feat [semver.minor]: allow css configuration from package.json

[jeswr]

📁 Related issues

closes #1465

✍️ Description

✅ PR check list

Before this pull request can be merged, a core maintainer will check whether

• this PR is labeled with the correct semver label
  • semver.patch: Backwards compatible bug fixes.
  • semver.minor: Backwards compatible feature additions.
  • semver.major: Breaking changes. This includes changing interfaces or configuration behaviour.
• the correct branch is targeted. Patch updates can target main, other changes should target the latest versions/* branch.
• the RELEASE_NOTES.md document in case of relevant feature or config changes.
• any relevant documentation was updated to reflect the changes in this PR.

[jeswr]

I'm not sure I understand where the failure in the conformance test is coming from as it seems to be unrelated to the code that I touched. For reference here is an example of 1 of the 3 errors that occurs.

2022-11-05T02:56:30.0746928Z 2022-11-05 02:56:30,067 ERROR [com.int.karate] (main) ../data/web-access-control/protected-operation/write-access-public.feature:100
2022-11-05T02:56:30.0747469Z Then match [401] contains responseStatus
2022-11-05T02:56:30.0747792Z match failed: CONTAINS
2022-11-05T02:56:30.0748421Z   $ | actual does not contain expected | actual array does not contain expected item - 404 (LIST:NUMBER)
2022-11-05T02:56:30.0748781Z   [401]
2022-11-05T02:56:30.0748983Z   404
2022-11-05T02:56:30.0749116Z 
2022-11-05T02:56:30.0749272Z     $[0] | not equal (NUMBER:NUMBER)
2022-11-05T02:56:30.0749535Z     401
2022-11-05T02:56:30.0749731Z     404
2022-11-05T02:56:30.0749861Z 

[joachimvh]

I'm not sure I understand where the failure in the conformance test is coming from as it seems to be unrelated to the code that I touched.

This is an issue that has been fixed in the main branch but has not yet been merged into the 6.0.0 branch.

[joachimvh]

I only noticed just now that you marked this PR as ready for review some time ago, but then you also did some commits after that. So is this ready to look at?

[jeswr]

@joachimvh - yes it is ready now :)

[joachimvh]

You can request me as reviewer in the PR for the next round, that way chances are lower I miss it.

This PR targets the 6.0.0 branch but I see no reason why it can't target the main branch though. This only extends functionality and doesn't break anything existing.

[joachimvh]

Looks good, just some minor fixes.

Want to repeat that this can target the main branch in my opinion (although it doesn't have to if you prefer this).

[jeswr]

Just realised I forgot to rebase to main - doing that now