JMS Mocking with AsyncAPI using Specmatic

By Jaydeep Kulkarni

Share this page

Key features

  1. Mocks a real JMS server so that clients can communicate with it seamlessly.
  2. Validates the messages that it receives against the schema defined in the AsyncAPI specification.
  3. Provides the ability to set and verify expectations on it.

Check out the sample code

Sample project: https://github.com/specmatic/specmatic-order-bff-jms
Download Specmatic: https://docs.specmatic.io/download

Available in the Pro plan or higher

Overview – how Specmatic can be used to mock JMS using AsyncAPI

Let’s take the example of a consumer which makes a request to an application. The request is received by the controller, which in turn invokes the service layer. The service layer fetches data from a domain service or an HTTP dependency, and then drops the message on to a JMS queue – something like Active MQ. Finally, the service layer responds back to the controller, which in turn responds back to the consumer. Now, to test this application in isolation, we take an AsyncAPI specification which describes the JMS queue and the schema of the messages that it is expected to receive. And we mock it out using Specmatic’s JMS mock. With the JMS mock now in place, we can run contract tests against the application. 

First, we set expectations on the JMS mock, describing the messages it is expected to receive. Then, we also set expectations on Specmatic’s HTTP stub, which uses the OpenAPI specification for the application’s HTTP dependency or the domain service. If you want to learn more about contract tests and how to stub out HTTP dependencies using OpenAPI specifications and Specmatic, check out this video.

Next, Specmatic uses the application’s OpenAPI specification to run contract tests against it. Every contract test results in a request being sent to the application, which is received by the controller. The controller invokes the service layer, which in turn fetches the data now from Specmatic’s HTTP stub. And then drops the message on to Specmatic’s JMS mock. When the JMS mock receives the message, it validates the message against the schema defined in the AsyncAPI specification. If the message does not match the schema, then it will fail the test. The JMS mock has an in-memory active MQ broker, so the service layer can communicate with it quite seamlessly just like it would with a real-time JMS queue in production.

Finally, the service layer responds back to the controller, which in turn responds back to the contract test. When all contract tests are executed, Specmatic calls the JMS mock to validate the messages that it has received.

Code walkthrough: Contract Test demonstrating Specmatic JMS mock in action

We have a service layer which fetches data from a domain service or an HTTP dependency and then sends messages to a JMS queue.

The specmatic.json file of this application provides an AsyncAPI specification for the application’s JMS dependency, an OpenAPI specification for the application’s HTTP dependency for the domain service, and also an OpenAPI specification for the application itself, which Specmatic will use to run contract tests.

Since we are talking about JMS, let’s have a look at the AsyncAPI specification. We have defined a queue named product queries, and this is the schema of the messages that it is expected to receive. For the contract tests, we first set the host and the port which Specmatic will use to run contract tests against the application.

Then we specify an endpoints API which Specmatic will use to determine the routes exposed by this application. For this, we use the mappings endpoint provided by the Spring Actuator library.

If we look at the controllers in this application, we can see that there are two routes defined. Specmatic will use this information to generate a coverage summary report, which we shall see shortly.

Back to the contract tests, we next create the JMS mock and set expectations on it. What we are saying here is that we expect that a queue named product-queries will receive three messages on it.

Next, we create the HTTP stub, set expectations on it, start the application, and run the tests. After all contract tests are executed, we check if the expectations set on the JMS mock are met. To do this, we call the verifyExpectations method. The verify expectations method will assert that the product-queries queue received exactly three messages, and all three messages match the schema defined in the specification. If either of these conditions are not met, the verifyExpectations method will report errors.

With this background, let’s run the contract tests. We can see all contract tests have passed.

Now, looking at the Coverage Summary Report we can see again there are two routes defined in the application. But since in the OpenAPI specification of this application, there is only one route defined, we see only one route is reported with state is covered, one while the other one is reported with state is missed.

Let’s now look at the API tests.

Code walkthrough: API Test demonstrating Specmatic JMS mock in action

In this class, we have tests to validate each of the routes defined in the application. This is the test in which we expect messages on the JMS mock. So we start by setting expectations on the JMS mock similar to what we saw in the contract test. We expect three messages on the productQueries queue.

We then set expectations on the HTTP stub. We invoke the API or route. We validate the response, and then we assert if the expectations set on the JMS mock are met by calling the verifyExpectations method similar to the way we did it in the contract test.

We also further assert the actual message received by JMS mock by calling the object message received on channel method as described here.

With all this setup, we run the API tests. Here we can see all the API tests have passed as well.

The JMS mock is wire compatible and can be controlled entirely from within the test. This means you can run the test locally or also as part of your continuous integration build to provide quick feedback early in the cycle.

Available in the Pro plan or higher

Sample project: https://github.com/specmatic/specmatic-order-bff-jms
Download Specmatic: https://docs.specmatic.io/download

Related Posts

OpenAPI codegen docgen demo

By Naresh Jain

OpenAPI’s Broken Tooling: Roundtrip Fidelity Failure with CodeGen and DocGen​

Exploring the Strengths and Weaknesses of Automated API Development  Maintaining well-documented and reliable APIs is essential for any microservices development pipelines. At the heart of
Read More
api proxy recording thumb

By Naresh Jain

Replace Live Services with OpenAPI Mocks from Real HTTP Traffic with Specmatic Proxy

API proxy recording: Capture traffic, generate mocks, and simulate faults When you need to test how a system behaves when a downstream API misbehaves, API
Read More
gRPC API resliency test

By Yogesh Nikam

Contract Testing using gRPC Specs as Executable Contracts

Transform your gRPC API specs into executable contracts in seconds Now you can easily leverage your gRPC APIs for contract testing, intelligent service virtualisation and
Read More
kafka+jms

By Hari Krishnan

Contract Testing using AsyncAPI Specs as Executable Contracts

Sample projects with AsyncAPI Sample project with Kafka & AsyncAPI: https://github.com/znsio/specmatic-order-bff-nodejs Sample project with JMS and AsyncAPI: https://github.com/znsio/specmatic-order-bff-jms Sample project with Google Pub/Sub and AsyncAPI: https://github.com/znsio/specmatic-google-pubsub-sample Available in Pro
Read More
Demonstration of the flaws in grpc

By Naresh Jain

gRPC Flaws​ – The Illusion of Safety & Frustrating DevEx in Proto3’s Type-Safe Contracts​

Understanding the Shortcomings of gRPC and How Contract Testing Can Bridge the Gap  In the ever-evolving world of API design, development, and testing, the pursuit
Read More
testing 429 responses thumbnail

By Naresh Jain

When Dependencies Timeout, Does Your API Shed Load with 429 Responses?

When Dependencies Timeout: Engineering Tests that Produce a 429 response Simulating backend slowdowns and verifying that your API returns a proper 429 response is a
Read More

By Naresh Jain

Contract Testing using OpenAPI Specs as Executable Contracts

Demonstration video showing OpenAPI specifications being leveraged as executable contracts with Specmatic
Read More
testing 202 responses thumb

By Naresh Jain

When Downstream Services Lag, Does Your API Gracefully Accept with 202 Responses?

When Downstream Services Lag: Designing Reliable APIs with 202 responses As systems get distributed, synchronous calls to downstream services become fragile. When a downstream service
Read More
mcp auto test exposed mcp servers lying

By Yogesh Nikam

Exposed: MCP Servers Are Lying About Their Schemas

Table of Contents Practical Lessons from MCP Server Testing Over the last few weeks the Specmatic team ran a focused series of MCP server testing
Read More
GraphQL API resiliency testing

API Resiliency and Contract Testing for GraphQL

Transform your GraphQL API specs into executable contracts in seconds Now you can easily leverage your GraphQL APIs for contract testing, intelligent service virtualisation and
Read More