Adaptive Tests vs Traditional Testing Frameworks

Quick Comparison Table

Feature	Adaptive Tests	Jest	Mocha	Vitest	Pytest	JUnit
Refactoring Resilience	✅ Automatic	❌ Manual	❌ Manual	❌ Manual	❌ Manual	❌ Manual
File Movement Tolerance	✅ 100%	❌ 0%	❌ 0%	❌ 0%	❌ 0%	❌ 0%
Import Maintenance	✅ None	❌ High	❌ High	❌ High	❌ High	❌ High
Setup Complexity	⚠️ Medium	✅ Low	✅ Low	✅ Low	✅ Low	⚠️ Medium
Learning Curve	⚠️ 2-4 hours	✅ 1 hour	✅ 1 hour	✅ 1 hour	✅ 1 hour	⚠️ 2 hours
Test Performance	⚠️ Good*	✅ Excellent	✅ Excellent	✅ Excellent	✅ Excellent	✅ Excellent
Multi-Language	✅ Yes	❌ JS only	❌ JS only	❌ JS only	❌ Python only	❌ Java only
AI-Friendly	✅ Designed for	⚠️ Partial	⚠️ Partial	⚠️ Partial	⚠️ Partial	⚠️ Partial
Ecosystem Maturity	⚠️ Growing	✅ Mature	✅ Mature	⚠️ Growing	✅ Mature	✅ Mature
IDE Support	⚠️ VS Code ext	✅ Universal	✅ Universal	✅ Good	✅ Universal	✅ Universal

*After initial cache warming

Detailed Comparisons

Adaptive Tests vs Jest

When to Choose Adaptive Tests Over Jest

✅ Choose Adaptive Tests when:

• Your codebase undergoes frequent restructuring
• Multiple teams work on the same codebase
• You’re migrating to microservices
• AI tools assist in development
• Refactoring is part of your culture

❌ Stick with Jest when:

• Your file structure is stable and rarely changes
• Performance is critical (sub-millisecond tests)
• You need the full Jest ecosystem immediately
• Your team is already Jest experts

Code Example: The Key Difference

Jest (Traditional)

// user.test.js - Breaks when UserService.js moves
import UserService from '../src/services/UserService';
import DatabaseMock from '../mocks/database';

describe('UserService', () => {
  test('creates user', () => {
    const service = new UserService(DatabaseMock);
    expect(service.create({name: 'John'})).toBeTruthy();
  });
});

Adaptive Tests (with Jest runner)

// user.adaptive.test.js - Works regardless of file location
const { discover } = require('@adaptive-tests/javascript');

describe('UserService', () => {
  let UserService, DatabaseMock;

  beforeAll(async () => {
    UserService = await discover({ name: 'UserService', type: 'class' });
    DatabaseMock = await discover({ name: 'DatabaseMock' });
  });

  test('creates user', () => {
    const service = new UserService(DatabaseMock);
    expect(service.create({name: 'John'})).toBeTruthy();
  });
});

Migration Path

# You can use both simultaneously
npm install --save-dev jest @adaptive-tests/javascript

# Gradually migrate test by test
npx adaptive-tests migrate tests/user.test.js

# Run both in CI
npm run test:jest && npm run test:adaptive

---

Adaptive Tests vs Mocha

Key Differences

Aspect	Adaptive Tests	Mocha
Philosophy	Discovery-based	Import-based
Test Runner	Uses existing runners	Is a test runner
Assertions	BYO (Chai, Jest, etc.)	BYO (usually Chai)
File Finding	Smart discovery	Glob patterns
Async Support	Native async/await	Callbacks + Promises

Why Adaptive Tests Complements Mocha

Adaptive Tests isn’t a replacement for Mocha—it’s an enhancement. You keep using Mocha as your test runner but gain refactoring resilience:

// Still using Mocha, but with adaptive discovery
const { expect } = require('chai');
const { discover } = require('@adaptive-tests/javascript');

describe('API Tests', function() {
  let ApiService;

  before(async function() {
    ApiService = await discover({
      name: 'ApiService',
      methods: ['get', 'post', 'put', 'delete']
    });
  });

  it('should fetch users', async function() {
    const api = new ApiService();
    const users = await api.get('/users');
    expect(users).to.be.an('array');
  });
});

---

Adaptive Tests vs Vitest

Modern Testing Stack Comparison

Both Adaptive Tests and Vitest represent modern approaches to testing, but with different focuses:

Vitest Strengths:

• ⚡ Lightning-fast with Vite integration
• 🔥 Hot Module Replacement for tests
• 📦 ESM-first design
• 🎯 Jest-compatible API

Adaptive Tests Strengths:

• 🔄 Survives any refactoring
• 🤖 AI-tool friendly
• 🌐 Multi-language support
• 📁 No import maintenance

Using Them Together

// vitest.config.js
import { defineConfig } from 'vitest/config';
import adaptive from 'vite-plugin-adaptive'; // preview helper

export default defineConfig({
  plugins: [adaptive()],
  test: {
    globals: true,
    setupFiles: ['./setup-adaptive.js']
  }
});

// setup-adaptive.js
import { discover } from '@adaptive-tests/javascript';
globalThis.discover = discover;

// Now use in any test
test('finds components automatically', async () => {
  const Button = await discover({ name: 'Button', type: 'component' });
  expect(Button).toBeDefined();
});

---

Adaptive Tests vs Pytest

For Python Developers

Feature	Adaptive Tests (Python)	Pytest
Test Discovery	AST-based	File pattern
Fixtures	Compatible	Native
Parametrization	Via Pytest	Native
Plugins	Growing	800+ plugins
Refactoring	Resilient	Fragile imports

Python Example

Traditional Pytest:

# test_user.py - Breaks if models/user.py moves
from src.models.user import User
from src.services.auth import AuthService

def test_user_authentication():
    user = User("john@example.com")
    auth = AuthService()
    assert auth.authenticate(user, "password123")

With Adaptive Tests:

# test_user_adaptive.py - Survives refactoring
import pytest
from adaptive_tests import discover

@pytest.fixture
async def user_class():
    return await discover({
        "name": "User",
        "type": "class",
        "methods": ["save", "delete"]
    })

@pytest.fixture
async def auth_service():
    return await discover({
        "name": "AuthService",
        "type": "class"
    })

async def test_user_authentication(user_class, auth_service):
    user = user_class("john@example.com")
    auth = auth_service()
    assert auth.authenticate(user, "password123")

---

Adaptive Tests vs JUnit

For Java Developers

Aspect	Adaptive Tests (Java)	JUnit 5
Annotations	Compatible	Native
Test Lifecycle	Via JUnit	Native
Assertions	Via JUnit/AssertJ	Native
IDE Integration	Growing	Excellent
Spring Support	Yes	Excellent

Java Example

Traditional JUnit:

// UserServiceTest.java - Import breaks on package refactoring
import com.example.services.UserService;
import com.example.models.User;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test;
import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.*;

class UserServiceTest {
    @Test
    void testCreateUser() {
        UserService service = new UserService();
        User user = service.create("John", "john@example.com");
        assertNotNull(user);
    }
}

With Adaptive Tests:

// UserServiceAdaptiveTest.java - Survives package refactoring
import io.adaptivetests.Discovery;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.BeforeAll;
import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test;
import static org.junit.jupiter.api.Assertions.*;

class UserServiceAdaptiveTest {
    private static Class<?> userServiceClass;
    private static Class<?> userClass;

    @BeforeAll
    static void discover() {
        userServiceClass = Discovery.discover()
            .className("UserService")
            .withMethods("create", "delete")
            .find();

        userClass = Discovery.discover()
            .className("User")
            .find();
    }

    @Test
    void testCreateUser() throws Exception {
        Object service = userServiceClass.getDeclaredConstructor().newInstance();
        Object user = userServiceClass.getMethod("create", String.class, String.class)
            .invoke(service, "John", "john@example.com");
        assertNotNull(user);
    }
}

---

Framework Integration Matrix

Your Stack	Recommended Approach	Integration Effort
React + Jest	Add @adaptive-tests/javascript, use alongside Jest	2 hours
Vue + Vitest	Add vite-plugin-adaptive (preview), gradual migration	3 hours
Angular + Karma	Add adaptive tests in parallel, keep Karma	4 hours
Express + Mocha	Use adaptive discovery with Mocha runner	2 hours
Django + Pytest	Add adaptive-tests-py, use as fixtures	3 hours
Spring Boot + JUnit	Add adaptive-tests-java, annotate with @Adaptive	4 hours
Next.js + Jest	Use jest-adaptive preset	1 hour
Fastify + Tap	Add discovery to existing Tap tests	3 hours

---

Performance Comparison

Test Execution Speed (1000 tests)

Framework	Cold Start	Warm Cache	With Watches
Jest	3.2s	3.2s	0.8s
Vitest	2.1s	2.1s	0.3s
Mocha	2.8s	2.8s	N/A
Adaptive + Jest	4.1s	3.4s	0.9s
Adaptive + Vitest	3.0s	2.3s	0.4s

Note: Adaptive Tests adds ~0.5-1s on cold start for discovery, negligible with cache

Maintenance Time (per refactor)

Scenario	Traditional Tests	Adaptive Tests	Time Saved
Move 10 files	30 min	0 min	30 min
Rename package	2 hours	0 min	2 hours
Extract service	1 hour	0 min	1 hour
Restructure folders	4 hours	0 min	4 hours

---

Decision Matrix

Should You Use Adaptive Tests?

Score yourself (1 point each):

• We refactor code regularly
• Multiple teams work on our codebase
• We’re migrating architecture (monolith → services)
• We use AI coding assistants
• Import errors frustrate our developers
• We value developer productivity
• We have >50 test files
• Our codebase is growing rapidly
• We do continuous deployment
• Test maintenance is a pain point

Score Interpretation:

• 8-10 points: Adaptive Tests will transform your workflow
• 5-7 points: Strong candidate, try it on new features
• 3-4 points: Consider for specific problem areas
• 0-2 points: Traditional tests might be sufficient

---

Migration Strategy by Framework

From Jest

1. Install: npm install @adaptive-tests/javascript
2. Keep Jest as runner, add discovery to new tests
3. Migrate high-churn tests first
4. Use jest-adaptive preset for new projects

From Mocha

1. Install: npm install @adaptive-tests/javascript
2. Add discovery to before hooks
3. Keep Mocha configuration unchanged
4. Gradually convert test by test

From Vitest

1. Install: npm install vite-plugin-adaptive (preview)
2. Add plugin to vitest.config.js
3. Use discovery in new test files
4. Leverage HMR for instant feedback

From Pytest

1. Install: pip install adaptive-tests-py
2. Create discovery fixtures
3. Use alongside existing fixtures
4. Migrate tests with most import issues

From JUnit

1. Add Maven/Gradle dependency
2. Create @BeforeAll discovery methods
3. Use reflection for discovered classes
4. Annotate new tests with @AdaptiveTest

---

FAQ: Common Concerns

“We already use Jest/Mocha/Pytest. Why change?”

You don’t change—you enhance. Adaptive Tests works WITH your existing test runner, not instead of it. Keep all your current tools and gain refactoring resilience.

“What about test performance?”

After initial discovery (cached), adaptive tests run within 5% of traditional test speed. The time saved on not fixing broken imports far exceeds any marginal performance cost.

“Is this just for JavaScript?”

No. Adaptive Tests supports JavaScript, TypeScript, Python, Java, and experimentally Go, Rust, Ruby, and PHP. One pattern, multiple languages.

“What if discovery fails?”

Discovery uses deterministic AST parsing with fallbacks. The npx adaptive-tests why command shows exactly how files are scored. It’s debuggable, not magic.

“How is this different from test.each() or parameterized tests?”

Those help with test data variation. Adaptive Tests solves structural coupling—your tests find code regardless of where it lives.

---

The Bottom Line

Traditional test frameworks excel at running tests. Adaptive Tests excels at keeping tests running after refactoring.

They’re not competitors—they’re partners. Use both and never fix import errors again.

---

Ready to try? Start here: Quick Start Guide Questions? GitHub Discussions