# Keep Karma + Jasmine as the test stack

- Status: accepted
- Date: 2026-04-26

## Context and Problem Statement

Angular's default test setup uses Karma as the test runner (executing tests in a real Chrome browser) and Jasmine as the spec framework. Faster alternatives exist. Should the test stack be replaced?

## Considered Options

- Karma + Jasmine (Angular default)
- Jest (Node/jsdom, no real browser)
- Vitest (ESM-native, no real browser)

## Decision Outcome

Chosen option: "Karma + Jasmine", because the test suite (54 specs) is small enough that Karma's startup overhead is not a bottleneck, and migration would require replacing test utilities and adjusting Angular `TestBed` setup with no functional gain at the current scale.

### Positive Consequences

- Zero migration effort — full compatibility with Angular's `TestBed` and `ComponentFixture` APIs.
- Tests run in a real Chrome browser, catching browser-specific issues that jsdom misses.

### Negative Consequences

- Slower startup than Jest or Vitest due to Chrome launch. Acceptable at the current test suite size.

## Pros and Cons of the Options

### Karma + Jasmine

- Good, because zero migration cost from the Angular default.
- Good, because tests run in a real browser environment.
- Bad, because slower startup than headless alternatives.

### Jest

- Good, because fast — runs in Node via jsdom with no browser launch.
- Bad, because requires `jest-preset-angular`, removal of `zone.js/testing`, and test utility changes.
- Bad, because jsdom is not a real browser — some browser-specific behaviours are not caught.

### Vitest

- Good, because ESM-native, fastest option.
- Bad, because Angular `TestBed` integration requires additional configuration.
- Bad, because jsdom limitation applies here too.

## Links

- Future consideration: if the test suite grows significantly or CI performance becomes a concern, evaluate migration to Jest with `jest-preset-angular`.