AsyncAPI 3.x: the driver contract for publishing a message by LautaroPetaccio · Pull Request #1738 · WebFuzzing/EvoMaster

LautaroPetaccio · 2026-09-05T22:45:24Z

Ninth in the AsyncAPI stack, on top of #7. This one is entirely in client-java — no core changes, so it reviews as controller-side plumbing on its own.

Everything so far reads a document. This is the other side: what a driver must provide so the core can drive an AsyncAPI service without knowing anything about brokers.

Why a driver at all, even for black-box

Unlike REST and GraphQL, there is no universal wire to point at — Kafka, AMQP, MQTT and WebSocket share nothing at the API level. So something has to hold a client and move the bytes, and that something is the driver. This is the one way AsyncAPI is unlike every other black-box mode EvoMaster ships, and it is the same reason RPC needs a driver.

`AsyncApiProblem`

Carries only the document — a location to fetch it from, or the text itself. The connection to the broker stays in the driver and never crosses, which is what keeps core free of any broker dependency.

The inline-text option is worth noting, since REST has little need for it: a REST service usually serves its own contract over HTTP, whereas a service that speaks only Kafka has no endpoint to serve anything from. Its document is far more likely to be a file shipped beside it.

`SutController.executeAsyncApiAction`

Where a driver publishes one message and, when a reply is expected, waits for the one that answers it — the counterpart of executeAction for RPC.

It has a default that throws rather than being abstract, so adding it does not break any existing driver; the message names what to override. Only publish and await are protocol-specific, and they never leave the driver.

The driver reports, it does not judge

AsyncApiReplyDto distinguishes four outcomes, because they mean different things and only one is a fault:

published, no reply expected — a fire-and-forget operation did what it could
published, and a reply arrived — the only case with something to classify
published, and nothing arrived within the window — the contract promised a reply and did not deliver, though a slow service and a stuck one look alike from outside
could not be published at all — a broken setup, not a finding about the service, which is why it is reported separately from silence

Deciding what an outcome means is the core's job, so that it means the same thing whatever the transport.

The reply also carries whether the correlation id came back. Whether correlation works cannot be read off a contract — echoing the id is the service's own behaviour — so it is established by watching for it rather than assumed.

Wiring

A field on SutInfoDto, a field on ActionDto, and two branches in EMController.

Testing

Six tests in AsyncApiProblemTest, including one asserting that a driver pointed at an AsyncAPI service without implementing the hook fails with a message telling it what to override.

client-java/controller runs 740 tests, 0 failures, 34 errors — identical with and without this change. Those 34 are testcontainers suites failing because Docker is not reachable in my environment; I verified the same counts on a pristine tree before claiming that.

jgaleotti · 2026-09-08T12:48:55Z

+    /**
+     * Headers to publish alongside the body, for a transport that has them.
+     */
+    public Map<String, String> headers = new LinkedHashMap<>();


add a description of what the keys and values are in maps. This programming discipline is specified in docs/for_developers.md

jgaleotti · 2026-09-08T12:54:41Z

+     */
+    public Long replyTimeoutMs;
+
+    public static final String CORRELATION_IN_HEADER = "HEADER";


all constants should be at the beginning of the class

jgaleotti · 2026-09-08T12:54:59Z

+    /**
+     * The index of the action this answers, echoing what was asked.
+     */
+    public Integer index;


can this value be null?

It can't. It basically holds the same value as ActionDto.index, which newAction has already set by then, so a null never reaches this line. It is Integer to match ActionDto.index and ActionResponseDto.index.
EMController almost never assigns a DTO through constructors and most of the DTOs are plain classes without validations.
WDYT I should do in this case? Should I create this DTO to have a constructor with the integer with a validation?

jgaleotti · 2026-09-08T12:55:23Z

+     * so this is a tuning parameter with no equivalent in a synchronous protocol. It is set
+     * generously and reported with the result.
+     */
+    public Long replyTimeoutMs;


can this value be null?

Yes, when no reply is expected (replyAddress null), there is nothing to wait for. I've written it in the javadoc.

jgaleotti · 2026-09-08T12:56:09Z

+    /**
+     * The reply's headers, for a transport that has them.
+     */
+    public Map<String, String> replyHeaders = new LinkedHashMap<>();


describe what key,value are as specified in docs/for_developers.md

jgaleotti · 2026-09-08T12:56:21Z

+     * How long the driver waited, in milliseconds, whether or not anything arrived. Reported
+     * because the verdict on silence is only meaningful alongside how long it was waited for.
+     */
+    public Long waitedMs;


can this value be null?

Yes, when the driver did not wait at all, that is a fire and forget operation, or a message that could not be published. I've written it in the javadoc.

Everything so far is in core and reads a document. This is the other side: what a driver must provide so that the core can drive an AsyncAPI service without knowing anything about brokers. AsyncApiProblem declares that the SUT is driven by messages. It carries only the document -- a location to fetch it from, or the text itself. The connection to the broker stays in the driver and never crosses, which is what keeps the core free of any broker library. Note it may be declared with the document inline, which REST has no real need for. A REST service usually serves its own contract over HTTP; a service that speaks only Kafka has no endpoint to serve anything from, so its document is far more likely to be a file shipped beside it. SutController.executeAsyncApiAction is where a driver publishes one message and, when a reply is expected, waits for the one that answers it. It is the counterpart of executeAction for RPC. It has a default that throws rather than being abstract, so that adding it does not break every existing driver; the message says what to override. Only publish and await are protocol-specific, and they never leave the driver. The driver is asked to report what happened, not to judge it: AsyncApiReplyDto distinguishes published-with-no-reply-expected, a reply that arrived, silence within the window, and a failure to publish at all. The last of those is a broken setup rather than a finding about the service, which is why it is kept apart from silence. Deciding what an outcome means is the core's job, so that it means the same thing whatever the transport. Also carried in the reply is whether the correlation id came back. Whether correlation works cannot be read off a contract, since echoing the id is the service's own behaviour, so it is established by watching for it. Wiring: a field on SutInfoDto, a field on ActionDto, and two branches in EMController.

Review feedback: CORRELATION_IN_HEADER and CORRELATION_IN_PAYLOAD closed the class, after every instance field. docs/for_developers.md puts constants first.

Review feedback, and docs/for_developers.md: a Map field says what its key and value are. Both header maps go from header name to its text.

A null list failed inside addAll anyway; the check now sits where the method starts, named, as docs/for_developers.md asks of public methods.

Review feedback: replyTimeoutMs is null when no reply is expected, and waitedMs when the driver did not wait at all, which the javadoc left unsaid.

Review feedback: it echoes ActionDto.index, which newAction has already dereferenced by the time the reply is built, so an int says what the Integer could only promise.

Reverts f4acc61. The DTOs in controller-api are plain carriers: none of them checks nullness on assignment, and index is Integer in both ActionDto and ActionResponseDto. This one matches them; that it is never null is guaranteed by newAction dereferencing dto.index first.

arcuri82 force-pushed the feature/asyncapi-driver-contract branch from 755b0a4 to 513d76a Compare September 8, 2026 11:35

arcuri82 force-pushed the feature/asyncapi-driver-contract branch from 513d76a to 45344be Compare September 8, 2026 11:41

arcuri82 force-pushed the feature/asyncapi-driver-contract branch from 45344be to cbaae4c Compare September 8, 2026 11:42

arcuri82 force-pushed the feature/asyncapi-driver-contract branch from cbaae4c to cbea234 Compare September 8, 2026 11:45

jgaleotti requested changes Sep 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

LautaroPetaccio force-pushed the feature/asyncapi-driver-contract branch from cbea234 to 7750cb6 Compare September 8, 2026 16:28

LautaroPetaccio force-pushed the feature/asyncapi-driver-contract branch from b59d655 to 0596618 Compare September 8, 2026 17:19

arcuri82 force-pushed the feature/asyncapi-driver-contract branch from 61ca390 to 018bf2b Compare September 9, 2026 10:52

LautaroPetaccio added 5 commits September 11, 2026 16:36

AsyncAPI 3.x: constants before fields in the action DTO

98c1291

Review feedback: CORRELATION_IN_HEADER and CORRELATION_IN_PAYLOAD closed the class, after every instance field. docs/for_developers.md puts constants first.

AsyncAPI 3.x: say what the header maps hold

772f964

Review feedback, and docs/for_developers.md: a Map field says what its key and value are. Both header maps go from header name to its text.

AsyncAPI 3.x: withServicesToNotMock states its pre-condition

584f2bd

A null list failed inside addAll anyway; the check now sits where the method starts, named, as docs/for_developers.md asks of public methods.

AsyncAPI 3.x: say when the two durations are null

1a05716

Review feedback: replyTimeoutMs is null when no reply is expected, and waitedMs when the driver did not wait at all, which the javadoc left unsaid.

LautaroPetaccio force-pushed the feature/asyncapi-driver-contract branch from 018bf2b to 1a05716 Compare September 11, 2026 19:36

LautaroPetaccio added 2 commits September 11, 2026 17:25

AsyncAPI 3.x: the reply's index cannot be null

f4acc61

Review feedback: it echoes ActionDto.index, which newAction has already dereferenced by the time the reply is built, so an int says what the Integer could only promise.

LautaroPetaccio requested a review from jgaleotti September 11, 2026 20:49

LautaroPetaccio mentioned this pull request Sep 12, 2026

AsyncAPI 3.x: the problem type #1751

Draft

Navigation Menu

Uh oh!

AsyncAPI 3.x: the driver contract for publishing a message - #1738

AsyncAPI 3.x: the driver contract for publishing a message#1738
LautaroPetaccio wants to merge 7 commits into
feature/asyncapi-action-individualfrom
feature/asyncapi-driver-contract

LautaroPetaccio commented Sep 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

jgaleotti Sep 8, 2026

Uh oh!

LautaroPetaccio Sep 8, 2026

Uh oh!

jgaleotti Sep 8, 2026

Uh oh!

LautaroPetaccio Sep 8, 2026

Uh oh!

jgaleotti Sep 8, 2026

Uh oh!

LautaroPetaccio Sep 11, 2026

Uh oh!

jgaleotti Sep 8, 2026

Uh oh!

LautaroPetaccio Sep 8, 2026

Uh oh!

jgaleotti Sep 8, 2026

Uh oh!

LautaroPetaccio Sep 8, 2026

Uh oh!

jgaleotti Sep 8, 2026

Uh oh!

LautaroPetaccio Sep 8, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Uh oh!

Conversation

LautaroPetaccio commented Sep 5, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Why a driver at all, even for black-box

AsyncApiProblem

SutController.executeAsyncApiAction

The driver reports, it does not judge

Wiring

Testing

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

LautaroPetaccio commented Sep 5, 2026 •

edited

Loading

`AsyncApiProblem`

`SutController.executeAsyncApiAction`