Is it ok if I see I am logged in as as Hannah and can launch new instances after clicking the first link?

It's all mocked, so you're not really Hannah, and you're not really launching instances. Their console is open source, and when you run it in dev mode locally this is also what you see.

Also, worth pointing out that Hannah Arendt (the name that shows up as the logged in user) is a famous historian and philosopher (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt)

Just when I think I get the whacky web kids, hell, that maybe I've even one of them, an article like this and functionality like this comes along.

I don't know how a mock library enables a revolution of having test data.

I don't know why the library couldn't change it's favorite method signature because a subset of versions of one JS framework couldn't...fetch?

or why the mock library can only have one dependency...

...and I feel _really_ out of the loop because I can't understand the tone, hinting at years of sweat and though that I'm more used to from a consumer product launch.

But that's why I respect the web more than ever. The reaction is real, and it means something, even if I don't understand it. People put _years_ into making (gestures) this work, so millions of developers can benefits, so billions, hell, _humanity_ can benefit. All in the open.

Shine on, you crazy diamonds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54W8kktFE_o

Worth noting that in my experience it's the combination of MSW and code generated from an OpenAPI spec that really makes it special, not just MSW alone.

The other reply covers it but I want to slice it slightly differently. I see two things that are different here. One is mocking at the HTTP boundary rather than mocking, e.g., function return values or modules or whatever. That's certainly not revolutionary (I know people do it with rspec and I'm sure plenty of test frameworks do it too), and in theory you could build your mock server with any tool that lets you build a server. But people don't usually do this, and when they do they tend to do it bit by bit for each test rather than thinking about it as mocking the entire API. So for example, in my mock API, my POST creating a project actually creates a project in a mock database, and then when I list projects, I can see what I just created. So I can test the UI by doing exactly what you would do manually — create the thing and see that it shows up where it's supposed to. All of that is built independently of my test for that feature, and it works for all the tests I write — I don't have to think about mocking API bits for a particular test.

Worth a read: https://kentcdodds.com/blog/stop-mocking-fetch

The other thing that's unusual is running this mock in a Service Worker, which means it can run in the browser. That's pretty cool and pretty unique to this tool. But the Mock part is about running the same server outside of the browser i.e., in Node (or now Deno or Bun), which means you can use it for unit tests. So I think the thing you have to see here is the synthesis of all that in one thing — it's one mock server that (because it's written in JS) can run both in the browser and on the server. I admit it doesn't sound that great until you try it, but it enables some cool and surprisingly useful stuff like the live preview I linked.

Thank you __very__ much, I went a bit long to try to signal I was serious and thought I wouldn't get any substantive reply. This is beyond my wildest dreams. Thanks again.

> I don't know how a mock library enables a revolution of having test data.

From my understanding this isn’t (just) mock data, it’s an entire mock backend that runs inside the browser. To be able to simulate that with zero dependencies outside the browser does simplify a lot of testing scenarios.

Amazing. At Step CI we’re currently working on a tool that will do the conversion automatically (OpenAPI > MSW)

Feel free to email me at [email protected] if you want to hear more!

We more or less did that too. We generate typed wrappers for every handler, and then we manually implement the internal logic for each endpoint. I doubt reliably generating 100% of the logic is possible, but even if it is, I would guess it's more work to do that than to do it manually.

Generator: https://github.com/oxidecomputer/oxide.ts/blob/64401fa2/gene...

Generated output: https://github.com/oxidecomputer/console/blob/8e74accf/libs/...

Manually implemented endpoint behavior: https://github.com/oxidecomputer/console/blob/8e74accf/libs/...

I'm so glad to see all of your comments here. I've been fascinated by your setup ever since hearing about it on the Oxide and Friends podcast. The part that I'm most curious about is the part where you weave together auto-generated interface code with hand-implemented mock implementations… I'll have to go read your code and see how that happens.

[Edit, after reading a bit of the code]

Am I correct in understanding that the generated code maps API calls to a typed interface, and then the hand-built implementation simply implements that interface?

So rather than complex weaving where you want hand-coded function bodies but generated signatures, you have generated signatures, where each function body calls a method on a generated interface.

Yeah, basically. We do it with a function call where the argument to the function is that interface representing all the API endpoints. `makeHandlers` handles parsing path params, query params, and request body and passes them to each endpoint handler. So the runtime validation of request bodies is also generated — we generate a zod schema for each request body in the OpenAPI definition and use it to parse the actual request body that comes in.

big function call https://github.com/oxidecomputer/console/blob/bd65b9da7019ad...

automatic body parsing and argument passing: https://github.com/oxidecomputer/console/blob/bd65b9da7019ad...

When an endpoint gets added to the spec, we can rerun the generator and get type errors in the `makeHandlers` telling us endpdoints are missing.

Why not use @mswjs/source?

I've seen you mention this a few times but can't seem to find any information on it. I'm very interested in being able to use HAR files with MSW.

Could you provide a link to this package? I can't seem to find anything.

Looks like the repo is private. My apologies.

Yeah, @msw/source is pretty sweet for that :) Use a .har or OpenAPI spec to create mock handlers

we started using (and now contributing to) https://orval.dev/ this year which both generates the mocks using MSW as well as the client-side networking code (React Query in our case). It removes so much boilerplate its amazing.

wrote up the basics of our workflow few weeks ago https://betaacid.co/blog/api-contracts

Orval is great, I also recently wrapped up a project with Orval, React Query, and MSW. Generated my typescript models, helped me track changes in the API each time I updated against the swagger spec and let me test and demo the UI before our API team had a server running. Such a time-saver.

Really cool setup, thanks for sharing!

After buying in to OpenAPI as the fundamental source of truth (generated via https://www.ts-rest.com contracts in my case), I have radically changed how I think about web development.

At this point, it's frankly absurd to me how many people out there make it so hard for themselves by manually building/typing/validating both client & server-side responsibilities in most typical REST setups. I get it -- I spent >2 decades in that reality, but no more. I will die on this hill.

I am likely understating the impact when I say I'm 2x as productive whenever I touch API related functionality/validation on client or server-side.

MSW, Zod, react-hook-form+ZodResolver and several other tools in the OpenAPI ecosystem are simply incredible for productivity. The project I'm on now is certainly the most fun I've ever built because of these amazing tools.