Ghost Inspector Blog

It depends on your stack and app type, but I had great experience with Ghost Inspector https://ghostinspector.com/

Similar product I’ve had a great experience with is https://ghostinspector.com

A lot of phantom js talk here makes me want to recommend http://ghostinspector.com It's a phantom js (and other headless browser) web service. Using the site, you can quickly create different tests, scheduled tests, chained tests, keep screen shots, create videos of multi step tests, and have historical information of it all. Can't say enough good things about the site. Edit: also there's a great chrome extension that will record your mouse clicks and keyboard commands to make creating a test that much simpler.

Looks nice! I created a service called Ghost Inspector last spring that runs PhantomJS under the hood: https://ghostinspector.com/ It's not open source, but there's a free tier and lots of nice features built in like video recording, screenshot comparison and a GUI editor. If anyone is planning to write PhantomJS scripts directly, I strongly recommend checking out CasperJS: http://casperjs.org/ -- It gives you a really nice layer on top that makes Phantom much more wieldy.

Really nice tool, thanks! I'm more a backend developer so I might have some stupid questions: What is your competition and what are you doing better? Update: reading through this thread and a bit web search resulted in the following list: https://ghostinspector.com https://www.testim.io https://www.katalon.com https://www.cypress.io https://github.com/dequelabs/axe-core https://www.mabl.com https://preflight.com > We’re taking a new approach by loading the site-under-test inside of a VM in the cloud rather than rely on a locally installed browser extension. But how would I record and test things locally? I.e. I would need a public setup right at the beginning.

I have used https://ghostinspector.com/ which is a fremium alternative.

No, http://ghostinspector.com/

I think the fact that tests break is totally fine. You should expect them to break if your application changes. What you need however is a short feedback loop. We use a combination of unit-tests for the things that are straight-forward to unit-test (UIs aren't). But for lots of things that unit-tests can't really cover so well, or for when we have to mock the entire universe anyway, we rely on UI tests. I'm not affiliated in any way, but I can honestly say that Ghost Inspector[0] made things WAY better for us. Why: * No more wrestling with capybara. Not having to constantly switch between the browser, test runner, IDE. Most tests don't take longer than 5 minutes to create from scratch. * We run UI tests on our staging environment, and we deploy all feature branches to staging before they get merged to master. UI tests are automatically run as soon as we deploy staging. And they run in parallel. So they're quite fast. * We plug the Ghost Inspector results into slack+email, so as soon as something breaks, we know immediately. Fixing the broken test is usually very straight-forward, and our developers do it (we don't have QA). Even if we need to re-record a test, it's usually much faster than re-writing a capybara/integration test. [0] https://ghostinspector.com/

What about MDX? https://ghostinspector.com/blog/rebuilding-jekyll-website-next-js-them…

I've used Ghost Inspector before: https://ghostinspector.com/docs/comparing-screenshots/

ghostinspector: https://ghostinspector.com/docs/test-recorder/