Switch from capybara-webkit to poltergeist

[bkeepers]

Some people at RubyConfBR recommended checking out poltergeist, which uses PhantomJS, as an alternative to capybara-webkit.

I did, and it seems really awesome. This is all I had to do to make all the tests pass (most of the code is JS, I was impressed).

It doesn't require QT or xvfb, is faster, more stable, and is being actively developed. I don't see a reason not to use it in place of capybara-webkit everywhere.

/cc @github/ops @jonmagic @spicycode

[jnewland]

Awesomeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ❤️

[wfarr]

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

I setup Phantom on all the squeeze janky nodes, so CI should just work.

Now if only we could get all the other capybara-webkit projects onto poltergeist!

On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Jesse Newland wrote:

Awesomeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub (#32 (comment)).

[jonmagic]

We'll check it out today.

[rafaelfranca]

Cool! Love to see our suggestion being used ❤️

[bkeepers]

@rafaelfranca Between this and ✂️, you have significantly altered my universe.

[rafaelfranca]

hahahha. ✂️ is the best emoji ever.

[jmuheim]

We checked it out, but it seems to be a very little bit slower than Capybara-webkit. But our test suite is not very heavy yet, so the results are not very specific.

Is there some more information about speed issues?? Performance tests?

[skalnik]

You're not counting the time it takes to compile QT in those performance tests 😉.

In all seriousness though, removing the QT dependency alone is a reason to use poltergeist in my book.

[bkeepers]

@sientia-jmu I don't have anything scientific, but it was certainly faster on the few apps I switched. YMMV.