本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

test-doubles-wiremock

Use when a test would otherwise call a real external dependency - replace it with WireMock or an equivalent stub so runs are deterministic, offline, and control the responses

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md3.5 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Test Doubles & WireMock

Overview

An automated test that calls a real third-party service (payment gateway, auth provider, partner API) is slow, flaky, costs money, and cannot exercise failure modes on demand. Replace those dependencies with a controllable stub — WireMock for HTTP — so the test owns every response.

Core principle: The system under test is real; its external dependencies are stubbed. You test YOUR code's behavior against controlled inputs, not the third party's uptime.

When to Use / When NOT

  • Stub: third-party/external HTTP services, payment/email/SMS providers, partner APIs, anything you don't own or that has side effects/cost.
  • Do NOT stub: the product's own API or the code under test — driving those for real is the whole point. And do not stub the database; use a real test database instead (see test-database-seeding) so SQL/dialect behavior is genuine.

WireMock Essentials

Run WireMock as a standalone server or a Testcontainers container; point the app's config for that dependency at its URL.

// stub: the auth provider returns a valid token for a known client
{
  "request":  { "method": "POST", "url": "/oauth/token" },
  "response": { "status": 200, "jsonBody": { "access_token": "test-token", "expires_in": 3600 } }
}

Model the failure paths too — that's the value a real service won't give you on demand:

Scenario to coverWireMock stub
Happy response200 + expected body
Upstream 5xx"status": 503 → assert your retry/fallback
Timeout"fixedDelayMilliseconds": 30000 → assert your timeout handling
Malformed body200 + garbage → assert you don't crash
Auth rejected401 → assert your error surfaces cleanly

Rules

  • Verify the request too, not just the canned response: assert the app called the dependency with the right method/path/body (WireMock verify). A stub that always returns 200 hides a broken request.
  • Reset stubs between tests so one test's mappings don't leak into another.
  • Match the contract exactly — stub the real endpoint's shape. A stub that diverges from reality passes tests but ships integration bugs; keep it aligned with the provider's documented contract.
  • Prefer per-test stubs over one giant global mapping file — tests stay readable and independent.

Worked Example

Checkout calls an external payment API. To test "payment declined shows an error and does not create an order":

  1. WireMock stub: POST /charge → 402 {"error":"declined"}.
  2. Drive the real checkout flow against it.
  3. Assert: user sees the decline message, no order row was created, and WireMock recorded exactly one POST /charge with the expected amount.

No real card, no real gateway, and the decline path is tested every run.

Common Mistakes

  • Stubbing your own API (you're no longer testing it).
  • Stubbing the database (use a real test DB).
  • A stub that returns 200 for everything → false green.
  • Never asserting the outgoing request → a broken payload passes.
  • Global stubs leaking across tests.

Red Flags

  • A test hits a real external URL → network flake and cost incoming.
  • Only the happy response is stubbed; no failure-mode coverage.
  • The stub shape drifted from the provider's real contract.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Use when writing acceptance criteria for a task - express each as an observable Given/When/Then that QA can execute, including negative cases

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

makifbaysal/tasktrooper1122026年10月12日 更新

Use when the diff adds or changes an endpoint, resolver, RPC, job or query that takes an object id, a role check, a request binding or a tenant filter - BOLA/IDOR, function-level authorization, mass assignment and tenant scoping

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

makifbaysal/tasktrooper1122026年10月12日 更新

Use on every UI change - semantic HTML, labels for controls, keyboard-navigable dialogs/menus, visible focus, and never color as the only signal

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

makifbaysal/tasktrooper1122026年10月12日 更新

Use when a task changes any screen, form, dialog, menu or control - Lighthouse/axe scan of the changed screens, a keyboard walk, and the thresholds that fail a task

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

makifbaysal/tasktrooper1122026年10月12日 更新

How to work a task returned with review, QA or UAT findings. Use when a task is in need_revision or PR review comments are in your context.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

makifbaysal/tasktrooper1122026年10月12日 更新

Use when deciding whether a request needs an analiz task before implementation - the conditions that require the architect's analysis versus going straight to implementation

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

makifbaysal/tasktrooper1122026年10月12日 更新

makifbaysal のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する