feat: add consumer version selectors and pending pacts to verification #217
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
- add support for Pending Pacts flag - add support for consumer version selectors See pact-foundation/pact_broker#320 for background
bethesque
reviewed
Mar 25, 2020
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@mefellows there's a short link https://docs.pact.io/pending that you can use in the docs
|
Also docs.pact.io/selectors |
|
Thanks Beth - updated the links. |
|
Nice work, @mefellows ! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Implements consumer version selectors (see pact-foundation/pact_broker#307) and pending pacts (see ).
The biggest complication here is that the selectors are specified as JSON strings on the CLI - not something we're well prepared for.
In terms of design options I had a few, most notably:
verifier.tsto do the JSON marshaling, but that then meant I needed to do nasty things to hide the true option that is passed to theArgumentsclass.SpawnArgumentstype to signal that certain properties were basic "string" values vs "JSON" values - but decided against that large refactor.I also updated the types in
Argumentsbecause the values were set as strings, but that is actually an illusion - in reality they are an interface type (SpawnArguments), that could have values as primitives (strings, numbers etc.) or in this new case - an interface.This was a fairly simple change, but I was concerned about making that class any more complicated, so we may want to revert it.