Systems | Development | Analytics | API | Testing

When using a testing tool, it is only logical to trust its results. And the more well-known the tool is, the more trust we put in it. Furthermore, how could we know it is wrong? After all, who is in a position to judge the judge? This phenomenon is particularly true in the load testing community, since the field is still something of a niche among the testing world. Finding deep-dive studies about the actual technical aspect of load testing is difficult.

Releasing high-quality products is crucial for developers and QA teams. At SmartBear, we’re always looking for ways to improve the software development lifecycle. We want to help developers and QA teams make the best use of their time before releasing products. Testing web or mobile applications ensures rich, robust functionality. With BitBar, your application works.

In Loadero we always look for ways to improve our product and make it more robust, secure, and maintainable. As we add more features to our product, the complexity of our code base increases and it makes it more difficult to add or refactor the code without introducing regressions of the functionality. Since our frontend was written in plain Javascript and React, there was no way to ensure type safety of passed data between components and functions.

Rails defaults to minitest, but much of the community has adopted RSpec—which is right for you? In this article, William Kennedy compares RSpec and Minitest in a new Rails app.