{"id":7300,"date":"2026-04-15T12:38:50","date_gmt":"2026-04-15T12:38:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/qyrus.com\/qapi\/?p=7300"},"modified":"2026-04-15T12:55:01","modified_gmt":"2026-04-15T12:55:01","slug":"how-to-test-api-endpoints-7-step-framework","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/qyrus.com\/qapi\/how-to-test-api-endpoints-7-step-framework\/","title":{"rendered":"How to Test API Endpoints: 7-Step Framework\u00a0[2026\u00a0Guide]"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

If you are in finance, healthcare, or tech, then\u00a0you\u2019ve\u00a0already been fed enough on the use cases of APIs and how\u00a0they\u2019re\u00a0changing the space\u00a0you\u2019ve\u00a0been working in.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

We\u2019re\u00a0now\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0race to ship\/build\/use\u00a0AI-powered features.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Engineering teams have quietly embraced a\u00a0new checklist, one that feels uncomfortably familiar to anyone who has watched a production outage unfold in real time.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

In recent months, as applications have grown into\u00a0smaller\u00a0meshes of microservices, third-party integrations, and AI agents talking to other AI agents, the humble API endpoint has become the thing that holds everything together \u2014 or\u00a0doesn’t.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"Flawless<\/p>\n

For developers, this is\u00a0more like\u00a0a\u00a0debate than a daily frustration. Because by\u00a0the time a bug shows up in the UI, it has usually been quietly hiding in an API for weeks \u2014 a missing field, an undocumented error,\u00a0an\u00a0edge case that only breaks when two services talk to each other at exactly the wrong moment.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

The testing setups that once felt good enough \u2014 a Postman collection, a handful of curl commands, some manual spot-checks before release\u00a0are now\u00a0starting to\u00a0show\u00a0their cracks when your system has dozens of endpoints changing every sprint.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

This is\u00a0a serious\u00a0problem,\u00a0and this\u00a0has to\u00a0change.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In 2026, shipping without a real API testing practice is like skipping code review: plenty of teams do it, nobody brags about it, and everyone pays for it eventually.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The 7 steps\u00a0at a glance:<\/b>\u00a0<\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. Read the contract before writing a single test\u00a0<\/li>\n
  2. Set up a realistic, isolated test environment\u00a0<\/li>\n
  3. Design scenarios across three layers: happy path, negative, edge cases\u00a0<\/li>\n
  4. Get test data under control to\u00a0eliminate\u00a0flakiness\u00a0<\/li>\n
  5. Validate responses beyond just the status code\u00a0<\/li>\n
  6. Automate and integrate into your CI\/CD pipeline\u00a0<\/li>\n
  7. Evolve tests for performance, security, and change\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ol>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"7-step\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

    This guide gives you a practical\u00a07-step framework for testing API endpoints<\/b>\u00a0that fits how modern teams\u00a0actually build\u00a0and ship software.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>

    Along the way,\u00a0you’ll\u00a0see where traditional tools are enough, and where intelligent platforms like\u00a0qAPI<\/b>\u00a0start to matter \u2014 especially when\u00a0you’re\u00a0tired of brittle scripts and constant maintenance overhead.\u00a0<\/p>

    Step 1: Start With the API Contract, Not the UI\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>

    The first step in API endpoint testing is understanding what the endpoint\u00a0claims<\/i>\u00a0to do \u2014 before you open Postman or write a single assertion.\u00a0<\/p>

    For each endpoint, we need to document three things:\u00a0<\/p>

    1. The basics<\/b><\/p>

    \u2022 <\/b>URL, HTTP method, and purpose \u2014 for example, POST \/users creates a new user account\u00a0<\/p>

    2. Request requirements<\/b><\/p>

    \u2022 <\/b>Which fields are\u00a0required\u00a0vs. optional?\u00a0<\/p>

    \u2022 <\/b>What types and formats are expected? (Email strings, ISO 8601 dates, enum values, UUIDs)\u00a0<\/p>

    3. Response models<\/b><\/p>

    \u2022 <\/b>Success codes: 200, 201, 204\u00a0<\/p>

    \u2022 <\/b>Error codes: 400, 401, 403, 404, 409, 500\u00a0<\/p>

    \u2022 <\/b>Response body schema for both success and failure paths \u2014 not just the happy path\u00a0<\/p>

    For\u00a0qAPI\u00a0users, this is where things get interesting:\u00a0qAPI\u00a0can\u00a0directly read\u00a0your\u00a0OpenAPI\u00a0spec and traffic to\u00a0infer\u202f\u00a0what\u00a0endpoints exist and how they behave.<\/b>\u00a0<\/p>

    Then suggest a starting set of tests.\u00a0You\u2019re\u00a0no longer staring at a blank page trying to\u00a0write\u00a0up\u00a0test\u00a0cases from scratch.\u00a0QAPI helps you automate this process entirely.\u00a0<\/p>

    Step 2: Set Up a Realistic Test Environment\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>

    Good tests in the wrong environment\u00a0is a\u00a0misleading\u00a0step and delays delivery. A test suite that passes against a toy mock but fails in staging\u00a0isn’t\u00a0protecting you from anything.\u00a0So\u00a0to beat this you need to start with a:\u00a0<\/p>

    A non-production environment<\/b>\u00a0Staging, QA, or a dedicated sandbox that mirrors production in configuration. Testing directly on production is asking for data leaks, accidental side effects, or real customer impact.\u00a0<\/p>

    Proper authentication for every role<\/b>\u00a0API\u00a0keys, OAuth tokens, or JWTs for each access level \u2014 admin, standard user, read-only service account. Keep test credentials\u00a0completely separate\u00a0from real customer accounts.\u00a0<\/p>

    A clear plan for external dependencies<\/b>\u00a0Decide upfront: when do you call real third-party APIs (payment sandboxes, SMS providers), and when do you mock or stub to avoid rate limits and flakiness?\u00a0<\/p>

    Logging and observability<\/b>\u00a0Access to request logs, error logs, and ideally correlation IDs or trace IDs so you can follow a failing request through microservices. Without this, debugging test failures becomes\u00a0more like a lucky draw.\u00a0<\/p>

    Step 3: Design Test Scenarios Across Three Layers\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>

    Most teams stop at “does a valid payload return a 200 with the right JSON?”\u00a0That’s\u00a0just increasing your risk appetite\u00a0\u2014 not a test strategy.\u00a0<\/p>

    For every endpoint, you need to think in three layers.\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Design\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

    Layer 1:\u00a0Cover Happy\u00a0Path Scenarios<\/b>\u00a0<\/p>

    The intended use cases \u2014 what the endpoint was built for:\u00a0<\/p>

    \u2022 <\/b>Valid input \u2192 correct success status code\u00a0<\/p>

    \u2022 <\/b>Response body matches the expected schema and field values\u00a0<\/p>

    \u2022 <\/b>Side effects happen correctly (database records created, downstream events fired)\u00a0<\/p>

    Example for POST \/users: send a valid email and password, assert you get 201 Created, a Location header, and a user object in the body.\u00a0<\/p>

    Layer 2: Negative Scenarios<\/b>\u00a0<\/p>

    These prove your API fails\u00a0safely<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0errors are handled intentionally, not accidentally:\u00a0<\/p>

    \u2022 <\/b>Missing required fields \u2192 400 with a clear error message\u00a0<\/p>

    \u2022<\/b>\u00a0Invalid formats (malformed email, string where integer expected) \u2192 422\u00a0<\/p>

    \u2022 <\/b>Wrong HTTP method (PUT where only POST is accepted) \u2192 405\u00a0<\/p>

    \u2022 <\/b>Invalid, expired, or missing auth tokens \u2192 401\u00a0<\/p>

    \u2022 <\/b>Business rule violations (duplicate email, conflicting resource state) \u2192 409\u00a0<\/p>

    Each scenario should return the\u00a0correct<\/i>\u00a0error code with a\u00a0proper\u00a0error message \u2014 not a stack trace, not a 500 that swallows the real problem.\u00a0Each detail should help us understand the issue, no matter\u00a0which team handles it.\u00a0<\/p>

    Layer 3: Edge and Boundary Scenarios<\/b>\u00a0<\/p>

    This is where production bugs hide\u00a0and where all the major efforts should be diverted:\u00a0<\/p>

    \u2022 <\/b>Minimum and maximum field lengths (what happens at exactly 255 characters?)\u00a0<\/p>

    \u2022 <\/b>Very large\u00a0payloads (does your API handle a 10MB JSON body gracefully?)\u00a0<\/p>

    \u2022 <\/b>Special characters and unexpected encodings\u00a0<\/p>

    \u2022 <\/b>Values at the exact boundary of a business rule \u2014 balance exactly $0.00, age exactly 18\u00a0<\/p>

    \u2022 <\/b>Rate limit\u00a0behavior: what happens on request 101 when the limit is 100\/minute?\u00a0<\/p>

    A useful exercise\u00a0we recommend for teams\u00a0is to\u00a0ask:\u00a0“What’s the weirdest legitimate value someone could send here \u2014 and what’s the most dangerous malicious one?”<\/i>\u00a0Generate test cases\u00a0for those first.\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

    Step 4: Get Test Data Under Control\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>

    Flaky tests are\u00a0almost always\u00a0a test data problem. If your test data is shared, stale, or environment-dependent, your test results are unreliable \u2014 and an unreliable test suite is worse than no suite at all, because it trains your team to ignore failures.\u00a0<\/p>

    You want data that is\u00a0representative<\/b>\u00a0of real usage,\u00a0isolated<\/b>\u00a0so tests\u00a0don’t\u00a0interfere with each other, and\u00a0repeatable<\/b>\u00a0so the same test produces the same result every time.\u00a0<\/p>

    Four practical rules:<\/b>\u00a0<\/p>

    1. Use fixtures for common scenarios.<\/b>\u00a0Store representative JSON payloads in version control alongside your tests. Fixtures are the ground truth for what “valid input” means.\u00a0<\/li>
    2. Parameterize everything\u00a0environment-specific.<\/b>\u00a0Base URLs, auth tokens, and resource IDs come from configuration \u2014 never hard-coded into test files.\u00a0<\/li>
    3. Avoid shared state.<\/b>\u00a0Each test should create its own data and clean up after itself. If you must share state across tests, build explicit setup and teardown routines and document them.\u00a0<\/li>
    4. Have a reset strategy.<\/b>\u00a0Cron jobs or scripts that restore your test database to a known state. Idempotent operations wherever possible.\u00a0<\/li><\/ol>

      qAPI\u00a0can discover realistic test data from your existing API traffic and logs, then reuse it in tests. That means you\u00a0aren’t\u00a0inventing synthetic payloads that\u00a0don’t\u00a0reflect how your API is\u00a0actually called\u00a0in the wild.\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

      \n\t\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

      Step 5:\u00a0Validate\u00a0Responses \u2014 Well Beyond “200 OK”\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>

      Sending the request is the easy part. The value is in what you assert.\u00a0<\/p>

      Validate at four levels for every scenario<\/b>\u00a0<\/p>

      1. Status code<\/b>Is the code intentional, or just the frameworkdefault?\u00a0A 200 that should be a 201 is a bug. A 500 that should be a 400 is a worse bug.\u00a0<\/li>
      2. Headers<\/b>Content-Type: application\/json, security headers, CORS headers, cache-control directives. Headers are easy to neglect andfrequently\u00a0break clients in subtle ways.\u00a0<\/li>
      3. Response body
        <\/b>\u2022 <\/b>Schema:\u00a0required\u00a0fields present, types correct, no unexpected nulls \u2022<\/b>Business logic: totals add up, statuses are valid, relationships are consistent \u2022<\/b>Data hygiene: no internal IDs, secrets, or PII leaking into the response\u00a0<\/li><\/ol>
        1. Response time<\/b>Even a basic assertion \u2014 “this core read endpoint must respond in under 500ms” \u2014 catches regressions before they reach users. Youdon’t\u00a0need a full load testing suite to do this.\u00a0<\/li><\/ol>

          A concrete POST \/users happy-path checklist:<\/b>\u00a0<\/p>

          \u2022 <\/b>Status is 201\u00a0<\/p>

          \u2022 <\/b>Body\u00a0contains\u00a0id, email,\u00a0createdAt\u00a0<\/p>

          \u2022 <\/b>email field exactly matches the submitted value\u00a0<\/p>

          \u2022 <\/b>Follow-up GET \/users\/{id} confirms the user\u00a0actually exists\u00a0in the system\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

          \n\t\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

          Step 6: Automate and Wire Tests\u00a0Into\u00a0Your CI\/CD Pipeline\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>

          Manual API testing is fine for local exploration.\u00a0It’s\u00a0not a quality strategy.\u00a0<\/p>

          The moment a test lives only in someone’s Postman collection on their laptop, it stops being a safety net and starts being a liability.\u00a0<\/p>

          Structure your test suite into three tiers:<\/b>\u00a0<\/p>

          \u2022 Smoke tests<\/b>\u00a0\u2014 A small, fast set that runs on every single commit. High signal, low cost. If smoke fails, the PR\u00a0doesn’t\u00a0merge.\u00a0<\/p>

          \u2022 Regression suite<\/b>\u00a0\u2014 Broader coverage that runs nightly or on release branches. Catches subtler regressions that\u00a0aren’t\u00a0worth running on every commit.\u00a0<\/p>

          \u2022 Extended \/ performance<\/b>\u00a0\u2014 Full coverage plus timing assertions. Runs pre-release or on a schedule.\u00a0<\/p>

          Wire tests into your pipeline:<\/b>\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

          \n\t\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t\t\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
          Trigger<\/th>\r\n Suite<\/th>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n <\/thead>\r\n
          Every pull request<\/td>\r\n Smoke tests<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n
          Merge to main<\/td>\r\n Smoke + partial regression<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n
          Nightly build<\/td>\r\n Full regression + performance baseline<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n
          Pre-release tag<\/td>\r\n Full suite + extended security checks<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n <\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

          Make failures visible and actionable:<\/b><\/p>

          \u2022 <\/b>Test reports with clear pass\/fail status, logs, and the exact request\/response that failed\u00a0<\/p>

          \u2022 <\/b>Slack or Teams alerts when critical suites fail \u2014 not just a red CI badge that people learn to ignore\u00a0<\/p>

          \u2022 <\/b>Defined ownership: someone specific gets paged when an API test breaks\u00a0<\/p>

          qAPI\u00a0is built to plug into this pipeline layer. Because\u00a0it’s\u00a0change-aware, it tells you not just\u00a0that<\/i>\u00a0a test failed, but\u00a0which endpoints changed<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0which tests are now affected<\/i>\u00a0\u2014 so\u00a0you’re\u00a0triaging the right thing, not chasing false alarms.\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

          \n\t\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

          Step 7: Evolve Your Tests for Performance, Security, and Change\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>

          API testing\u00a0isn’t\u00a0a project with a finish line. APIs change, risks change, and your tests need to keep pace \u2014 or they decay into expensive noise.\u00a0<\/p>

          Add performance awareness<\/b>\u00a0<\/p>

          \u2022 <\/b>Track p50\/p95 response times for critical endpoints over time \u2014 not just point-in-time snapshots\u00a0<\/p>

          \u2022 <\/b>Define simple SLAs: “GET \/orders\/{id} must respond in under 300ms in staging”\u00a0<\/p>

          \u2022 <\/b>Alert on timing regressions after deploys or infrastructure changes\u00a0<\/p>

          Full load testing (k6, JMeter, Gatling) belongs in a separate suite, but even basic timing assertions embedded in your functional tests catch expensive regressions early.\u00a0<\/p>

          Add security basics<\/b>\u00a0<\/p>

          You\u00a0don’t\u00a0need a dedicated security engineer to cover the fundamentals:\u00a0<\/p>

          \u2022 <\/b>Missing or invalid auth tokens return 401 \u2014 not 200, not 500\u00a0<\/p>

          \u2022 <\/b>Users cannot access each other’s data (test this explicitly across roles \u2014\u00a0don’t\u00a0assume authorization works)\u00a0<\/p>

          \u2022 <\/b>Simple injection payloads or malformed JSON return safe error messages, not stack traces or database errors\u00a0<\/p>

          Use past incidents and findings from your security team as seeds for new negative test cases. Every bug that hit production should become a regression test.\u00a0<\/p>

          Stay change-aware<\/b>\u00a0<\/p>

          New fields, new status codes, new flows \u2014 all of them require:\u00a0<\/p>

          \u2022 <\/b>Updating your endpoint profiles from Step 1\u00a0<\/p>

          \u2022 <\/b>Adjusting test data and scenario assumptions\u00a0<\/p>

          \u2022 <\/b>Adding tests for new failure modes\u00a0<\/p>

          The\u00a0real challenge\u00a0is that no team has time to manually audit every endpoint after every change. This is where automated contract monitoring earns its keep.\u00a0qAPI\u00a0watches for changes in API\u00a0behavior\u00a0and contracts, highlights unexpected drift, and helps you update tests without\u00a0starting from scratch.\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

          \n\t\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

          The Complete Framework:\u00a0At a Glance\u00a0<\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t\t\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n
          Step<\/th>\r\n What you do<\/th>\r\n What you prevent<\/th>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n <\/thead>\r\n
          Contract<\/td>\r\n Profile each endpoint's inputs, outputs, and status codes<\/td>\r\n Testing against wrong assumptions<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n
          Environment<\/td>\r\n Isolated staging with real auth and observability<\/td>\r\n False confidence from toy mocks<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n
          Scenarios<\/td>\r\n Happy path, negative cases, and boundary conditions<\/td>\r\n Bugs that only surface under unusual conditions<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n
          Test data<\/td>\r\n Fixtures, isolation, and a reset strategy<\/td>\r\n Flaky tests from shared or stale state<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n
          Validation<\/td>\r\n Status code, headers, body schema, response time<\/td>\r\n Bugs hiding behind a 200 OK<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n
          CI\/CD<\/td>\r\n Automated suites triggered on every change<\/td>\r\n Manual testing gaps and late-stage catches<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n
          Evolution<\/td>\r\n Performance baselines, security checks, contract monitoring<\/td>\r\n Test suites that rot as the API grows<\/td>\r\n <\/tr>\r\n <\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

          If your current workflow is “a handful of Postman collections, some CI jobs, and a lot of manual\u00a0cleanup,” this framework is your roadmap out of that.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

          And if you want to see what it looks like when a platform handles the hardest parts \u2014 maintenance, change detection, and intelligent test generation \u2014\u00a0that’s\u00a0when\u00a0it’s\u00a0worth seeing\u00a0qAPI<\/b>\u00a0<\/a>in action on your own endpoints.\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t

          \n\t\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t\t\n
          \n
          \n
          \n
          \n

          FAQs<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
          \n
          \n
          \n
          \n
          \n \n
          \n
          \n

          \n