Webhook triggered without contract change

[s1apped]

Hi,

I have issue with Pact Broker Webhook. It should trigger only when Pact change but it triggers for any change in consumer (new commit which is also the Tag)

{
"consumer": {
"name": "a.service"
},
"provider": {
"name": "b.service"
},
"request": {
"method": "POST",
"url": "https://jenkins.test.eu/job/b_build/build",
"headers": {
"Accept": "application/json"
},
"username": "test",
"password": "test"
},
"events": [
{
"name": "contract_content_changed"
}
]
}

I also have can-i-deploy in pipeline:
"/pact-broker can-i-deploy --retry-while-unknown=12 --retry-interval=10 --pacticipant a.service --version ${GIT_COMMIT} --broker-base-url http://10.10.10.10"

I checked differences but nothing:
No previous distinct version was found for Pact between

Thank you.

[bethesque]

new commit which is also the Tag

Are you tagging the version with the commit sha as well? That's the reason the webhook is firing. The logic for determining whether or not to trigger the webhook is: if the pact's consumer version is untagged, check the previous untagged pact, and fire if the content is different, or there was no previous version. If the pact's consumer version is tagged, then it looks for the latest version with each of the tags, and fires if the content has changed or if there was no previous version with that tag.

[s1apped]

No. Consumer is tagged with branch name. SHA is a version of both consumer and provider.

Pact's consumer version is tagged, then it looks for the latest version with each of the tags, and fires if the content has changed or if there was no previous version with that tag.

1. Pact's consumer version is tagged = TRUE
2. Find latest version with tag = TRUE
3. Contract has changed = FALSE
4. No previous version with tag = FALSE

Based on above if I understand correctly webhook shouldn't be triggered?

[bethesque]

Hm. This is confusing then. The other day I did a massive refactor of all the logic and added in some detailed logging for showing why the webhook gets triggered. Let me do a release do you can use that. Are you using the docker image?

[s1apped]

Yes I'm using docker image.

[bethesque]

Grab dius/pact-broker:2.31.0-1 or try the newer smaller pactfoundation/pact-broker:edge. You'll need to turn the log level up to debug. This is the class that will do the logging - it will be one of the reasons in here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/blob/master/lib/pact_broker/webhooks/trigger_service.rb

[s1apped]

I got below message

Pact is tagged:

matrix (not sure if results are displayed properly, looks like it verified previous consumer versions?)

Consumer can-i-deploy returns

Since previous pact was tagged not sure why commit that doesn't change contract triggers provider build.

[s1apped]

@bethesque I setup everything again and did some more digging

1. I created initlial Pact
   
2. pb:all-pact-versions returned 1 pact
3. pb:latest-untagged-pact-version returned 404 Not Found
4. pb:latest-tagged-pact-version returned JSON
   curl -X GET http://0.0.0.0/pacts/provider/customer/consumer/invoice/latest/add-pact-cdc-tests
5. push consumer commit that doesn't change contract
6. run consumer Jenkins job
7. Provider got triggered even though nothing has changed
8. pb:all-pact-versions returned 2 pacts
9. pb:latest-untagged-pact-version returned 404 Not Found
10. pb:latest-tagged-pact-version returned JSON

The only differences between pact versions are "createdAt": or "_links":
Not sure why "first time untagged pact published" is the cause.

[s1apped]

@bethesque did you have a chance to look into? Any information would be greatly appreciated.

[bethesque]

I'm so sorry, I've been crazy busy. I'll try and get on to this.

[bethesque]

Which lib are you using to publish the pacts @s1apped? I'm wondering if perhaps the tagging is happening after the pact publication. It should come first.

[s1apped]

Hi @bethesque I'm using junit.

[bethesque]

Fix has been released to pact-jvm. Please try again with the latest version. pact-foundation/pact-jvm#892 (comment)

[s1apped]

@bethesque it looks good now! Thank you