Testing
"Should we use Pact or integration tests?" is a question that comes up whenever a team starts decomposing a monolith into services. The honest answer is: it depends on your team structure, deployment cadence, and tolerance for the complexity each approach introduces. This article explains both approaches clearly,
Testing
Local pact files work fine when you have one consumer and one provider. As soon as you have five consumers and ten providers, file-sharing falls apart. You need a central store for pacts and verification results — somewhere all teams can publish to and read from. That's what PactFlow
Testing
Contract testing with Pact shines brightest in Node.js microservice environments. Most Node.js APIs are Express or Fastify apps — they're relatively thin, the test setup is familiar, and pact-js integrates cleanly with Jest. This guide walks through a complete, realistic example from consumer test to provider verification
Testing
Contract tests are only valuable if they run automatically and block bad deployments. A pact that exists locally but isn't in your CI pipeline is theater. This guide shows you how to wire Pact into GitHub Actions and Jenkins so that contract verification is a real deployment gate,
Testing
Microservices break in integration. A provider team updates an API response format, the consumer team doesn't know for two weeks, and then production falls over. The standard answer — integration tests against a shared staging environment — is slow, flaky, and doesn't scale. Pact takes a different approach: