Message pact latest #276
Message pact latest #276
Conversation
arindamdat
commented
Jan 16, 2021
arindamdat
commented
- Merged from master
- All tests have passed
Add support for WIP pacts
…rade-to-pact-ruby-standalone-1-86-0 feat: update standalone to 1.86.0
and add empty constructor as i can't overload existing constructors
…constructors as obsolete It feels wierd to have constructors overload for authentication and one method to set SslCaFilePath, it looks better to me with methods for everything. Still keep constructors to avoid breaking changes.
…ld override SSL_CERT_FILE environment variable with the default ca-bundle.crt coming from platform config creates a Spy to be able to test that without too heavy refactoring
PactUriOptions name is not anymore a good name as options are not really about uri but more about http call itself.
…ptions to avoid breaking changes Revert to the original implementation of PactUriOptions and add overload into PactVerifier methods. Mark those overload Obsolete to handle nicely future cleanup in the next version with breaking changes
…into akamud-async-all-the-way
…rade-to-pact-ruby-standalone-1-88-3 feat: update standalone to 1.88.3
… one" This reverts commit e5edc74. # Conflicts: # README.md
…tpOptionsTests forgot to rename test class
Synchronizing from pact-net
…-pact-ruby-standalone-1-88-14 Upgrade to pact ruby standalone 1 88 14
|
@arindamdat I believe the readme merge may have messed up. |
|
Hi Neil,
Yes, that's correct.
Thanks and Regards
Arindam Datta
("The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do
nothing" - Edmund Burke)
…On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 1:03 PM Neil Campbell ***@***.***> wrote:
@arindamdat <https://github.com/arindamdat> I believe the readme merge
may have messed up.
Just wanted to check that the goal of this PR to merge master into the
message-pact branch?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#276 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB3HWH3MQ4VBS4XF7GN3NYDS3UNDXANCNFSM4WFAZVVQ>
.
|
|
@arindamdat @neilcampbell Hi, guys,
Which one can be considered as source of truth? Please clarify |
|
hi @drkghost , as I know, the branch |
|
Hi @drkghost, @arindamdat are you actually working on the message-pact branch? I'm also trying to get acclimated with this branch. We implemented the messaging system in our own library in our organisation to free the dev teams but we'd like to also be able to contribute to merge this branch as soon as possible. |
|
Hi @yanncourtel, apologies I missed this. I think we discussed in Slack but Arindam made a small change to just merge latest master in, AFAIK they are not working to add new features to this. We'd love for this to get merged and will provide any support required. How would you like to proceed? |
|
@HugoDoyon @jacekmlynek what are your thoughts here, any reason not to merge this in and have it supported side-by-side with the current code base? My fear with long running branches is that it will go stale and never get merged (ala this 2+ year old branch...). It will likely change, but is it better to do that after bringing it in? |
|
Closed due to #315 being merged instead |
