Hi folks, I was wondering if there was somewhere a handy comparison between Pact and the contract testing offering from SauceLabs? For context, we are planning to do contract testing between a Ruby on Rails provider and several consumers (mobile apps, web clients), and were initially planning to go with Pact, but found out that SauceLabs was already in use in a different part of the company, so we’re trying to figure out if it makes sense for our team to use Pact instead. Thanks in advance for your help!

I’m trying to wrap my head around this bit from their website. How is it consumer-driven if you generate everything from the provider spec, and not from consumer expectations?

There are some red flags in those blog posts . . . • "Learn what OpenAPI-driven contract testing is" • "[...] risky shortcuts to save time, like reducing or even eliminating testing sprints." But then also some good-sounding bits: • "Complete API contract testing must validate both the API producer (server side) and the API consumer (client side) to detect and diagnose when a contract is broken by either side." And terminology blurring: • "This agreement — with the formal description of the rules that govern it — is the contract (aka, pact)."

That’s what my thought was as well, this sounds more like schema validation. We’ll see :)

Thanks a lot! This pretty much answers my question.