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
[V3] eachKeyLike doesn't ignore the key's value when matching #662
Comments
Thanks @francislobo, I'll take a look at this on Monday. |
Just noted that this is still an issue Failing verification https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/runs/8017993797?check_suite_focus=true#step:4:7084 Comment in example code |
I think this might be related to #952 . |
Fixed in #1103 and pact-foundation/pact-js-core#462. Latest release in the core going out shortly, which is a transitive dependency that will get pulled in with new installs/updates. |
👋 Hi! The 'smartbear-supported' label has just been added to this issue, which will create an internal tracking ticket in PactFlow's Jira (PACT-1218). We will use this to prioritise and assign a team member to this task. All activity will be public on this ticket. For now, sit tight and we'll update this ticket once we have more information on the next steps. |
Software versions
Issue Checklist
Please confirm the following:
Expected behaviour
For an example data shown here, the PACT generated using PACT JVM and PACT JS are different.
Specifically this sectiongenerated from the eachkeylike matchers. This breaks the eachkeylike matcher where the actual key should be ignored and only the value (contents) of the key must be matched.
Pact generated from JS
Pact generated from JVM
NOTE: there are some extra pattern matchers on the request path of JVM PACT. I hadn't added them on the JS part as I was just getting started (I assume that shouldnt change how eachKeyLike works)
JS code used to generate the contract
Actual behaviour
The PACTs should be identical for the eachkeylike section
Steps to reproduce
How can someone else reproduce this bug?
The gist files has all the code required to reproduce this
Relevant log files
none
Slack conversation pertaining to this issue
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: