Technical demonstration · synthetic data

API integration tests
and interface behavior

Executable test package for B2B order synchronization: from source data through mapping to the target-system response and PASS/FAIL report.

Demonstration scope12 deterministic scenarios2 synthetic endpointsExpected/actual report

Input

Source payload and API response contract.

How the check works

Mapping → HTTP request → response validation.

What the system detects

Status, schema, mapping, duplicate and timeout.

What you receive

Expected/actual, JSON diff and JSON/CSV report.

How the result is accepted

Results match the scenario matrix; async supplement: PASS → one regression → PASS.

SourceSystem AGET /source/orders

→

ContractValidation / mapping12 test cases

→

TargetSystem BPOST /target/orders

→

AcceptanceTest reportPASS / FAIL

Webhook delivery acceptance

HMAC-SHA256, idempotency key, duplicate delivery, timeout and retry. An isolated receiver executes scenarios in one API request. Timeout is a controlled transport simulation.

Reference: all tests PASS. Controlled change: deduplication is disabled for one delivery. Expected rejection of invalid input means the test passes.

Scenario package

Execution result

Intentional FAIL results prove discrepancy detection; they do not mean an application error.

12scenarios

The package checks field mapping, contract validation, HTTP statuses, idempotency, data consistency and retry behavior.

Contract-first API

Contract validation and compatibility

A small response contract is executed against six synthetic responses. An added optional field is compatible; a missing required field or type change is breaking.

Contract versiontarget-order-response/1.2

Compatible2

Breaking / invalid4

Scenario	Response version	Result	Compatibility	Field / rule	Expected / actual
`CONTRACT-BASELINE` Baseline contract	target-order-response/1.2	PASS	baseline	response CONTRACT_REQUIRED_FIELDS	response compatible with contract compatible
`CONTRACT-MISSING` Missing required field	target-order-response/1.2-bad-missing	FAIL	breaking	targetId CONTRACT_REQUIRED_FIELDS	present missing
`CONTRACT-TYPE` Wrong field type	target-order-response/1.2-bad-type	FAIL	breaking	targetId CONTRACT_FIELD_TYPE	string number
`CONTRACT-ENUM` Invalid enum value	target-order-response/1.2-bad-enum	FAIL	breaking	lifecycle CONTRACT_ENUM_VALUE	NEW\|CONFIRMED\|SHIPPED ARCHIVED
`CONTRACT-ADDITIVE` Optional field added	target-order-response/1.3-compatible	PASS	compatible	response CONTRACT_ADDITIVE_OPTIONAL	response compatible with contract compatible
`CONTRACT-BREAKING` Breaking contract change	target-order-response/2.0-breaking	FAIL	breaking	accepted CONTRACT_FIELD_TYPE	boolean string

What this example demonstrates

A testable contract instead of an unclear integration

Scenarios and data are synthetic. In a real scope, criteria are based on the agreed specification and examples.

01 · Input

Contract and examples

Field specification, dictionary values and sample source/target payloads.

02 · Test cases

Explicit scenarios

Success cases, expected rejections, contract errors and transport behavior.

03 · Result

PASS/FAIL report

Identifier, payload, expected and actual result, and readable JSON diff.

04 · Acceptance

Measurable acceptance

Stable dataset, agreed results and a reusable executable regression package.

Implementation scope

Isolated API integration acceptance

API specification and examples → agreed scenarios → executable test pack → discrepancy report → PASS/FAIL acceptance.

The scope focuses on an isolated integration, post-change regression or migration validation with clear acceptance criteria.

Discuss a similar scope