole component output:

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

Only snapshot a part you’re testing:

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

Querying DOM elements for tests

Generally, our tests should resemble how our users interact with the app. That means we should avoid relying on implementation details, because they can change and we’ll need to update our tests.

Let’s compare different methods of querying DOM elements:

Selector Recommended Notes
button, 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. We may want to set up something to remove test IDs from the markup we send to users.

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;
  • queryBy*() 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;
  • 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>;
  • getByPlaceholderText() finds a form element by its placeholder text;
  • getByText() finds an element by its text content;
  • getByAltText() finds an image by its alt text;
  • getByTitle() finds an element by its title attribute;
  • getByDisplayValue() finds a form element by its value;
  • getByRole() finds an element by its ARIA role;
  • getByTestId() finds an element by its test ID.

All queries are 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 its text content:

const { getByText } = render(<Pizza />);
getByText(/cook pizza!/i);

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

Or query it by the test ID:

const { getByTestId } = render(<Pizza />);

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

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

Benefits of this method are:

  • doesn’t clutter the markup with test IDs, that aren’t used by users;
  • doesn’t have 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 role="button".

Check the Testing Library docs for more details on which query to use.

Testing React components

Check out the GitHub repository with all the examples.

Testing rendering

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

import React from 'react';
import { render } from '@testing-library/react';
import Pizza from '../Pizza';

test('contains all ingredients', () => {
  const ingredients = ['bacon', 'tomato', 'mozzarella', 'pineapples'];
  const { getByText } = render(<Pizza ingredients={ingredients} />);

  for (const ingredient of ingredients) {

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

Testing user interaction

To simulate an event like click or change, use fireEvent.*() methods and then test the output:

import React from 'react';
import { render, fireEvent } from '@testing-library/react';
import ExpandCollapse from '../ExpandCollapse';

test('button expands and collapses the content', () => {
  const children = 'Hello world';
  const { getByRole, queryByText } = render(
    <ExpandCollapse excerpt="Information about dogs">

  expect(queryByText(children)).not.toBeInTheDocument();'button', { name: /expand/i }));

  expect(queryByText(children)).toBeInTheDocument();'button', { name: /collapse/i }));


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, fireEvent } from '@testing-library/react';
import Login from '../Login';

test('submits username and password', () => {
  const username = 'me';
  const password = 'please';
  const onSubmit = jest.fn();
  const { getByLabelText, getByRole } = render(
    <Login onSubmit={onSubmit} />

  fireEvent.change(getByLabelText(/username/i), {
    target: { value: username }

  fireEvent.change(getByLabelText(/password/i), {
    target: { value: password }
  });'button', { name: /log in/i }));


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 firing change events, then we simulate a click on 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. Testing Library’s 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 () => {
  // Run an async operation...
  await wait(100).then(() => {

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 on any other machine. When it’s too long, our test will run longer than necessary. When it’s too short, our test will break. This makes tests flaky.

A better approach would be polling: waiting for the something, like 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 () => {
  // Run an async operation...
  await waitFor(() => {

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

test('something async', async () => {
  // Run an async operation...
  expect(await findByText(/done!/i)).toBeInTheDocument();

Now our tests will 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;
  • mocking a low-level network API, 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 methos 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(URL).then(r => r.json());

export default function RemotePizza({ fetchIngredients }) {
  const [ingredients, setIngredients] = React.useState([]);

  const handleCook = () => {
    fetchIngredients().then(response => {

  return (
      <button onClick={handleCook}>Cook</button>
      {ingredients.length > 0 && (
          { => (
            <li key={ingredient}>{ingredient}</li>

RemotePizza.defaultProps = {
  fetchIngredients: defaultFetchIngredients

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

<RemotePizza />

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

import React from 'react';
import { render, fireEvent } from '@testing-library/react';
import RemotePizza from '../RemotePizza';

const ingredients = ['bacon', 'tomato', 'mozzarella', 'pineapples'];

test('download ingredients from internets', async () => {

  const fetchIngredients = () =>
      args: { ingredients }
  const { findByText, getByRole } = render(
    <RemotePizza fetchIngredients={fetchIngredients} />
  );'button', { name: /cook/i }));

  for (const ingredient of ingredients) {
    expect(await 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 your own in a test, but it works on a deeper level: by modifying how either module loading or browser APIs, like fetch, work.

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

export const fetchIngredients = () =>
  ).then(r => r.json());

Then import it in a component:

import React from 'react';
import { fetchIngredients } from '../services';

export default function RemotePizza() {
  /* Same as above */

And now we can mock it in our test:

import React from 'react';
import { render, fireEvent, wait } from '@testing-library/react';
import RemotePizza from '../RemotePizza';
import { fetchIngredients } from '../../services';


afterEach(() => {

const ingredients = ['bacon', 'tomato', 'mozzarella', 'pineapples'];

test('download ingredients from internets', async () => {

  fetchIngredients.mockResolvedValue({ args: { ingredients } });

  const { getByText } = render(<RemotePizza />);;

  await wait(() => {
    ingredients.forEach(ingredient => {

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, fireEvent } from '@testing-library/react';
import nock from 'nock';
import RemotePizza from '../RemotePizza';

const ingredients = ['bacon', 'tomato', 'mozzarella', 'pineapples'];

afterEach(() => {

test('download ingredients from internets', async () => {

  const scope = nock('')
    .reply(200, { args: { ingredients } });

  const { findByText, getByRole } = render(<RemotePizza />);'button', { name: /cook/i }));


  for (const ingredient of ingredients) {
    expect(await findByText(ingredient)).toBeInTheDocument();

Here we’re defining a Nock scope: a mapping of request URLs 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.
  • Nock has a specilized 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.


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

const { debug } = render(<p>Hello Jest!</p>);
// -> <p>Hello Jest!</p>

We can also print an specific element:



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.