Skip to content

Conversation

@gustavohenke
Copy link
Member

@gustavohenke gustavohenke commented Jul 6, 2025

I overall like vitest more, however, the main motivation to replace it is that it'll have better ESM support 🙂
The fact that it still only has experimental support for ESM is sad.

Most changes in the PR come from changing {jest -> vi}.fn().

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jul 6, 2025

Coverage Status

coverage: 99.168% (+1.6%) from 97.586%
when pulling e0a2820 on vitest
into ca2d6bb on main.

@gustavohenke
Copy link
Member Author

@paescuj I see you've been reviewing a few PRs, wanna give this one a sanity check?

- Use local imports (instead of globals) for `vi` APIs

  This is the default, it is a bit more explicit and requires less config.

- Disable watch mode and coverage reports by default for CLI

  Watch mode wasn't enabled before with Jest either and coverage is primarily for CI.
  Both can be individually enabled via command line arguments (--watch, --coverage) when required locally.
Copy link
Collaborator

@paescuj paescuj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Great work! ❤️

@paescuj paescuj merged commit 29cadb4 into main Aug 17, 2025
21 checks passed
@paescuj paescuj deleted the vitest branch August 17, 2025 15:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants