Wraps Stripe API testing patterns: test-mode initialization, the canonical test cards (4242 success; 4000 0000 0000 0002 declined; 4000 0027 6000 3184 3DS challenge per the 3DS flows reference in payment-flow-states-reference), the Stripe CLI webhook flow (`stripe listen --forward-to`), the Stripe CLI fixture commands (`stripe trigger payment_intent.succeeded`), and the webhook signature verification (Stripe-Signature header + HMAC-SHA256). Use when testing Stripe-integrated code.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
实测评分 未实测
查看安装方法安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。
Stripe's test-mode is feature-complete: every API call works against test data, no real money moves. Per docs.stripe.com/testing, test keys (sk_test_* / pk_test_*) accept canonical test cards that deterministically produce success / decline / 3DS challenge.
payment-flow-states-reference.npm install stripe
pip install stripe
Test keys come from the Stripe Dashboard (Developers → API keys → toggle to "View test data").
import Stripe from 'stripe';
const stripe = new Stripe(process.env.STRIPE_TEST_KEY!);
| Card | Behaviour |
|---|---|
| 4242 4242 4242 4242 | Success (Visa) |
| 5555 5555 5555 4444 | Success (Mastercard) |
| 4000 0000 0000 0002 | Decline (generic_decline) |
| 4000 0000 0000 9995 | Decline (insufficient_funds) |
| 4000 0000 0000 9987 | Decline (lost_card) |
| 4000 0000 0000 0069 | Expired card |
| 4000 0027 6000 3184 | 3DS authentication required (challenge) |
| 4000 0000 0000 3055 | 3DS supported but frictionless |
| 4100 0000 0000 0019 | Fraud-prevention block |
Test PAN any future expiry; any 3-digit CVC.
test('successful payment via 4242', async () => {
const intent = await stripe.paymentIntents.create({
amount: 1000,
currency: 'usd',
payment_method: 'pm_card_visa',
confirm: true,
return_url: 'https://example.com/return',
});
expect(intent.status).toBe('succeeded');
});
test('declined payment', async () => {
await expect(
stripe.paymentIntents.create({
amount: 1000,
currency: 'usd',
payment_method: 'pm_card_chargeDeclined',
confirm: true,
return_url: 'https://example.com/return',
})
).rejects.toThrow(/card was declined/);
});
import { buffer } from 'micro';
import handler from './stripe-webhook';
test('webhook handler validates signature', async () => {
const payload = JSON.stringify({ type: 'payment_intent.succeeded', data: {...} });
const signature = stripe.webhooks.generateTestHeaderString({
payload,
secret: process.env.STRIPE_WEBHOOK_SECRET!,
});
const req = { headers: { 'stripe-signature': signature }, body: Buffer.from(payload) };
const res = await handler(req as any);
expect(res.statusCode).toBe(200);
});
Per docs.stripe.com/webhooks/signatures:
the Stripe CLI's generateTestHeaderString produces a valid
HMAC-SHA256 signature for testing.
Per docs.stripe.com/stripe-cli:
stripe listen --forward-to http://localhost:3000/webhooks/stripe
# Forwards real Stripe webhook events to your local endpoint
stripe trigger payment_intent.succeeded
# Sends a synthetic event to test your handler
The CLI also exposes a signing secret (different from your prod webhook secret) for local testing.
test('idempotency key prevents duplicate charges', async () => {
const key = 'order-12345';
const r1 = await stripe.paymentIntents.create({...}, { idempotencyKey: key });
const r2 = await stripe.paymentIntents.create({...}, { idempotencyKey: key });
expect(r1.id).toBe(r2.id); // Same PaymentIntent
});
npm test
For webhook-integration tests with stripe listen running:
stripe listen --forward-to http://localhost:3000/webhooks/stripe &
npm test
jobs:
stripe-tests:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout@v5
- uses: actions/setup-node@v4
- run: npm ci && npm test
env:
STRIPE_TEST_KEY: ${{ secrets.STRIPE_TEST_KEY }}
STRIPE_WEBHOOK_SECRET: ${{ secrets.STRIPE_WEBHOOK_SECRET }}
| Anti-pattern | Why it fails | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Mocking Stripe SDK directly | Loses signature verification, error mapping | Test against real test-mode API |
| Hardcoded test cards in many tests | Update breakage when Stripe changes | Use named constants for the card PANs |
| Skip webhook signature verification | Webhook replay attack | Always verify |
| Tests without idempotency key | Retried tests duplicate-create | Always set idempotency |
| Mix prod + test keys | Real money risk | Strict per-env key separation |
| Test webhook handler without raw body | body-parser strips bytes; signature mismatch | Use raw body middleware |
| One-off webhook event tests | Per-event-type integration coverage missed | Test the full event matrix relevant to your flow |
| Long-running stripe listen in CI | Hangs builds | Use stripe listen --print-secret then background |
trigger to fast-forward dispute states.payment-flow-states-reference (state machines + 3DS flows);
PCI scope: pci-dss-control-test-author (qa-compliance).payment-gateway-sandboxes (Adyen / PayPal / Braintree).payment-flow-test-author (refunds, disputes, webhook replay).还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。
无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问，或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。
还没有评论。来写第一条吧。
Builds a CI gate that fails the build on **new** WCAG / a11y violations introduced by a PR while grandfathering pre-existing violations on a per-rule / per-page baseline. Aggregates verdicts from axe-core / pa11y / Lighthouse a11y / WAVE / IBM Equal Access scans. Use when a project has accumulated a11y debt and a strict "zero violations" gate would block every PR - the ratchet pattern lets the team ship while preventing regressions.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Workflow skill that builds an A/B-test validity checklist from an experiment proposal, walking the canonical design-correctness gates - pre-registered OEC/power/guardrails, randomization unit + SRM check, assignment integrity, telemetry, peeking discipline, novelty/primacy, post-experiment SRM re-check - into a per-experiment checklist + sign-off form. Use when launching, auditing, or governing an experiment. For pitfall mechanics (guardrails, peeking) see experiment-results-interpreter's references; to read an already-valid result use experiment-results-interpreter; for per-SDK harness tests use experiment-sdk-testing - this gates DESIGN, not SDK code.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
The single install-flow skill: the reference contract for the PWA install flow (installability gate fields, `beforeinstallprompt` handshake, per-platform paths - Android WebAPK / iOS Share menu / Firefox no-op - and the `display-mode` post-install signal, in references/install-flow-reference.md) plus the build-an-X workflow that emits the Add-to-Home-Screen suite. Walks the four-stage timeline, emitting one test per gate cell per [web.dev/articles/install-criteria][install-criteria], the deferred-prompt → `prompt()` → `userChoice` chain per [web.dev/articles/customize-install][customize-install], the iOS Safari manual-metadata branch (`apple-touch-icon`) per [web.dev/learn/pwa/installation][learn-pwa], and the post-install `(display-mode: standalone)` MQ assertion. Output: a Playwright spec with per-stage cells plus a coverage matrix. Use when a PWA's manifest, icons, or install handler change, when install conversion drops at an unknown stage, or when triaging a flaky install assertion.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Build-an-X workflow that uses an LLM to map existing tests to spec sections - given a spec doc + the test suite, the LLM identifies which tests cover which sections, surfaces uncovered sections (gap), and recommends specific tests to add. Output is a coverage matrix per spec ID. Scope is mapping tests that already exist and naming the gaps, not authoring tests for new acceptance criteria. Use when a spec doc and a test suite both exist but nobody can say which requirements are actually covered - before a release sign-off, an audit, or a decision about where to spend the next round of test effort.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Generates tests from natural-language specs (acceptance criteria, user stories, requirements) using an LLM, with confidence scoring per test case (LLM self-assessment plus heuristics: assertion quality, naming, completeness), batching uncertain cases for human review, and integration with the team's existing test framework. Use when the user asks to generate unit tests from acceptance criteria, convert user stories to test cases, automate test creation from requirements, or augment a spec-driven test suite with AI-generated stubs that are then curated before merge.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Configures Allure Report (test-runner adapter install, `allure-results` directory wiring, `categories.json` for failure classification, `history-trend.json` retention via the copy-history-between-runs pattern), runs the Allure CLI to convert `allure-results` to a static HTML site, and uploads the report as a CI artifact. Use when the team needs richer test reporting than JUnit XML - step-level attachments, per-test history, retry tracking, and severity / epic / feature labeling across framework-agnostic adapters (pytest, Jest, JUnit, TestNG, NUnit, Mocha). As a rich static HTML report generator, it is the open-source alternative to the sunset ExtentReports (JVM/.NET per-test HTML narrative); for hosted cross-run flakiness analytics rather than a static per-run report use currents-integration.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。