Use when writing acceptance criteria for a task - express each as an observable Given/When/Then that QA can execute, including negative cases
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
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
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
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.
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 cover | WireMock stub |
|---|---|
| Happy response | 200 + expected body |
| Upstream 5xx | "status": 503 → assert your retry/fallback |
| Timeout | "fixedDelayMilliseconds": 30000 → assert your timeout handling |
| Malformed body | 200 + garbage → assert you don't crash |
| Auth rejected | 401 → assert your error surfaces cleanly |
verify). A stub that always returns 200 hides a broken request.Checkout calls an external payment API. To test "payment declined shows an error and does not create an order":
POST /charge → 402 {"error":"declined"}.POST /charge with the expected amount.No real card, no real gateway, and the decline path is tested every run.
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Use when writing acceptance criteria for a task - express each as an observable Given/When/Then that QA can execute, including negative cases
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
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
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use on every UI change - semantic HTML, labels for controls, keyboard-navigable dialogs/menus, visible focus, and never color as the only signal
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
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
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
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.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when the repository keeps its alerting in code, or a person asks for alerts outside TaskTrooper - PrometheusRule YAML, a Cloud Monitoring alert policy in Terraform, a Datadog monitor, each routed to TaskTrooper's alert ingest URL so it opens an incident here
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.