API Testing Strategy & Performance Governance

This document extends the API governance framework to include comprehensive testing capabilities. Testing is not separate from governance—it’s how we verify that governance actually works. The platform’s existing components (Registry, Gateway, Auditor) provide natural integration points for automated testing throughout the API lifecycle.

Testing Philosophy
Testing in the API Lifecycle
Core Testing Capabilities
Automated Governance & Quality Gates
CI/CD Integration
Testing Infrastructure

Testing Philosophy

Testing as Governance

Traditional API testing happens in isolation—teams run tests in their own environments, results live in CI logs nobody reads, and production issues still surprise everyone. Testing integrated with governance changes this.

When testing data flows through the same platform that manages API lifecycle:

Test results block publication — APIs cannot reach “Published” state without passing quality gates
Performance baselines are enforced — New versions must meet or exceed previous version’s latency
Consumer impact is visible — Before deploying, see how changes affect actual consumers
Historical trends inform decisions — Auditor tracks performance over time

Shift Left, But Also Shift Right

Shift Left: Catch problems early through contract testing, schema validation, and mock-based integration tests in development.

Shift Right: Production is the ultimate test environment. The Auditor provides continuous performance monitoring that validates what synthetic tests can only estimate.

The platform supports both: rigorous pre-production gates and continuous production validation.

Testing in the API Lifecycle

Testing integrates at every lifecycle stage:

Stage	Testing Activity	Platform Integration
Design	Schema validation, mock generation	Registry validates specs (OpenAPI, GraphQL SDL, AsyncAPI); generates mocks automatically
Review	Contract compatibility check	Automated breaking change detection before approval
Build	Unit tests, contract tests	CI/CD integration via Registry webhooks
Pre-Production	Performance baseline, load testing	Gateway routes to test environments; Auditor captures baselines
Publication	Quality gate validation	Registry blocks publication if tests fail
Production	Continuous performance monitoring	Auditor tracks SLO compliance in real-time
Deprecation	Consumer migration verification	Auditor confirms consumers moved to new version

%%{init: {'theme':'base', 'themeVariables': { 'primaryColor':'#e8f4f8','primaryTextColor':'#000','primaryBorderColor':'#000','lineColor':'#333'}}}%%
flowchart LR
    subgraph Design
        D1[Schema Validation]
        D2[Mock Gen]
    end
    subgraph Review
        R1[Breaking Change Detection]
    end
    subgraph Build
        B1[Contract Tests]
        B2[Unit Tests]
    end
    subgraph Staging
        S1[Performance Baseline]
        S2[Load Tests]
    end
    subgraph Prod
        P1[Continuous Monitoring]
        P2[SLO Tracking]
    end
    
    Design --> Review --> Build --> Staging --> Prod

Core Testing Capabilities

This section covers the fundamental testing approaches that validate API behavior, performance, and resilience. These capabilities work together to ensure APIs meet their contracts under normal and adverse conditions.

Contract Testing

The Problem with Integration Testing

Traditional integration tests are:

Slow — Require all services running together
Flaky — Fail due to environment issues, not code problems
Incomplete — Can’t cover all consumer scenarios
Late — Run after code is written, when changes are expensive

Consumer-Driven Contract Testing

Contract testing inverts the model: consumers define their expectations, producers verify they meet them.

How It Works with the Platform

Consumers publish contracts to Registry

{
  "consumer": "checkout-service",
  "provider": "inventory-api",
  "interactions": [
    {
      "description": "get item stock level",
      "request": {
        "method": "GET",
        "path": "/items/12345/stock"
      },
      "response": {
        "status": 200,
        "body": {
          "item_id": "12345",
          "quantity": 42,
          "warehouse": "string"
        }
      }
    }
  ]
}

Registry stores contracts alongside subscriptions
- Each subscription can have associated contract expectations
- Contracts versioned with API versions
- Breaking contract = breaking consumer
Producer CI verifies contracts
- On every build, producer fetches all consumer contracts from Registry
- Tests run against actual implementation
- Failures block deployment
Registry tracks contract coverage
- Which consumers have contracts?
- Which API endpoints are covered?
- Which interactions are untested?

Contract Testing Workflow

%%{init: {'theme':'base', 'themeVariables': { 'primaryColor':'#e8f4f8','primaryTextColor':'#000','primaryBorderColor':'#000','lineColor':'#333'}}}%%
sequenceDiagram
    participant Consumer as Consumer Team
    participant Registry as Registry
    participant Producer as Producer Team

    Consumer->>Registry: 1. Define contract
    Registry->>Producer: 2. Notify producer
    Producer->>Registry: 3. Fetch contracts
    Note over Producer: 4. Run contract tests
    Producer->>Registry: 5. Report results
    Registry->>Consumer: 5. Contract verified

Breaking Change Detection

The Registry automatically detects breaking changes by comparing new API versions against existing contracts:

Breaking Changes Detected:

Required field removed from response
Field type changed (string → integer)
Endpoint path changed
Required request parameter added
Response status code changed for same scenario

Non-Breaking Changes (Safe):

New optional field in response
New optional endpoint added
New optional request parameter
Expanded enum values (additive)

Registry Analysis on PR:

  ⚠️  Breaking Changes Detected
  
  Affected Consumers: 3

Change: Field 'customer_name' removed from GET /orders/{id}
Consumers expecting this field:
checkout-service	12,000 calls/day
reporting-dashboard	500 calls/day
mobile-app-backend	8,000 calls/day
Action Required: Bump to major version (v2 → v3)

Protocol-Specific Contract Testing

Contract testing varies by API protocol. The platform supports all three first-class protocols with tailored approaches.

REST (OpenAPI) Contracts

The example above shows REST contract testing. Additional considerations:

HTTP semantics matter — Status codes, headers, and content types are part of the contract
Path parameters — Contracts specify expected path patterns and parameter types
Pagination contracts — Consumers can specify expected pagination behavior

GraphQL Contracts

GraphQL contracts focus on operations and fragments, not endpoints:

{
  "consumer": "mobile-app",
  "provider": "orders-graphql-api",
  "protocol": "graphql",
  "interactions": [
    {
      "description": "fetch order with line items",
      "operation": "query",
      "query": "query GetOrder($id: ID!) { order(id: $id) { id status lineItems { sku quantity } } }",
      "variables": { "id": "order-123" },
      "expectedResponse": {
        "data": {
          "order": {
            "id": "order-123",
            "status": "string",
            "lineItems": [{ "sku": "string", "quantity": "number" }]
          }
        }
      }
    }
  ]
}

GraphQL-Specific Breaking Changes:

Change	Breaking?	Notes
Remove field from type	✅ Yes	Consumers may query this field
Change field type	✅ Yes	Response shape changes
Make nullable field non-nullable	✅ Yes	Consumers may not handle null
Add required argument	✅ Yes	Existing queries will fail
Remove type from union	✅ Yes	Consumers may expect this type
Deprecate field	❌ No	Field still works, just warned
Add optional field	❌ No	Consumers ignore unknown fields
Add optional argument	❌ No	Existing queries still work

GraphQL Contract Testing Tools:

Apollo Studio — Schema change detection and field usage tracking
GraphQL Inspector — CLI for schema diffing and breaking change detection
Stellate — Schema registry with compatibility checking

AsyncAPI (Event-Driven) Contracts

Event-driven contracts define message schemas and channel bindings:

{
  "consumer": "notification-service",
  "provider": "orders-events",
  "protocol": "asyncapi",
  "interactions": [
    {
      "description": "order created event",
      "channel": "orders.created",
      "operation": "subscribe",
      "message": {
        "headers": {
          "correlationId": "string",
          "timestamp": "string"
        },
        "payload": {
          "orderId": "string",
          "customerId": "string",
          "totalAmount": "number",
          "currency": "string"
        }
      }
    },
    {
      "description": "order status changed event",
      "channel": "orders.status.changed",
      "operation": "subscribe",
      "message": {
        "payload": {
          "orderId": "string",
          "previousStatus": "string",
          "newStatus": "string",
          "changedAt": "string"
        }
      }
    }
  ]
}

AsyncAPI-Specific Breaking Changes:

Change	Breaking?	Notes
Remove field from payload	✅ Yes	Consumers may depend on field
Change field type	✅ Yes	Deserialization will fail
Rename channel	✅ Yes	Consumers subscribed to old name
Change message format (JSON→Avro)	✅ Yes	Consumers can’t deserialize
Add required field without default	✅ Yes	Old messages won’t validate
Add optional field	❌ No	Consumers ignore unknown fields
Add new channel	❌ No	Consumers don’t auto-subscribe

AsyncAPI Contract Testing Tools:

AsyncAPI Diff — Schema comparison and breaking change detection
Specmatic — Contract testing for async APIs
Schema Registry (Confluent/Apicurio) — Compatibility checking for Avro/JSON Schema

Multi-Protocol Contract Verification

When an API exposes multiple protocols, contracts must be verified across all:

Orders API Contract Status
REST (OpenAPI)	checkout-service	✅ 12 interactions verified
	admin-dashboard	✅ 8 interactions verified
	mobile-app	✅ 15 interactions verified
GraphQL	mobile-app	✅ 6 operations verified
	analytics-service	⚠️ 2/4 operations verified (2 deprecated)
AsyncAPI (Events)	notification-service	✅ 3 channels verified
	audit-logger	✅ 5 channels verified
	inventory-sync	❌ 1 channel FAILED └─ orders.created: Missing 'warehouseId' field
Overall Status: ❌ BLOCKED Fix required before publication

Performance & Load Testing

Why Performance Testing Belongs in Governance

Performance is a feature. An API that returns correct data in 5 seconds isn’t meeting its contract if consumers expect 200ms. The governance platform makes performance:

Visible — Every API has documented latency expectations
Measured — Auditor tracks actual performance continuously
Enforced — Quality gates prevent slow APIs from reaching production
Comparable — New versions benchmarked against previous versions

Performance Dimensions

Dimension	Definition	Measurement
Latency	Time from request to response	p50, p90, p95, p99 percentiles
Throughput	Requests handled per second	RPS at various concurrency levels
Error Rate	Percentage of failed requests	4xx, 5xx rates under load
Saturation	Resource utilization	CPU, memory, connection pool usage
Scalability	Performance change with load	Latency curve as RPS increases

Performance SLOs in API Specifications

API specifications include performance expectations:

openapi: 3.0.0
info:
  title: Order API
  version: 2.1.0
  x-performance-slo:
    latency:
      p50: 50ms
      p95: 150ms
      p99: 300ms
    throughput:
      minimum_rps: 1000
      target_rps: 5000
    availability: 99.9%
    error_budget:
      monthly_downtime: 43m
      error_rate: 0.1%

These SLOs are:

Stored in Registry alongside API metadata
Displayed in Developer Portal so consumers know what to expect
Validated by Auditor against actual production metrics
Enforced by Quality Gates during publication

Platform-Native Load Testing

The Gateway and Auditor provide natural infrastructure for load testing:

%%{init: {'theme':'base', 'themeVariables': { 'primaryColor':'#e8f4f8','primaryTextColor':'#000','primaryBorderColor':'#000','lineColor':'#333'}}}%%
flowchart TB
    subgraph Orchestration
        Scheduler[Test Scheduler
Registry]
    end
    
    subgraph Workers
        W1[Worker Node 1]
        W2[Worker Node 2]
        W3[Worker Node 3]
    end
    
    subgraph Gateway Layer
        GW[Gateway - Staging
Test traffic tagged with test_run_id]
    end
    
    subgraph APIs
        A[API A]
        B[API B]
        C[API C]
    end
    
    subgraph Metrics
        Auditor[Auditor
Aggregates metrics by test_run_id]
    end
    
    Scheduler --> W1
    Scheduler --> W2
    Scheduler --> W3
    W1 --> GW
    W2 --> GW
    W3 --> GW
    GW --> A
    GW --> B
    GW --> C
    A --> Auditor
    B --> Auditor
    C --> Auditor

Load Test Specification

Load tests are defined declaratively and stored in Registry:

load_test:
  name: orders-api-load-test
  api: orders-api
  version: "2.1"
  environment: staging
  
  scenarios:
    - name: baseline
      description: Normal production-like load
      duration: 10m
      ramp_up: 2m
      virtual_users: 100
      requests_per_second: 500
      
    - name: peak
      description: 2x expected peak load
      duration: 10m
      ramp_up: 3m
      virtual_users: 200
      requests_per_second: 1000
      
    - name: stress
      description: Find breaking point
      duration: 15m
      ramp_up: 5m
      virtual_users: 500
      requests_per_second: 2500
      
    - name: soak
      description: Extended duration stability
      duration: 2h
      ramp_up: 5m
      virtual_users: 100
      requests_per_second: 500

  workload:
    # Weighted distribution of API calls
    - endpoint: GET /orders/{id}
      weight: 50
      parameters:
        id: ${random_order_id}
        
    - endpoint: GET /orders?customer_id={id}
      weight: 30
      parameters:
        id: ${random_customer_id}
        
    - endpoint: POST /orders
      weight: 15
      body: ${order_template}
      
    - endpoint: DELETE /orders/{id}
      weight: 5
      parameters:
        id: ${deletable_order_id}

  data_sources:
    random_order_id:
      type: csv
      file: test-data/order-ids.csv
      
    random_customer_id:
      type: range
      min: 1000
      max: 99999
      
    order_template:
      type: json_template
      file: test-data/order-template.json
      
    deletable_order_id:
      type: api
      endpoint: POST /test/orders  # Creates test order
      extract: $.order_id

  assertions:
    - metric: latency_p95
      condition: "<"
      threshold: 150ms
      
    - metric: latency_p99
      condition: "<"
      threshold: 300ms
      
    - metric: error_rate
      condition: "<"
      threshold: 0.1%
      
    - metric: throughput
      condition: ">="
      threshold: 500rps

  notifications:
    on_start:
      - slack: #api-platform
    on_complete:
      - slack: #api-platform
      - email: api-owners@company.com
    on_failure:
      - pagerduty: api-platform-oncall

Real Traffic Replay

The Auditor captures production traffic patterns that can be replayed for realistic load testing:

%%{init: {'theme':'base', 'themeVariables': { 'primaryColor':'#e8f4f8','primaryTextColor':'#000','primaryBorderColor':'#000','lineColor':'#333'}}}%%
flowchart LR
    subgraph Production
        Logs[Auditor Logs]
    end
    
    subgraph Sanitization
        Redactor[Redactor]
        Redacts[Redacts:
PII, Tokens, Keys]
    end
    
    subgraph Staging
        Replay[Replay Engine]
    end
    
    Logs -->|Raw traffic| Redactor
    Redactor -->|Sanitized| Replay
    Redactor --> Redacts

Benefits of Traffic Replay:

Realistic workload distribution — Actual endpoint usage patterns, not guesses
Edge cases included — Real requests include unusual parameters synthetic tests miss
Seasonal patterns — Replay Monday morning traffic, month-end spikes, etc.
Consumer behavior — See how actual consumers call the API

Shadow Traffic Testing

For high-confidence pre-production validation, mirror production traffic to the new version:

%%{init: {'theme':'base', 'themeVariables': { 'primaryColor':'#e8f4f8','primaryTextColor':'#000','primaryBorderColor':'#000','lineColor':'#333'}}}%%
flowchart TB
    Request[Production Request]
    Gateway[Gateway - Production]
    V21[API v2.1 - Current]
    V22[API v2.2 - Shadow]
    Response[Response returned to client]
    Compare[Response compared but discarded]
    Comparator[Comparator:
Latency Δ, Response Δ, Error Δ]
    
    Request --> Gateway
    Gateway --> V21
    Gateway -->|async copy| V22
    V21 --> Response
    V22 --> Compare
    Compare --> Comparator

Shadow Traffic Comparison Report:

Shadow Traffic Comparison: v2.1 vs v2.2
Duration: 24 hours \| Requests: 1,247,832
Latency Comparison
Percentile	v2.1 (prod)	v2.2 (shadow)	Difference
p50	43ms	41ms	-4.6% ✅
p95	112ms	108ms	-3.5% ✅
p99	198ms	187ms	-5.5% ✅
Response Comparison
Identical responses	1,245,219		99.79%
Expected differences	2,401		0.19% ⚠️
Unexpected differences	212		0.02% ⚠️
Unexpected Differences (sample)
`GET /orders/98234` v2.1: `{"status": "pending", "items": [...]}` v2.2: `{"status": "PENDING", "items": [...]}` Issue: Enum case change (pending → PENDING)
`GET /orders?customer_id=12345&limit=100` v2.1: 100 items returned v2.2: 50 items returned Issue: Default limit changed from 100 to 50
⚠️ VERDICT: REVIEW REQUIRED
2 potential breaking changes detected in shadow comparison

Chaos Engineering

Why Chaos Engineering?

Load tests verify performance under expected conditions. Chaos engineering verifies resilience under failure conditions:

What happens when a downstream dependency is slow?
How does the API behave when the database connection pool is exhausted?
Do circuit breakers actually trip?
Is graceful degradation working?

Gateway-Injected Faults

The Gateway can inject faults without modifying backend services:

chaos_experiment:
  name: downstream-latency-injection
  api: orders-api
  environment: staging
  
  # Target specific traffic
  traffic_selector:
    percentage: 10%  # Only affect 10% of requests
    # OR target specific consumers
    subscription_ids:
      - "test-consumer-123"
  
  faults:
    - type: latency
      delay: 500ms
      probability: 0.3  # 30% of selected traffic
      
    - type: error
      status_code: 503
      probability: 0.1  # 10% of selected traffic
      body: '{"error": "service_unavailable"}'
      
    - type: timeout
      duration: 30s
      probability: 0.05  # 5% of selected traffic

  duration: 15m
  
  abort_conditions:
    - metric: error_rate
      threshold: "> 5%"
      action: abort_and_rollback
      
  success_criteria:
    - description: "Circuit breaker trips within 30s"
      metric: circuit_breaker_open
      condition: "== true"
      within: 30s
      
    - description: "Error rate stabilizes after circuit opens"
      metric: error_rate
      condition: "< 1%"
      after: circuit_breaker_open

Chaos Experiment Types

Experiment	Fault Injected	Validates
Latency injection	Add 100-5000ms delay	Timeout handling, async patterns
Error injection	Return 500/503 errors	Retry logic, circuit breakers
Partial failure	Fail specific endpoints	Graceful degradation
Resource exhaustion	Limit connections	Connection pool sizing
Data corruption	Malformed responses	Input validation on consumers
Clock skew	Offset timestamps	Token validation, caching
Network partition	Block specific routes	Failover, redundancy

Automated Resilience Scoring

The Auditor calculates a resilience score based on chaos experiment results:

Resilience Score: orders-api v2.1
Overall Score: 78/100 ⚠️
Category	Score	Status
Timeout Handling	92/100	✅ Excellent
Circuit Breaker	85/100	✅ Good
Retry Logic	80/100	✅ Good
Graceful Degradation	65/100	⚠️ Needs Work
Error Response Quality	70/100	⚠️ Needs Work
Failover Speed	68/100	⚠️ Needs Work
Recommendations
• Graceful degradation: Return cached data when inventory-api is unavailable instead of 503
• Error responses: Include retry-after header on 503s
• Failover: Reduce circuit breaker threshold from 10 to 5 consecutive failures

Automated Governance & Quality Gates

This section centralizes all concepts related to enforcing quality rules through automated governance. It combines performance baselines, regression detection, quality gate configuration, and metrics dashboards to create a cohesive system for maintaining API quality standards.

Performance Baselines

Every API version has a performance baseline established during pre-production testing:

Performance Baseline: orders-api v2.1
Endpoint: GET /orders/{id}
Percentile	Latency	Status
p50	42ms
p90	89ms
p95	112ms	SLO Target: 150ms ✅ PASS
p99	198ms
Summary
Throughput	3,200 RPS @ 100 concurrent connections
Error Rate	0.02% under load
Baseline Date	2025-11-20
Test Duration	15 minutes
Test Environment	staging-us-east-1

Regression Detection

When a new version is submitted, automated performance tests compare against the baseline:

Performance Comparison: v2.1.0 → v2.2.0
GET /orders/{id}
Percentile	Baseline (v2.1)	New (v2.2)	Change
p50	42ms	45ms	+7% ⚠️
p90	89ms	94ms	+6% ⚠️
p95	112ms	156ms	+39% ❌
p99	198ms	312ms	+58% ❌
❌ REGRESSION DETECTED
p95 latency exceeds SLO (150ms) and baseline by >20%
Possible Causes
• New database query in OrderService.getOrder()
• N+1 query pattern detected in order line items
• Missing index on orders.customer_id
Action: Publication blocked until regression resolved

Quality Gate Configuration

Define organization-wide quality standards:

# Organization-wide quality gate policy
quality_gates:
  # Tier 1: Critical APIs (payments, auth, core data)
  tier_1:
    contract_tests:
      required: true
      coverage: ">= 90%"
      
    performance:
      baseline_required: true
      slo_compliance: required
      regression_tolerance: 10%
      
    load_test:
      required: true
      scenarios: [baseline, peak, stress]
      min_duration: 15m
      
    chaos:
      required: true
      experiments: [latency, errors, timeout]
      resilience_score: ">= 80"
      
    security:
      owasp_scan: required
      dependency_scan: required
      
  # Tier 2: Important APIs (internal services)
  tier_2:
    contract_tests:
      required: true
      coverage: ">= 70%"
      
    performance:
      baseline_required: true
      slo_compliance: required
      regression_tolerance: 15%
      
    load_test:
      required: true
      scenarios: [baseline, peak]
      min_duration: 10m
      
    chaos:
      required: false
      recommended: true
      
  # Tier 3: Low-risk APIs (internal tools, non-critical)
  tier_3:
    contract_tests:
      required: true
      coverage: ">= 50%"
      
    performance:
      baseline_required: recommended
      slo_compliance: recommended
      
    load_test:
      required: false
      recommended: true

Test Metrics Dashboard

The Auditor provides unified visibility into all test results:

API Testing Dashboard
Test Execution Summary (Last 7 Days)
Total Tests: 1,247		Pass Rate: 94.2%
Test Type	Count	Pass Rate
Contract Tests	847	96%	████████████████░
Performance Tests	234	91%	██████████████░░░
Load Tests	98	89%	█████████████░░░░
Chaos Tests	68	94%	███████████████░░
Quality Gate Status
APIs Ready for Production: 42/47
Blocked APIs
inventory-api v3.2	Performance regression
shipping-api v2.0	Contract test failures
auth-api v4.1	Pending load test
pricing-api v2.3	Chaos test failures
notifications-api v1.5	Missing baseline
Performance Trends
p95 Latency (All APIs, 30 days) Trend: Stable (σ = 12ms)

Automated Performance Test Triggers

Performance tests run automatically at key lifecycle points:

Trigger	Test Type	Duration	Load Level
PR opened	Smoke test	2 min	10% baseline
PR merged to main	Baseline test	10 min	100% baseline
Staging deployment	Load test	15 min	100%, 200%, 500%
Pre-production approval	Soak test	1 hour	100% baseline
Canary deployment	Shadow traffic	Continuous	Production mirror
Weekly scheduled	Regression check	30 min	Full suite

CI/CD Integration

The CI/CD integration is a crucial piece of the implementation puzzle, showing how testing and governance integrate seamlessly into development workflows.

CI/CD Pipeline Integration

# .github/workflows/api-quality.yml
name: API Quality Gates

on:
  pull_request:
    paths:
      - 'apis/**'
      - 'openapi/**'

jobs:
  contract-tests:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
      
      - name: Fetch consumer contracts
        run: |
          curl -H "Authorization: Bearer $" \
            "$/apis/$/contracts" \
            -o contracts.json
            
      - name: Run contract tests
        run: |
          npm run test:contracts -- --contracts contracts.json
          
      - name: Upload results to Registry
        run: |
          curl -X POST \
            -H "Authorization: Bearer $" \
            -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
            -d @test-results.json \
            "$/apis/$/test-results"

  performance-baseline:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    needs: contract-tests
    steps:
      - name: Deploy to ephemeral environment
        run: |
          kubectl apply -f k8s/ephemeral-env.yaml
          
      - name: Run performance baseline
        run: |
          k6 run \
            --out json=results.json \
            --tag testid=$ \
            performance/baseline.js
            
      - name: Compare with previous baseline
        run: |
          curl -X POST \
            -H "Authorization: Bearer $" \
            -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
            -d @results.json \
            "$/apis/$/performance/compare"
            
      - name: Check quality gate
        run: |
          RESULT=$(curl -s "$/apis/$/quality-gate")
          if [ "$(echo $RESULT | jq -r '.passed')" != "true" ]; then
            echo "Quality gate failed:"
            echo $RESULT | jq '.failures'
            exit 1
          fi

Testing Infrastructure

Test Environment Management

The platform provides isolated test environments that mirror production:

%%{init: {'theme':'base', 'themeVariables': { 'primaryColor':'#e8f4f8','primaryTextColor':'#000','primaryBorderColor':'#000','lineColor':'#333'}}}%%
flowchart TB
    subgraph Production
        PGW[Gateway - prod]
        PRG[Registry - prod]
        PAU[Auditor - prod]
        PAP[APIs - prod]
    end
    
    subgraph Staging
        SGW[Gateway - staging]
        SRG[Registry - staging]
        SAU[Auditor - staging]
        SAP[APIs - staging]
        SN1[Production config synced daily]
        SN2[Synthetic test data]
        SN3[Full load testing capability]
    end
    
    subgraph Ephemeral["Ephemeral Test Environments"]
        PR1[PR #1234
orders-api v2.2-pr1234
TTL: 24h]
        PR2[PR #1235
users-api v3.1-pr1235
TTL: 24h]
        PR3[PR #1236
orders-api v2.2-pr1236
TTL: 24h]
        EN1[Spun up automatically on PR]
        EN2[Destroyed after merge/close]
        EN3[Contract tests only]
    end
    
    Production -->|Config Mirror| Staging
    Staging -->|On-Demand Envs| Ephemeral

Test Data Management

test_data_strategy:
  production_data:
    # Never use real production data
    policy: prohibited
    
  synthetic_data:
    # Generated to match production patterns
    generators:
      - type: faker
        locale: en_US
        seed: 12345  # Reproducible
        
      - type: production_statistics
        # Generate data matching production distributions
        source: auditor_metrics
        
  anonymized_data:
    # Production data with PII removed
    pipeline:
      - extract: production_snapshot
      - transform: anonymize_pii
      - transform: scramble_ids
      - load: staging_database
    schedule: weekly
    
  test_fixtures:
    # Known data for deterministic tests
    location: test-data/fixtures/
    version_controlled: true

Load Generator Infrastructure

Dedicated infrastructure for generating load:

load_generator:
  # Kubernetes-based distributed load generation
  infrastructure:
    type: kubernetes
    namespace: load-testing
    
  workers:
    image: company/load-generator:latest
    replicas:
      min: 3
      max: 50
      auto_scale: true
    resources:
      cpu: 2
      memory: 4Gi
      
  distribution:
    # Spread workers across regions for realistic latency
    regions:
      - us-east-1: 40%
      - us-west-2: 30%
      - eu-west-1: 30%
      
  tools:
    primary: k6  # Modern, scriptable
    alternatives:
      - locust  # Python-based
      - gatling  # Scala-based
      - vegeta  # Simple HTTP load

Summary

Testing integrated with API governance transforms quality from an afterthought to a core capability:

Traditional Testing	Governance-Integrated Testing
Tests run in isolation	Tests inform lifecycle decisions
Results in CI logs	Results in Auditor dashboards
Pass/fail binary	Trend analysis and regression detection
Manual performance benchmarks	Automated baseline comparison
Load tests on request	Scheduled, triggered, continuous
Chaos as special project	Chaos as routine validation
Quality gates per team	Organization-wide standards

The platform’s existing components provide natural integration points:

Registry stores test specifications, contracts, and quality gate configurations
Gateway enables fault injection, traffic mirroring, and test traffic routing
Auditor aggregates results, tracks trends, and enforces quality gates

This approach ensures APIs meet quality standards before they impact consumers—and continues validating them in production.

Back to Technical Design

Back to Main README