Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feat/provider params #171

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

tucker-m
Copy link

This allows the provider state to change some values in the request before the interaction is replayed. It's related to the pull request I made in the pact-support repository, here: pact-foundation/pact-support#57.

I'd love to know what you think about doing this. We've been using my fork where I work, and have been finding it to be a great way of handling IDs in URLs, and also authorization headers.

Allow provider parameters to change the request content before the
request is replayed. The provider state returns a hash of parameters,
which is passed in when the interaction is replayed.
@bethesque
Copy link
Member

This is fantastic, and I'm glad it's working for you, but I am unable to merge this into the main codebase because it doesn't conform to the pact-specification. Pact is about more than just the Ruby codebase - in fact, the Ruby user group is one of the smaller communities. Keeping the implementations in sync is important for interoperability.

I'd like to get something like this into the next pact spec version however. @uglyog is this a "thing" in v3 or v4? Is this what generators do?

@uglyog
Copy link
Member

uglyog commented Jun 14, 2018

This is awesome.

Yes, this has overlap with the generators. What we could do, is define a specific generator that can replace the values from what is setup in the provider state. That way we do not have to introduce any new elements to the pact file format, just define the generator. See https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/tree/version-3#introduce-example-generators for more info.

I might try spike out an implementation in Pact-JVM.

@mefellows
Copy link
Member

I must admit that was my first impression. It's even better than a usual generator, though, because it means we can support any type of value or logic behind creating that value, instead of relying on a fixed set of them.

For example, the Date generator might not work if the time must be something in the past or future, within a specific period. This would give the user flexibility over how its created.

+1

@bethesque
Copy link
Member

Oh, right. I thought generators allowed you to put in your own values. So, yes, we really want this.

@bethesque
Copy link
Member

I've been doing a dirty hack with my HAL pacts, where I put a placeholder URL in on the consumer side, that I then replace with the real URL when I run the verification. This allows my consumer tests not to have to "know" what the real provider URLs are, ensuring the intent of hypermedia is actually fulfilled. I want to put this properly into the pact spec, and imagine it would be similar to the above solution.

@tucker-m
Copy link
Author

Thanks for the feedback! I'm so glad to hear that there is interest in adding this capability. I figured that it would need to be added to the spec, but I wasn't sure how to go about doing that.

Would this be something in version 3, or version 4? If it's done as a new type of generator, does that mean it could be in version 3?

@rholshausen
Copy link

Generators are V3. @bethesque we could try use the generators from the Rust implementation. We should just be able to create a Gem where you pass the body and the generator hash, and get a new body back.

@YOU54F
Copy link
Member

YOU54F commented Apr 25, 2022

Hey @tucker-m for your contributions, this was a very cool feature

Thanks for this, sorry for the delay.

So this relates to pact-foundation/pact-support#57

so is this basically supported by v3 with generators? (and this can be closed?)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants