<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Msw on Pi Stack</title>
    <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/msw/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Msw on Pi Stack</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/msw/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>JavaScript HTTP Mocking in 2026: MSW vs Nock vs Mirage JS — Which API Mocking Library Should You Use?</title>
      <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-09-02-javascript-http-mocking-msw-nock-mirage-comparison/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-09-02-javascript-http-mocking-msw-nock-mirage-comparison/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Every frontend team hits the same wall: your components, hooks and end-to-end flows depend on APIs that are slow, flaky, rate-limited or not even built yet. Stubbing fetch manually works for two endpoints and collapses at fifty. That is why HTTP mocking libraries exist — and in 2026 the JavaScript ecosystem has three serious contenders: &lt;strong&gt;MSW&lt;/strong&gt; (Mock Service Worker), &lt;strong&gt;Nock&lt;/strong&gt;, and &lt;strong&gt;Mirage JS&lt;/strong&gt;. They look interchangeable at a glance, but they intercept requests at completely different layers of the stack, which means the choice determines everything from whether your mocks work in the browser to whether they survive a refactor from fetch to axios.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
