# Why are integration specs written in QUnit?

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/why-are-integration-specs-written-in-qunit/45638>\
**Category:** Development\
**Created:** [14 Giugno 2016, 6:56am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/why-are-integration-specs-written-in-qunit/45638 "2016-06-14T06:56:21Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 11

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rimian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/rimian/32/120658_2.png) [@rimian](https://meta.discourse.org/u/rimian)\
**Post date:** [15 Giugno 2016, 6:57am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/why-are-integration-specs-written-in-qunit/45638/11 "2016-06-15T06:57:25Z")

</div>

Another nice thing about RSpec/Capybara is that these tests are framework agnostic. As long as your application has a DOM (or in the case of ReactJS, a virtual DOM), you can write tests against it. So, theoretically, you can swap out your application architecture and your integration (or end-to-end) specs should pass.

I’ve been criticised in the past for writing RSpec/Capybara tests against AngularJS because that’s not the way the AngularJS community like to write integration tests. Same for EmberJS apps. But developers have to learn a new test framework for every different application and often these frameworks are not as mature as RSpec, Capybara, Cucumber, etc.

I understand this application already has acceptance tests in QUnit and I’m not criticising the excellent work that’s been put into this project. I just wondered what the reasoning was and possibly I did not fully comprehend how this application works.

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/why-are-integration-specs-written-in-qunit/45638)._