How to Test Ruby Code That Depends on External APIs

Few things are more frustrating than slow, flaky test suites. You're ready to deploy, wait 20 minutes for CI to run, only to find that a test failure in code you've never touched is blocking you. You dig into the source and find the problem: an external API call. It works (slowly) most of the time. But sometimes the network glitches and it fails. What do you do? In this article, José Manuel shows us several techniques for removing external API dependencies from our tests.

We strive for good test coverage in our Ruby apps but that can be hard to achieve—especially when your code makes use of external APIs.

External APIs present several problems when testing. They're provided by other people, so they could change or disappear without notice. They're subject to rate limiting, outages, and connectivity issues, and they're often slow.

In this article, we'll discuss several possible ways to test code that consumes third-party APIs. We'll start with a naive approach and show how its failings lead to more sophisticated measures like manual mocking, automated mocking, and contracts.

Calling the external API in the tests

Let's start with a straightforward, naive approach. We simply use the external API in the test.

For this article, we'll use RSpec for our tests, but the same principles can be applied to other testing frameworks in Ruby.

require "faraday"
require "json"

class ExampleApiClient
 def self.employees()
   url = ""
   data = Faraday.get(url).body
   JSON.parse(data, symbolize_names: true)

This API returns a JSON with the format:

  "status": "success",
  "data": [
      "id": "1",
      "employee_name": "Tiger Nixon",
      "employee_salary": "320800",
      "employee_age": "61",
      "profile_image": ""
      "id": "2",
      "employee_name": "Garrett Winters",
      "employee_salary": "170750",
      "employee_age": "63",
      "profile_image": ""

Now, let's test this code with a simple case:

describe ExampleApiClient do
  describe 'employees' do
    let(:employees_response) { ExampleApiClient.employees() }
    it "returns correctly some data" do
      expect(employees_response).to be_kind_of(Hash)
      expect(employees_response).to have_key(:status)
      expect(employees_response).to have_key(:data)

But, as you can see, we're calling the real API in our test.

Consequences of calling the real API in our tests

In this approach, we're using the real response from the API, so if the API changes, our test fails - which is good, but this approach has its downsides too:

  • The test is slow, and if we have others like this one, the whole test suite becomes slower.
  • Since every test is slow, we'll be less keen to write more tests, so we'll have less coverage in our code.
  • The test might fail if there's a connectivity issue on our side.
  • The API could have a limited hit rate, and our tests could fail for that reason. This is more common in development environments, like the one we'd use in our test.
  • Finally, if we send requests to the real API, we might change some things that we didn't intend to, like creating unnecessary resources or deleting others.

I think there's a possibility of calling the real APIs from our tests, but for unit testing, this is not a good approach; we'll discuss this later. For now, if we shouldn't call the API from our tests, what should we do?

Alternatives to calling the real API in a test

As you can imagine, we're not the first ones to face this problem, and there are different solutions. Let's see some of them.

Manually stubbing the HTTP requests

When we have a request to an external API, we just stub the HTTP request and return what we expect in the real scenario. Let's see a quick example with [WebMock](, one of the most used libraries for this purpose.

Once we've added it to our project, we need to add this to our spec_helper.rb file:

# ....
require 'webmock/rspec'

RSpec.configure do |config|
  config.before(:each) do
    employees_response = {
      :status => 'success',
      :data => []
    stub_request(:get, "").
    to_return(status: 200, body: employees_response.to_json)

  # ....

And the test would be the same:

require_relative './../example'

describe ExampleApiClient do
  describe 'employees' do
    let(:employees_response) { ExampleApiClient.employees() }
    it "returns correctly some data" do
      expect(employees_response).to be_kind_of(Hash)
      expect(employees_response).to have_key(:status)
      expect(employees_response).to have_key(:data)

But the main difference now is that we're testing our code against the pre-defined response that we've set in the spec helper.

It's important to note that if we had more tests like this in a project, we'd need a better way to organize the stubs, like a dedicated file required in the spec helper.

If what we're doing here is trying to see what we needed for our test from the real API response, why don't we automatize it? That's our next approach.

Record the requests with VCR to reuse the responses

We can use a library like VCR to record the responses from the API. The first time it runs, it'll save the response for every request we have in our tests. The next time, it'll use those recorded responses, as long as we don't change the requests.

We'll go into more detail here because this approach is prevalent, and it has the advantage of saving us stubbing the requests for each test manually. Let's see how we can use it.

Getting started with VCR and RSpec

Since VCR uses a library to stub the HTTP requests, we can use WebMock. First, we can add it to our Gemfile along with VCR:

gem 'webmock'
gem 'vcr'

Now we can create a file called vcr_setup.rb:

require 'vcr'

VCR.configure do |c|
  c.cassette_library_dir = 'vcr_cassettes'
  c.hook_into :webmock

Then, we need to require that file in our test suite. In this case, since we're using RSpec, we can do this in our spec_helper.rb:

require 'vcr_setup'

Now, in our existing test, we can enter:

describe ExampleApiClient do
  describe 'employees' do
    let(:employees_response) { ExampleApiClient.employees() }
    it "returns correctly some data", :vcr do
      expect(employees_response).to be_kind_of(Hash)
      expect(employees_response).to have_key(:status)
      expect(employees_response).to have_key(:data)

Just by adding ", :vcr" to our "it" statement, we can use VCR. This is because we added this line to our configuration:


If we're adding VCR to an existing test suite with multiple tests that send requests, it's essential to add ", :vcr" to all of them; otherwise, you'll see an exception. It might sound a bit extreme, but remember that we're dealing with tests, and they're useful to notice when you're calling the external APIs.

Some tips with VCR

VCR is a mature tool in the Ruby community, so we can find great tips that might come in handy.

We can see the file where the response has been recorded (called cassette) by adding this to our test:

puts VCR.current_cassette.file

To avoid big diffs in your pull requests showing the cassettes, we can add this to .gitattributes:

* text=auto


We can also use JSON instead of YAML for the recorded requests by adding this to the configuration:

VCR.configure do |config|
  config.default_cassette_options = {
    serialize_with: :json

Finally, we can use ERB in the cassettes. It's handy to include some dynamic data like a timestamp or a value.

If we have the following in our test:

require 'json'

value = [1,2,3].to_json

VCR.use_cassette('example', :erb => { :body => value }) do
  response = Net::HTTP.get_response('', '/resources')
  puts "Response: #{response.body}"

We can use that value in our cassette:

- !ruby/struct:VCR::HTTPInteraction
  request: !ruby/struct:VCR::Request
    method: :get
  response: !ruby/struct:VCR::Response
    status: !ruby/struct:VCR::ResponseStatus
      code: 200
      message: OK
        - text/html;charset=utf-8
        - "9"
    body: Hello <%= body %>
    http_version: "1.1"

Or we can just set it to true in the use_cassette call and use plain Ruby in the YAML, for example, if we want to use a dynamic timestamp.

<%= %>

Disadvantages (and solutions) of stubbing external requests

This level of automatization and stubbing working almost magically comes with a price. Even if we manually stub the requests as we did in the first option, the disadvantages are the same.

Since we're only recording the responses from the first time we execute the tests–or from looking at the response manually—it's possible that the API changes and our tests still pass. It's indeed a problem, but an easy solution is to have end-to-end tests to cover those cases. They should focus only on the main execution paths, giving us the speed and flexibility of using VCR.

The tests shown here are considered unit tests, where we stub an external request assuming two things:

  • The format of the response from the external service won't change. We need to see this case by case, but there are big APIs out there like Github's or Stripe's that have versions, so you can be sure that as long as the API is online and you use the same version, the response follows the documentation. Of course, if the API is new and might change without notice, we can't assume this.
  • The second assumption is that the API is going to be online when we call it. From the perspective of our unit tests, it's safe to assume that, but those end-to-end tests showing that the main cases are going to work in the real world are handy. Besides, you can set up alerts in case the APIs that your project depends on are down.

Other approaches: contract testing

This solution deserves its article, but the main idea is to have a "contract" between the API and the client so that you can test your code against it.

The most used library nowadays is

The principle is that instead of just stubbing from your side as an API client, there's a file that describes the dependency, so now you can have tests for the client (consumer) and the server (provider). This is especially useful when you control both parts, like in a microservices environment inside the same project.

For external APIs, this is usually hard to implement because you can only test one side.

Let's see a quick example extracted from the official docs where we control both sides.

Imagine we have an integration between an app, called Zoo App, and an API called Animal Service.

Zoo App integration

First steps

We can start with our model from the Zoo App (consumer) perspective:

class Alligator
  attr_reader :name

  def initialize name
    @name = name

  def == other
    other.is_a?(Alligator) && == name

And the Animal Service client class:

require 'httparty'

class AnimalServiceClient
  include HTTParty
  base_uri ''

  def get_alligator
    # We need to implement it because we're doing TDD...

Configure the mock Animal Service

Now we can add a mock service on localhost:1234, which responds to your application's queries over HTTP, like the Animal Service would.

It also creates a mock provider object, which we'll use to set up your expectations.

# In /spec/service_providers/pact_helper.rb

require 'pact/consumer/rspec'

Pact.service_consumer "Zoo App" do
  has_pact_with "Animal Service" do
    mock_service :animal_service do
      port 1234

Write a failing spec for the Animal Service client

# In /spec/service_providers/animal_service_client_spec.rb

describe AnimalServiceClient, :pact => true do
  before do
    AnimalServiceClient.base_uri 'localhost:1234'

  subject { }

  describe "get_alligator" do
    before do
      animal_service.given("an alligator exists").
        upon_receiving("a request for an alligator").
        with(method: :get, path: '/alligator', query: '').
          status: 200,
          headers: {'Content-Type' => 'application/json'},
          body: {name: 'Betty'} )

    it "returns a alligator" do
      expect(subject.get_alligator).to eq('Betty'))

Run the specs

Running the AnimalServiceClient spec generates a pact file in the configured pact dir (spec/pacts by default).

The above test fails because we haven't implemented the Animal Service client method; let's implement it.

Implement the Animal Service client consumer methods

class AnimalServiceClient
  include HTTParty
  base_uri ''

  def get_alligator
    name = JSON.parse(self.class.get("/alligator").body)['name']

Rerun the specs.

Green! We now have a pact file that we can use to verify our expectations of the Animal Service provider project.

We can now focus on the Animal Service (provider).

Honoring the pact file we made

First, we need to require pact/tasks in our Rakefile.

# In Rakefile
require 'pact/tasks'

And then create a pact_helper.rb in our service provider project.

# In specs/service_consumers/pact_helper.rb

require 'pact/provider/rspec'

Pact.service_provider "Animal Service" do
  honours_pact_with 'Zoo App' do
    # This example points to a local file, however, on a real project with a continuous
    # integration box, we would use a [Pact Broker]( or publish our pacts as artifacts,
    # and point the pact_uri to the pact published by the last successful build.
    pact_uri '../zoo-app/specs/pacts/zoo_app-animal_service.json'

Let's run our failing specs

$ rake pact:verify

We now have a failing spec to develop against. Once we write the code that respects this contract, we'll have the confidence that our consumer and provider will play nicely together.

Closing thoughts

We've seen different approaches for the same problem, and—as it happens with many other things in programming—there's no silver bullet that can solve all the things without downsides.

After many years of developing software, I think it makes sense to have fast unit tests and end-to-end tests that can prove that everything connects, along with alerts that can let you know if something important in your system is down.

What to do next:
  1. Try Honeybadger for FREE
    Honeybadger helps you find and fix errors before your users can even report them. Get set up in minutes and check monitoring off your to-do list.
    Start free trial
    Easy 5-minute setup — No credit card required
  2. Get the Honeybadger newsletter
    Each month we share news, best practices, and stories from the DevOps & monitoring community—exclusively for developers like you.
    author photo

    José M. Gilgado

    José is a senior software engineer with over 10 years of experience. He works remotely at Buffer from Spain and loves good books and coffee.

    More articles by José M. Gilgado
    Stop wasting time manually checking logs for errors!

    Try the only application health monitoring tool that allows you to track application errors, uptime, and cron jobs in one simple platform.

    • Know when critical errors occur, and which customers are affected.
    • Respond instantly when your systems go down.
    • Improve the health of your systems over time.
    • Fix problems before your customers can report them!

    As developers ourselves, we hated wasting time tracking down errors—so we built the system we always wanted.

    Honeybadger tracks everything you need and nothing you don't, creating one simple solution to keep your application running and error free so you can do what you do best—release new code. Try it free and see for yourself.

    Start free trial
    Simple 5-minute setup — No credit card required

    Learn more

    "We've looked at a lot of error management systems. Honeybadger is head and shoulders above the rest and somehow gets better with every new release."
    — Michael Smith, Cofounder & CTO of YvesBlue

    Honeybadger is trusted by top companies like:

    “Everyone is in love with Honeybadger ... the UI is spot on.”
    Molly Struve, Sr. Site Reliability Engineer, Netflix
    Start free trial
    Are you using Sentry, Rollbar, Bugsnag, or Airbrake for your monitoring? Honeybadger includes error tracking with a whole suite of amazing monitoring tools — all for probably less than you're paying now. Discover why so many companies are switching to Honeybadger here.
    Start free trial
    Stop digging through chat logs to find the bug-fix someone mentioned last month. Honeybadger's built-in issue tracker keeps discussion central to each error, so that if it pops up again you'll be able to pick up right where you left off.
    Start free trial
    “Wow — Customers are blown away that I email them so quickly after an error.”
    Chris Patton, Founder of
    Start free trial