2023-03-23
2143
#react
Will Soares
17965
Mar 23, 2023 â‹… 7 min read

Testing React components: react-testing-library vs. Enzyme

Will Soares I'm a front-end developer and writer based in Porto, Portugal. For more posts, check out willamesoares.com.

Recent posts:

Fix over-caching with dynamic IO caching in Next.js 15

Next.js 15 caching overhaul: Fix overcaching with Dynamic IO and the use cache directive.

David Omotayo
Aug 6, 2025 â‹… 10 min read
LLMs are facing a QA crisis here’s how we could solve it

LLMs are facing a QA crisis: Here’s how we could solve it

LLM QA isn’t just a tooling gap — it’s a fundamental shift in how we think about software reliability.

Rosario De Chiara
Aug 4, 2025 â‹… 7 min read

Windsurf vs. Cursor: When to choose the challenger

Windsurf AI brings agentic coding and terminal control right into your IDE. We compare it to Cursor, explore its features, and build a real frontend project.

Chizaram Ken
Jul 31, 2025 â‹… 9 min read

The CSS if() function: Conditional styling will never be the same

The CSS Working Group has approved the if() function for development, a feature that promises to bring true conditional styling directly to our stylesheets.

Ikeh Akinyemi
Jul 30, 2025 â‹… 12 min read
View all posts

3 Replies to "Testing React components: react-testing-library vs. Enzyme"

  1. That is just an amazing and great comparison. Very elaborate, yet concise.
    Thank you very much.
    It’s like bkack-box testing (react-testing-library) versus white-box testing (enzyme) or BDD (react-testing-library) versus unit-testing (Enzyme).
    This blog certainly made me continue in the direction of react-testing-library.

  2. Hey Jarl, thanks for the feedback!

    That’s exactly how I think about those two tools and the reason why I think people should look more into tools that test user behavior over code. In general it gives you more confidence on how users are in fact perceiving your app.

  3. Thanks for writing this up, though as a fan of Enzyme, I feel like it’s being a bit misrepresented here.

    1) In enzyme you absolutely can simulate a user click:
    `wrapper.find(SELECTOR).simulate(‘click’)`
    And from there the developer can choose how they want to assert that it was handled correctly (state value, or actual display)

    2) While it is true that RTL allows for more user-facing ways of interacting with the code, it seems to do so at the expense of allowing many other developer-only ways of interacting with the code (without polluting production).

    If I want to test that a certain sub-component ( or ) is rendered given certain business logic conditions, with RTL I have two options:
    A) Peek into the downstream HTML and confirm it’s there
    B) Apply some sort of additional label, like a data-testid

    A is faulty since it balloons the scope of tests, and B feels like a code smell of including test-only code in production files.

    Ultimately, it’s possible that I just need to give up the idea that certain things are ever testable in the clear-cut way that I’ve grown accustomed to, and embrace this more ‘hit and run’ style of testing. I just can’t shake the feeling that I’m compromising too much on the core ideology of my test code, which is to help prevent accidental regressions and instill a sense of safety when refactoring.

Leave a Reply