My experience migrating from enzyme to react testing library

13 May 2022 Comments

Recently ReactJS v18 was released. I started to look into its improvements, and checked which of my projects could benefit from them.

The main react-based project I maintain at the moment of writing this article is shlink-web-client, so I naturally created a new branch and started the process.

The update was quite smooth, as most of the other dependencies I was using from the react ecosystem were already updated to support v18. All but one, enzyme, the testing framework I was using to unit-test react components.

To be precise, I was able to continue running my tests, but some of them (those using mount instead of shallow) were still rendering components with the “old” React v17 approach, causing them to behave as in that version and a warning being printed in the console.

First fix attempt

The way enzyme integrates with the react version you are using is through an adapter library. The last official one supports only React v16, but someone released an unofficial adapter for v17 which, with close to 650k weekly downloads, quickly became the way to go.

I checked if there was one for React 18, but sadly there wasn’t.

Also, the author of the adapter for v17 posted an article indicating enzyme is dead, he was not going to release one for v18, and publishing one for v17 was a mistake.

With those facts in mind, I started to face what was probably going to be the moment to migrate to react testing library.

Migration strategy

I decided to follow a migration strategy similar to the one suggested in the article above, but with a couple of modifications:

  • I update to React 18 anyway, as tests still pass.
  • Migrate right away all tests using mount, as those are the ones behaving differently.
  • New tests should be written directly with react testing library (RTL from now on).
  • When an existing test needs to be changed, consider migrating it to RTL, and do it if there’s time.
  • Introduce some PR from time to time just migrating a handful of tests.
  • Once everything is migrated, get rid of everything related with enzyme.

First contact and impressions

I was a bit sceptical with RTL, as it was focused more on integration tests, instead of unit tests, which meant I had to completely change the mindset to write tests.

It also didn’t support shallow rendering, meaning that you will end up sometimes rendering a bigger component tree when testing container-like components, potentially causing side effects that could affect your test.

On the other hand there’s more and more people stating that shallow rendering is an anti-pattern, and that’s probably the reason of enzyme getting “discontinued”.

Also, RTL has become the officially recommended framework to test react components, it has become very popular, and it has even joined a wider group of testing libraries under the @testing-library organization.

The thing is that I started to use it, and I was quickly surprised with how it felt to work with it, and all the benefits it was bringing to my tests.

Benefits I have experienced

Once I started migrating the first tests I noticed some benefits:

  • Changing my mindset was actually easier than I thought. The docs are very well written, so it’s relatively easy to start using RTL.
  • My tests got simpler, and required less of those nasty global mocks that jest allows (I’m looking at you, jest.mock).
  • Tests were way less coupled with implementation details. I moved from testing the component props, to test what the user would see on the screen.
  • Related with previous point, I started to write my tests by looking at the screen instead of the component’s implementation.
  • Changes in source code led to fewer tests requiring to be changed.
  • A progressive migration was possible, where some tests still use enzyme and others are already using RTL.

And overall, it felt good and I have already dedicated a couple of PRs just to migrate more tests.

Challenges I faced

But of course, migrating to a new tool always comes with its own challenges, and this was not an exception. I’ll explain the main ones I have faced so far and how I tackled them:

  • RTL lets you do some things in a couple of different ways, and the docs may not be super clear about what’s the recommended option.

    For this I recommend reading this article from Kent C. Dodds, RTL’s author, which explains some common mistakes when using the library.

  • At first, I struggled a bit with asynchronous side effects and state changes in components, which can easily end up printing a warning like Warning: An update to MyComponent inside a test was not wrapped in act.

    The warning also explains how you are supposed to solve this by wrapping your code in act(), but this warning comes from React, not RTL, and what it is not telling you is that RTL already wraps all needed operations in act().

    What this error usually mean is that you are not waiting for something to happen. This other article, also from Kent C. Dodds, explains everything you need to know about the things that can lead to this warning, and how to solve them.

  • Since you start testing from the user point of view, some use cases can be challenging to test without coupling with implementation details. For example, when you have a component which dynamically renders different images or icons, I used to directly check the component properties.

    For this I found the best solution was to use jest snapshots. I didn’t want to manually check which SVG was being rendered in the DOM, just that different ones were being used in every case.

    // I went from this...
    test('...', () => {
      const wrapper = shallow(<MyComp dynamicValue="foo" />);
    // To this
    test('...', () => {
      const { container } = render(<MyComp dynamicValue="foo" />);
  • Something very similar happens if you use some library that renders canvas. There’s no way to test that from a DOM point of view, which is what RTL does.

    In my case I was using Chart.js to render some charts, so I used jest-canvas-mock, which exposes a method on the canvas to see which are all the events invoked from the library.

    Then I used snapshots again to verify they had the expected “shape”.

    // I went from this...
    test('...', () => {
      const wrapper = shallow(<MyCompWithCanvas />);
    // To this
    test('...', () => {
      const { container } = render(<MyCompWithCanvas />);
      const events = container.querySelector('canvas')?.getContext('2d')?.__getEvents();


For better or worst, enzyme should no longer be considered an option. If you are starting a new project or are using it on small ones, consider migrating to RTL as soon as possible.

If you are using it in bigger projects, following the process described in this article will probably help you.

In any case, you will get surprised. React testing library is a great tool and provides many benefits over enzyme.

Its main issue is that it’s not a drop-in replacement for enzyme, so you will have to change a bit your mindset.