Upgrade to Pro — share decks privately, control downloads, hide ads and more …

Contract testing with Pact and Quarkus

Contract testing with Pact and Quarkus

Every time you change one microservice, the others break. But you had unit tests! What’s going on? Unit tests aren’t enough to give system-level confidence, even with a microservices architecture. What’s the solution? Integration testing is annoyingly expensive, flaky, and fries your laptop. Remocal development environments are complex to manage. Testing in production is important, but the feedback loop is longer, so it’s not a substitute for local inner-loop testing. Enter contract tests. Contract tests combine the lightness of unit tests with the confidence of integration tests, and should be part of your development toolkit. This session will demo how to use the Pact contract testing framework to catch integration issues early. The demos will be run on Quarkus, but Pact runs on all Java frameworks. In fact, Pact has libraries for almost all of the popular programming languages.

Holly Cummins

May 03, 2023
Tweet

More Decks by Holly Cummins

Other Decks in Programming

Transcript

  1. contract testing
    with pact and quarkus




    Holly Cummins


    Red Hat


    @[email protected]

    View Slide

  2. @holly_cummins
    the big microservices question

    View Slide

  3. @holly_cummins
    “how do I know the whole
    system works?
    the big microservices question

    View Slide

  4. @holly_cummins
    “how do I know the whole
    system works?
    … without losing the
    goodness of microservices?”
    the big microservices question

    View Slide

  5. can you deploy
    independently? v5.1.4
    v5.1.4
    v5.1.4
    v5.1.4

    View Slide

  6. can you deploy
    independently? v6.2.8
    v65.7
    v5.1.4
    v1.0.5

    View Slide

  7. do you have confidence in how
    individual services are tested?
    v6.2.8
    v65.7
    v5.1.4
    v1.0.5

    View Slide

  8. @holly_cummins
    #RedHat
    “we made our pipeline enforce releasing
    all our microservices at the same time.”
    true story

    View Slide

  9. @holly_cummins
    #RedHat
    “we made our pipeline enforce releasing
    all our microservices at the same time.”
    true story
    are you dependent on
    end-to-end testing?

    View Slide

  10. @holly_cummins
    testing in isolation is not enough

    View Slide

  11. @holly_cummins
    distributed != decoupled

    View Slide

  12. @holly_cummins
    “every time we touch one microservice,
    all the others break.”

    View Slide

  13. @holly_cummins
    “ohhhh, we weren’t expecting your
    service to do that … “

    View Slide

  14. @holly_cummins
    “uh, what do you mean you
    corrected the typo in your json?”

    View Slide

  15. @holly_cummins
    “surely the right way to handle
    missing data is a 204?”

    View Slide

  16. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    their code
    our code
    why mocks
    aren’t enough

    View Slide

  17. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    our code our mock
    why mocks aren’t
    enough

    View Slide

  18. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    our code our mock
    tests ✔


    why mocks aren’t
    enough

    View Slide

  19. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    our code our mock
    our code their actual code
    tests ✔


    why mocks aren’t
    enough

    View Slide

  20. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    our code our mock
    our code their actual code
    tests ✔


    reality ✘
    why mocks aren’t
    enough

    View Slide

  21. @holly_cummins
    demo:


    the limitations of unit tests

    View Slide

  22. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    our code their code
    why mocks aren’t
    enough

    View Slide

  23. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    our code their code
    contract test
    why mocks aren’t
    enough

    View Slide

  24. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    our code their code
    contract test
    mock
    why mocks aren’t
    enough

    View Slide

  25. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    our code their code
    contract test
    mock functional test
    why mocks aren’t
    enough

    View Slide

  26. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    our code their code
    contract test
    mock functional test
    our tests ✔


    their tests ✔


    reality ✔


    why mocks aren’t
    enough

    View Slide

  27. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    our code their code
    contract test
    mock functional test
    why mocks aren’t
    enough

    View Slide

  28. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    our code their code
    contract test
    mock functional test
    our tests ✔


    their tests ✘


    reality ✘


    why mocks aren’t
    enough

    View Slide

  29. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    our code their code
    contract test
    mock functional test
    why mocks aren’t
    enough

    View Slide

  30. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    our code their code
    contract test
    mock functional test
    our tests ✘


    their tests ✔


    reality ✘


    why mocks aren’t
    enough

    View Slide

  31. IBM Cloud © 2020 IBM Corporation

    View Slide

  32. IBM Cloud © 2020 IBM Corporation
    the test
    pyramid

    View Slide

  33. IBM Cloud © 2020 IBM Corporation
    the test
    pyramid end-to-end tests

    View Slide

  34. IBM Cloud © 2020 IBM Corporation
    the test
    pyramid end-to-end tests
    unit tests

    View Slide

  35. IBM Cloud © 2020 IBM Corporation
    the test
    pyramid end-to-end tests
    unit tests
    contract tests

    View Slide

  36. #RedHat
    @holly_cummins
    How to test a fire alarm?

    View Slide

  37. IBM Cloud © 2020 IBM Corporation
    how not to test a fire alarm

    View Slide

  38. IBM Cloud © 2020 IBM Corporation
    how not to test a fire alarm

    View Slide

  39. #RedHat
    @holly_cummins

    View Slide

  40. #RedHat
    @holly_cummins
    unit testing a fire
    alarm

    View Slide

  41. #RedHat
    @holly_cummins
    uh … is that enough?

    View Slide

  42. #RedHat
    @holly_cummins
    contract testing a
    fire alarm

    View Slide

  43. #RedHat
    @holly_cummins
    contract testing a
    fire alarm

    View Slide

  44. @holly_cummins
    demo:


    how pact helps

    View Slide

  45. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    if you remember
    one thing …

    View Slide

  46. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    if you remember
    one thing …
    • don’t test the mock!
    • your consumer test should be testing your code, not
    what’s coming back from the other side
    • lots of examples get this wrong :(

    View Slide

  47. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    don’t test the mock.

    View Slide

  48. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    but we use openapi?

    View Slide

  49. @holly_cummins
    demo:


    semantic testing with pact

    View Slide

  50. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    cold person knitter sheep farmer
    semantics vs syntax


    (why sharing expectations about behaviour is important)

    View Slide

  51. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    cold person knitter sheep farmer
    “white sweater, please”
    semantics vs syntax


    (why sharing expectations about behaviour is important)

    View Slide

  52. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    cold person knitter sheep farmer
    “white sweater, please”
    semantics vs syntax


    (why sharing expectations about behaviour is important)

    View Slide

  53. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    cold person
    white


    sweater
    knitter sheep farmer
    “white sweater, please”
    semantics vs syntax


    (why sharing expectations about behaviour is important)

    View Slide

  54. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    cold person
    white


    sweater
    knitter sheep farmer
    “white sweater, please”
    white


    wool
    semantics vs syntax


    (why sharing expectations about behaviour is important)

    View Slide

  55. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    cold person
    white


    sweater
    knitter sheep farmer
    “white sweater, please”
    “black sweater, please”
    white


    wool
    semantics vs syntax


    (why sharing expectations about behaviour is important)

    View Slide

  56. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    cold person
    white


    sweater
    knitter sheep farmer
    “white sweater, please”
    “black sweater, please”
    white


    wool
    semantics vs syntax


    (why sharing expectations about behaviour is important)

    View Slide

  57. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    cold person
    white


    sweater
    knitter sheep farmer
    “white sweater, please”
    “black sweater, please”
    white


    wool
    black


    sweater
    semantics vs syntax


    (why sharing expectations about behaviour is important)

    View Slide

  58. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    cold person
    white


    sweater
    knitter sheep farmer
    “white sweater, please”
    “black sweater, please”
    white


    wool
    black


    sweater
    black


    wool
    semantics vs syntax


    (why sharing expectations about behaviour is important)

    View Slide

  59. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    cold person
    white


    sweater
    knitter sheep farmer
    “white sweater, please”
    “black sweater, please”
    “pink sweater, please”
    white


    wool
    black


    sweater
    black


    wool
    semantics vs syntax


    (why sharing expectations about behaviour is important)

    View Slide

  60. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    cold person
    white


    sweater
    knitter sheep farmer
    “white sweater, please”
    “black sweater, please”
    “pink sweater, please”
    white


    wool
    black


    sweater
    black


    wool
    semantics vs syntax


    (why sharing expectations about behaviour is important)

    View Slide

  61. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    cold person
    white


    sweater
    knitter sheep farmer
    “white sweater, please”
    “black sweater, please”
    “pink sweater, please”
    white


    wool
    black


    sweater
    black


    wool
    pink


    sweater
    semantics vs syntax


    (why sharing expectations about behaviour is important)

    View Slide

  62. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    cold person
    white


    sweater
    knitter sheep farmer
    “white sweater, please”
    “black sweater, please”
    “pink sweater, please”
    white


    wool
    black


    sweater
    black


    wool
    pink


    sweater
    pink


    wool
    semantics vs syntax


    (why sharing expectations about behaviour is important)

    View Slide

  63. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    cold person
    white


    sweater
    knitter sheep farmer
    “white sweater, please”
    “black sweater, please”
    “pink sweater, please”
    white


    wool
    black


    sweater
    black


    wool
    pink


    sweater
    pink


    wool
    semantics vs syntax


    (why sharing expectations about behaviour is important)
    what?! pink sheep don’t exist

    View Slide

  64. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    cold person
    white


    sweater
    knitter sheep farmer
    “white sweater, please”
    “black sweater, please”
    “pink sweater, please”
    white


    wool
    black


    sweater
    black


    wool
    pink


    sweater
    pink


    wool
    semantics vs syntax


    (why sharing expectations about behaviour is important)
    should the knitter ask for white wool and bring in a dyeing service?
    what?! pink sheep don’t exist

    View Slide

  65. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    cold person
    white


    sweater
    knitter sheep farmer
    “white sweater, please”
    “black sweater, please”
    “pink sweater, please”
    white


    wool
    black


    sweater
    black


    wool
    pink


    sweater
    pink


    wool
    semantics vs syntax


    (why sharing expectations about behaviour is important)
    should the knitter ask for white wool and bring in a dyeing service?
    should the farmer dye the wool?
    what?! pink sheep don’t exist

    View Slide

  66. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    was this a realistic demo?

    View Slide

  67. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    Photo of sheep at the Latitude Festival by Tim Parkinson, https://www.flickr.com/photos/timparkinson

    View Slide

  68. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    Photo of sheep at the Latitude Festival by Tim Parkinson, https://www.flickr.com/photos/timparkinson
    “pink sheep don’t exist”

    View Slide

  69. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    how annoying, the provider is returning 204. the contract
    expects 404, so my test is broken.
    quarkus will return 204 by default.
    204 vs 404 - it’s more about the theory behind REST...if a
    caller asks for a resource the server doesn't have, it should
    be a 404 - same way if a user types in an invalid URL into
    the browser
    it’s too late at night to care about REST theory.


    I’m just going to update the expectations in the test to
    match reality.
    what?! why is my other contract test broken now?

    oh … because what I’m changing is a mock….
    Based on a true story….

    View Slide

  70. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract testing landscape

    View Slide

  71. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    provider
    contract testing landscape

    View Slide

  72. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    consumer provider
    contract testing landscape

    View Slide

  73. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer provider
    contract testing landscape

    View Slide

  74. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer provider
    contract
    tests
    verify
    Pact (functional tests)
    contract testing landscape

    View Slide

  75. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    Pact
    contract
    tests
    verify
    Pact (functional tests)
    contract testing landscape

    View Slide

  76. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    Pact
    declare (Pact)
    contract
    tests
    verify
    Pact (functional tests)
    contract testing landscape
    Pact file

    View Slide

  77. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    Pact
    declare (Pact)
    contract
    tests
    verify
    Pact (functional tests)
    OpenAPI
    contract testing landscape
    Pact file

    View Slide

  78. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    Pact
    declare (Pact)
    contract
    tests
    verify
    Pact (functional tests)
    OpenAPI
    OpenAPI + Schemathesis


    (syntax only, weaker connection to consumer expectations)
    contract testing landscape
    Pact file

    View Slide

  79. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    Pact
    declare (Pact)
    contract
    tests
    verify
    Pact (functional tests)
    OpenAPI
    OpenAPI + Schemathesis


    (syntax only, weaker connection to consumer expectations)
    contract testing landscape
    Pact file
    Microcks

    View Slide

  80. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    Pact
    Prism (OpenAPI)
    declare (Pact)
    contract
    tests
    verify
    Pact (functional tests)
    OpenAPI
    OpenAPI + Schemathesis


    (syntax only, weaker connection to consumer expectations)
    contract testing landscape
    Pact file
    Microcks

    View Slide

  81. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    Pact
    Prism (OpenAPI)
    Microcks (OpenAPI)
    declare (Pact)
    contract
    tests
    verify
    Pact (functional tests)
    OpenAPI
    OpenAPI + Schemathesis


    (syntax only, weaker connection to consumer expectations)
    contract testing landscape
    Pact file
    Microcks

    View Slide

  82. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    Pact
    Prism (OpenAPI)
    Microcks (OpenAPI)
    declare (Pact)
    contract
    tests
    verify
    Pact (functional tests)
    OpenAPI
    OpenAPI + Schemathesis


    (syntax only, weaker connection to consumer expectations)
    contract testing landscape
    Pact file
    mock server


    OpenAPI + Prism


    Microcks
    Microcks

    View Slide

  83. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    Pact
    Prism (OpenAPI)
    Microcks (OpenAPI)
    declare (Pact)
    contract
    tests
    verify
    Pact (functional tests)
    OpenAPI
    OpenAPI + Schemathesis


    (syntax only, weaker connection to consumer expectations)
    contract testing landscape
    Pact file
    generate


    (OpenAPI snapshot of
    current implementation)
    mock server


    OpenAPI + Prism


    Microcks
    Microcks

    View Slide

  84. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    Pact
    Prism (OpenAPI)
    Microcks (OpenAPI)
    declare (Pact)
    generate skeleton from OpenAPI
    contract
    tests
    verify
    Pact (functional tests)
    OpenAPI
    OpenAPI + Schemathesis


    (syntax only, weaker connection to consumer expectations)
    contract testing landscape
    Pact file
    generate


    (OpenAPI snapshot of
    current implementation)
    mock server


    OpenAPI + Prism


    Microcks
    Microcks

    View Slide

  85. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    Pact
    Prism (OpenAPI)
    Microcks (OpenAPI)
    declare (Pact)
    generate skeleton from OpenAPI
    contract
    tests
    verify
    Pact (functional tests)
    OpenAPI
    OpenAPI + Schemathesis


    (syntax only, weaker connection to consumer expectations)
    contract testing landscape
    Pact file
    dashboard


    generate


    (OpenAPI snapshot of
    current implementation)
    mock server


    OpenAPI + Prism


    Microcks
    Microcks

    View Slide

  86. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    Pact
    Prism (OpenAPI)
    Microcks (OpenAPI)
    declare (Pact)
    generate skeleton from OpenAPI
    contract
    tests
    verify
    Pact (functional tests)
    OpenAPI
    OpenAPI + Schemathesis


    (syntax only, weaker connection to consumer expectations)
    contract testing landscape
    Pact file
    dashboard


    Pact broker
    generate


    (OpenAPI snapshot of
    current implementation)
    mock server


    OpenAPI + Prism


    Microcks
    Microcks

    View Slide

  87. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    Pact
    Prism (OpenAPI)
    Microcks (OpenAPI)
    declare (Pact)
    generate skeleton from OpenAPI
    contract
    tests
    verify
    Pact (functional tests)
    OpenAPI
    OpenAPI + Schemathesis


    (syntax only, weaker connection to consumer expectations)
    contract testing landscape
    Pact file
    dashboard


    Pact broker
    Microcks
    generate


    (OpenAPI snapshot of
    current implementation)
    mock server


    OpenAPI + Prism


    Microcks
    Microcks

    View Slide

  88. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    Pact
    Prism (OpenAPI)
    Microcks (OpenAPI)
    declare (Pact)
    generate skeleton from OpenAPI
    contract
    tests
    verify
    Pact (functional tests)
    OpenAPI
    OpenAPI + Schemathesis


    (syntax only, weaker connection to consumer expectations)
    contract testing landscape
    Pact file
    dashboard


    Pact broker
    Microcks
    generate


    (OpenAPI snapshot of
    current implementation)
    mock server


    OpenAPI + Prism


    Microcks
    Microcks
    other protocol specs

    View Slide

  89. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    provider-driven contract testing

    View Slide

  90. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    provider
    provider-driven contract testing

    View Slide

  91. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    provider
    provider-driven contract testing
    generate


    (OpenAPI snapshot of
    current implementation)

    View Slide

  92. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    provider
    contract
    tests
    verify
    provider-driven contract testing
    generate


    (OpenAPI snapshot of
    current implementation)

    View Slide

  93. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer provider
    contract
    tests
    verify
    provider-driven contract testing
    generate


    (OpenAPI snapshot of
    current implementation)

    View Slide

  94. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    contract
    tests
    verify
    provider-driven contract testing
    generate


    (OpenAPI snapshot of
    current implementation)

    View Slide

  95. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    contract
    tests
    verify
    OpenAPI
    provider-driven contract testing
    generate


    (OpenAPI snapshot of
    current implementation)

    View Slide

  96. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    contract
    tests
    verify
    OpenAPI
    provider-driven contract testing
    generate


    (OpenAPI snapshot of
    current implementation)
    other protocol specs

    View Slide

  97. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    contract
    tests
    verify
    OpenAPI
    provider-driven contract testing
    generate


    (OpenAPI snapshot of
    current implementation)
    other protocol specs
    + familiar contract format

    View Slide

  98. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    contract
    tests
    verify
    OpenAPI
    provider-driven contract testing
    generate


    (OpenAPI snapshot of
    current implementation)
    other protocol specs
    + familiar contract format
    + provider does not need comms with consumers

    View Slide

  99. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    contract
    tests
    verify
    OpenAPI
    provider-driven contract testing
    generate


    (OpenAPI snapshot of
    current implementation)
    other protocol specs
    + familiar contract format
    + provider does not need comms with consumers
    - provider does not get insight into how API is being used

    View Slide

  100. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    contract
    tests
    verify
    OpenAPI
    provider-driven contract testing
    generate


    (OpenAPI snapshot of
    current implementation)
    other protocol specs
    + familiar contract format
    + provider does not need comms with consumers
    - provider does not get insight into how API is being used
    - spec-based tests lack depth

    View Slide

  101. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    consumer-driven contract testing

    View Slide

  102. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    consumer
    consumer-driven contract testing

    View Slide

  103. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    declare (Pact)
    Pact file
    consumer-driven contract testing

    View Slide

  104. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    mock
    declare (Pact)
    Pact file
    consumer-driven contract testing

    View Slide

  105. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    declare (Pact)
    Pact file
    consumer-driven contract testing

    View Slide

  106. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    declare (Pact)
    contract
    tests
    verify
    Pact file
    consumer-driven contract testing

    View Slide

  107. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    declare (Pact)
    contract
    tests
    verify
    OpenAPI
    Pact file
    consumer-driven contract testing

    View Slide

  108. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    declare (Pact)
    contract
    tests
    verify
    OpenAPI
    Pact file
    other protocol specs
    consumer-driven contract testing

    View Slide

  109. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    declare (Pact)
    contract
    tests
    verify
    OpenAPI
    Pact file
    other protocol specs
    consumer-driven contract testing
    + rich semantic testing

    View Slide

  110. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    declare (Pact)
    contract
    tests
    verify
    OpenAPI
    Pact file
    other protocol specs
    consumer-driven contract testing
    + rich semantic testing
    + provider can ‘develop to the test’ instead of
    developing speculatively

    View Slide

  111. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    declare (Pact)
    contract
    tests
    verify
    OpenAPI
    Pact file
    other protocol specs
    consumer-driven contract testing
    + rich semantic testing
    + provider can ‘develop to the test’ instead of
    developing speculatively
    - existing spec assets cannot be re-purposed

    View Slide

  112. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    declare (Pact)
    contract
    tests
    verify
    OpenAPI
    Pact file
    other protocol specs
    consumer-driven contract testing
    + rich semantic testing
    + provider can ‘develop to the test’ instead of
    developing speculatively
    - existing spec assets cannot be re-purposed
    - provider needs to identify consumers

    View Slide

  113. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    contract


    consumer
    tests
    provider
    mock
    declare (Pact)
    contract
    tests
    verify
    OpenAPI
    Pact file
    other protocol specs
    consumer-driven contract testing
    + rich semantic testing
    + provider can ‘develop to the test’ instead of
    developing speculatively
    - existing spec assets cannot be re-purposed
    - provider needs to identify consumers
    - consumers can break provider CI

    View Slide

  114. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    “contract-first”

    View Slide

  115. @holly_cummins #RedHat

    View Slide

  116. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    some contract
    testing options

    View Slide

  117. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    some contract
    testing options
    • Pact

    View Slide

  118. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    some contract
    testing options
    • Pact
    • Microcks

    View Slide

  119. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    some contract
    testing options
    • Pact
    • Microcks
    • Spring Cloud Contract

    View Slide

  120. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    some contract
    testing options
    • Pact
    • Microcks
    • Spring Cloud Contract
    • OpenAPI + schema validation + mock generation


    • Prism


    • Schemathesis

    View Slide

  121. Want to know/learn/watch more about Quarkus?
    ● Battle of the frameworks : Quarkus vs SpringBoot (11:10-11:50, MC2)


    ● Stream processing app. with Kafka and Quarkus (12:20-13:00, MC2)


    ● Quarkus on AWS Lambda (14:10-14:25, MC3)


    ● Why and when to write a Quarkus extension (14:35-14:50, MC3)


    ● Quarkus Community BOF (15:05-16:05, MC3)


    ⇨ OpenId Connect and JWT Security in Quarkus (17:30-18:10, MC2)

    View Slide

  122. @[email protected]
    http://hollycummins.com/contract-testing-devoxx-greece/
    slides
    thank you!

    View Slide

  123. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    maturity
    model for
    quarkus
    extensions

    View Slide

  124. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    maturity
    model for
    quarkus
    extensions
    1. actually works

    View Slide

  125. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    maturity
    model for
    quarkus
    extensions
    1. actually works
    (a) works in JVM mode

    View Slide

  126. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    maturity
    model for
    quarkus
    extensions
    1. actually works
    (a) works in JVM mode
    (b)works in dev mode

    View Slide

  127. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    maturity
    model for
    quarkus
    extensions
    1. actually works
    (a) works in JVM mode
    (b)works in dev mode
    (c) works in native

    View Slide

  128. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    maturity
    model for
    quarkus
    extensions
    1. actually works
    (a) works in JVM mode
    (b)works in dev mode
    (c) works in native
    2. developer joy

    View Slide

  129. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    maturity
    model for
    quarkus
    extensions
    1. actually works
    (a) works in JVM mode
    (b)works in dev mode
    (c) works in native
    2. developer joy
    (a) use build-time application
    knowledge to remove boilerplate

    View Slide

  130. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    maturity
    model for
    quarkus
    extensions
    1. actually works
    (a) works in JVM mode
    (b)works in dev mode
    (c) works in native
    2. developer joy
    (a) use build-time application
    knowledge to remove boilerplate
    3. developer service (if there is an
    external service dependency)

    View Slide

  131. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    maturity
    model for
    quarkus
    extensions
    1. actually works
    (a) works in JVM mode
    (b)works in dev mode
    (c) works in native
    2. developer joy
    (a) use build-time application
    knowledge to remove boilerplate
    3. developer service (if there is an
    external service dependency)
    4. dev UI

    View Slide

  132. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    maturity
    model for
    quarkus
    extensions
    1. actually works
    (a) works in JVM mode
    (b)works in dev mode
    (c) works in native
    2. developer joy
    (a) use build-time application
    knowledge to remove boilerplate
    3. developer service (if there is an
    external service dependency)
    4. dev UI
    5. quickstart code template

    View Slide

  133. @holly_cummins #RedHat
    maturity
    model for
    quarkus
    extensions
    1. actually works
    (a) works in JVM mode
    (b)works in dev mode
    (c) works in native
    2. developer joy
    (a) use build-time application
    knowledge to remove boilerplate
    3. developer service (if there is an
    external service dependency)
    4. dev UI
    5. quickstart code template
    quarkus-pact

    View Slide