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/ffi - load full ffi namespace, initial ffi verifier #357

Closed
wants to merge 104 commits into from

Conversation

YOU54F
Copy link
Member

@YOU54F YOU54F commented Jul 8, 2023

Following on from the awesome work from @elliottmurray and @mikegeeves

Will document properly over the next couple of days, (probably next week)

  • as part of the ffi maintainers guide
  • pulling out other sources of pact verifications (both ruby, rust and jvm backed) so they can be referenced by others
  • work out where any discrepancies lie
  • where any logic is shared across client libraries and can be moved into the core
  • quality of life improvements to any ffi methods to aid maintainers/library creators

Work done so far

  • Loading of shared binaries for the following platform
OS Architecture
OSX x86_64
Linux x86_64
OSX arm64
Linux arm64
Windows x86_64

TODO

  • Message metadata content-type currently hard coded to application/json
  • Plugin tests when they fail, dont appear to return the failures or successes to the log buffer
  • Log level gets globally applied, and isn't able to be changed, which interferes with the unit tests, and probably external tests within the same process. I think this is due to pact-reference using a global logging tracer.
  • write migration guide
  • bump to alpha version

elliottmurray and others added 30 commits July 17, 2021 13:26
…e changes to docker37 which I will need to do to all
…e changes to docker37 which I will need to do to all
The return code is straightforward, but having problems with the logging. When setting up the FFI
objects etc, it doesn't seem to work unless it's a basically a singleton, it seems hard to split up.
I don't like it but going with this for now :)
@YOU54F YOU54F linked an issue Jul 11, 2023 that may be closed by this pull request
This was referenced Jul 11, 2023
@YOU54F YOU54F linked an issue Jul 11, 2023 that may be closed by this pull request
@YOU54F
Copy link
Member Author

YOU54F commented Jul 26, 2023

Not sure why Snyk is complaining, I can't see the detail behind the check without logging into snyk, and my gh user doesn't have access.

Should it be reporting back to the PR as a comment?

🤔

@YOU54F YOU54F linked an issue Jul 26, 2023 that may be closed by this pull request
@YOU54F YOU54F mentioned this pull request Jul 27, 2023
@YOU54F
Copy link
Member Author

YOU54F commented Aug 2, 2023

superseded by #367

@YOU54F YOU54F closed this Aug 2, 2023
@JP-Ellis JP-Ellis mentioned this pull request Sep 27, 2023
47 tasks
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.

Drop support for Python < 3.7 Implement FFI interface for Provider Installer
3 participants