bethskurrie
2020-01-19 23:55
added an integration to this channel: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/services/BSG61UWN6
bethskurrie
2020-01-19 23:58
set the channel description: Shows all the new posts, comments, votes, status changes etc from Canny, our feature request management software.
2020-01-20 02:21
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-01-20 02:26
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-01-20 04:18
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-01-20 10:24
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2020-01-21 13:19
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-01-21 23:35
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2020-01-22 22:28
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-01-23 05:11
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-01-23 06:43
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-01-28 08:36
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-10 23:27
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-17 01:27
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2020-02-17 02:37
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *under review*
2020-02-17 02:37
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-18 22:37
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-23 23:39
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2020-02-24 02:04
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-24 02:04
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-24 02:05
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-24 21:53
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-24 23:30
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-24 23:39
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *planned*
2020-02-25 00:25
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-25 04:44
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-25 09:25
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-25 14:04
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-25 22:00
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-26 21:45
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-27 01:24
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-27 03:58
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-27 05:25
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-27 05:26
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-27 05:26
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-27 05:27
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-27 05:28
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-27 05:29
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-27 05:52
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-02-27 06:36
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2020-02-27 06:36
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*
2020-02-27 09:29
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
jks
2020-02-27 15:07
I've started to implement this functionality in pact-jvm. A post on https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9UN99H24/p1581546201142500 provides a little background. At this point, I've been looking at the code in JsonBodyMatcher.kt and stepping through to get a good handle on how it works and think about the best way to implement this feature request.
It seems that the current implementation recursively works through the *expected* and *actual* content and traverses in depth-first order comparing length of lists and maps and ultimately working its' way down to values where *matchers* are applied in MatcherExecutor.kt.
Now I'm thinking about how to match arrays ignoring order and looking for feedback and/or guidance.
In trying to enumerate some possible solutions, one issue I see is maintaining how the matchers in MatcherExecutor.kt work at the same time ignoring order of array elements.
One idea I've been tossing around is develop an algorithm that matches expected[0] against actual[0], actual[1], ... actual[n] or until a match occurs, then matches expected[1] against actual[0], actual[1], ... actual[n] or until a match occurs, and do this until all expected[0..n] matches actual[0..n].
Does anyone familiar with the code see anything obviously wrong with this?
? Depending on length and complexity of content it could be time consuming.
? matchers that work on specific elements of arrays such as $.array[1].status could be cumbersome to deal with (or possible ignored?)
? others?
uglyog
2020-02-27 21:09
I can?t see how you can do it any other way. The matchers are defined in terms of the expected values, so the indices would still be valid. I.e. when comparing expected item 1 against actual item 3, use the matcher definition defined for index 1. This behavior should not be the default, but users should opt in to it.
2020-03-02 19:58
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-03-05 21:52
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
jks
2020-03-09 21:20
Hello, I?ve mostly implemented the ignore-order matcher discussed f(or JsonBodyMatcher) and started writing some tests for the common case and edge cases. One case that I?m having a little trouble with is when _expected_ is smaller than _actual_:
```def '''matching json bodies - return no mismatches - with each like matcher on unequal lists
and ignore-order matching enabled'''() {
given:
matchers.addCategory('body')
.addRule('$.array1', new MinTypeMatcher(1))
.addRule('$.array1', IgnoreOrderMatcher.INSTANCE)
System.setProperty(Matchers.PACT_MATCHING_IGNORE_ORDER, 'true')
expect:
matcher.matchBody(expectedBody, actualBody, true, matchers).empty
where:
actualBody = OptionalBody.body('{"array1": [100, 200, 300, 400]}'.bytes)
expectedBody = OptionalBody.body('{"array1": [200]}'.bytes)
}```
This case is failing with BodyMismatch(expected=[200, 200, 200, 200], actual=[100, 200, 300, 400], mismatch=Expected ignore-order match of [200, 200, 200, 200] and [100, 200, 300, 400], path=$.array1,
I tracked it down to the JsonBodyMatcher.compareListContentUnordered(?) method that I?ve created, which is based on JsonBodyMatcher.compareListContent(?), and is called from JsonBodyMatcher.compareLists:
```...
if (expectedList.isNotEmpty()) {
if (Matchers.ignoreOrderMatcherDefined(path, "body", matchers)) {
result.addAll(compareListContentUnordered(expectedList.padTo(actualValues.size(), expectedValues.first()),
actualList, path, allowUnexpectedKeys, matchers))
} else {
result.addAll(compareListContent(expectedList.padTo(actualValues.size(), expectedValues.first()),
actualList, path, allowUnexpectedKeys, matchers))
}
}
...```
Why are we padding the expectedList before calling compareListContent when expected is less than actual. In the ignore-order case, I suspect that I shouldn?t pad and just compare the values I have in expected to the entire actual list. However, I want to make sure I?m not overlooking something obvious.
uglyog
2020-03-09 22:49
It's padded so the current comparison algorithm works, because otherwise it will stop once all the expected items have been processed.
2020-03-10 01:39
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2020-03-10 08:08
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-03-10 08:09
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
jks
2020-03-10 18:47
Thanks. That was helpful. When comparing via ignore-order, I was already visiting all of the actual items. So padding is unnecessary.
jks
2020-03-16 19:30
Hello, I've made progress on the ignore-order matcher. To date, I've worked exclusively on the JSON side and have a branch https://github.com/mitre/pact-jvm/tree/multiple-instances. If you have a chance, take a look at the updates and feel free to provide feedback.
I realize this will result in updates to the pact specification, so I wanted to give you a chance to see the commits as early as possible.
In the meantime, I've started looking into changes on the XML side.
2020-03-25 04:13
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-03-25 05:28
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2020-03-29 22:31
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2020-03-30 05:57
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*
2020-04-03 07:44
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-04-03 07:48
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2020-04-03 07:48
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2020-04-03 07:50
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-04-03 07:51
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2020-04-03 07:52
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-04-03 07:52
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2020-04-03 07:53
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2020-04-03 07:53
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-04-03 07:53
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2020-04-03 08:02
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-04-04 19:41
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-04-08 11:14
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2020-04-15 02:32
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2020-04-15 02:32
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-04-15 02:36
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-04-15 04:17
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2020-04-15 04:18
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *planned*
2020-04-15 04:20
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-04-15 04:24
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *planned*
2020-04-15 05:05
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-04-15 08:32
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-04-16 00:18
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-04-16 09:52
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-04-16 10:34
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-04-16 10:48
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-04-16 12:44
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-04-16 14:39
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-04 14:19
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-04 15:02
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-04 22:47
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-05 15:16
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *10 votes*
2020-05-06 08:02
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-06 08:03
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2020-05-06 08:07
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-06 08:08
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2020-05-08 03:23
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-08 04:40
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-08 04:41
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-08 04:42
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-08 04:42
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2020-05-08 04:42
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-08 04:42
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2020-05-08 04:43
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-08 04:43
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2020-05-11 01:16
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-11 05:06
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2020-05-11 19:19
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2020-05-12 01:13
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-12 07:30
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-12 07:34
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-21 16:24
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-21 23:44
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-25 06:39
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2020-05-25 06:49
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-25 08:11
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2020-05-26 06:15
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-28 01:45
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2020-05-28 15:00
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-05-29 10:44
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
matt.fellows
2020-05-29 12:02
@sabil.beladri -> https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/search?l=Markdown&q=pending
sabil.beladri
2020-05-29 12:47
many thanks!
My confusion comes from I was understanding that what you just shared is addressing
https://pact.canny.io/feature-requests/p/pending-pacts-prevent-consumers-being-able-to-break-provider-builds-with-changed
and not
https://pact.canny.io/feature-requests/p/ability-to-ensure-compatibility-with-multiple-versions-of-a-consumer-in-producti
but if that solves both, way better, I'll give it a try
sabil.beladri
2020-06-03 16:56
@matt.fellows: FYI, I had confirmation it's still in the works for jvm provider side, see https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9UN99H24/p1590806300368400?thread_ts=1590739780.334300&cid=C9UN99H24
2020-06-08 10:06
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-06-22 13:33
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-06-22 13:52
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-06-22 21:01
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-06-22 21:13
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-06-23 23:05
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *10 votes*
2020-06-24 10:36
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *10 votes*
2020-06-26 01:45
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-06-29 17:30
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-07-01 23:57
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-07-06 15:55
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2020-07-09 22:52
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-07-10 11:53
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2020-07-10 11:56
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-07-10 12:20
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-07-13 02:13
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-07-24 18:30
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-07-26 12:00
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2020-07-26 22:20
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-07-28 04:53
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-07-28 11:59
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-07-28 12:01
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-08-02 14:23
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-08-02 23:13
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-08-03 05:21
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-08-03 05:23
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-08-03 15:34
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-08-03 23:36
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-08-05 20:56
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-08-06 06:57
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2020-08-06 07:08
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-08-11 14:38
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *10 votes*
2020-08-19 09:58
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-08-20 01:27
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-08-20 04:02
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *planned*
2020-08-20 04:29
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-08-20 05:54
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-08-21 00:21
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-08-21 00:21
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *planned*
heytaco
2020-08-25 03:57
Hi there! My name is HeyTaco!, and you can use me to give people tacos to show your appreciation. My tacos will spread joy through Slack!
2020-08-25 20:22
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-09-01 13:54
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2020-09-07 11:21
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2020-09-16 09:25
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-09-21 14:33
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-09-22 10:40
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-09-22 14:19
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-09-23 01:51
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-09-24 05:18
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-09-25 01:37
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-09-25 01:37
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2020-09-29 15:44
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-10-05 02:57
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-10-05 02:57
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2020-10-06 22:19
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2020-10-07 00:20
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-10-10 19:07
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-10-12 17:18
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-10-12 20:42
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*
anbansal27
2020-10-12 23:05
@here Hi Team, I am currently looking out for a solution to integration test event driven systems using RabbitMq as the messaging platform. Does Pact support it ? If yes, please could you help me with links to some resources ?
matt.fellows
2020-10-13 00:05
Message Pact is the term we use for this. Which language are you using? Not all support it natively at the moment
ramana.jaladurgam
2020-10-15 17:39
HI, https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/python/ Pact Python doesn't seem to support AMQP based tests. Is there any plan to upgrade Pact Python or any alternatives for writing AMQP based tests on python tests. Thank you for the references.
2020-10-19 10:34
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2020-10-19 10:38
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-10-19 10:44
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-10-19 10:45
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-10-19 11:46
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2020-10-30 15:24
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-10-30 15:28
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *10 votes*
2020-10-30 15:32
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2020-11-04 18:01
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-11-13 19:34
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-11-13 23:21
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2020-11-17 03:07
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-11-19 02:14
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-11-19 15:30
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
michael.deutscher
2020-11-20 14:42
Hi, can I ask here whether there is any progress related to gRPC support.
2020-11-26 16:58
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2020-11-26 17:07
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *10 votes*
2020-11-26 17:08
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-11-30 18:29
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-12-02 18:17
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-12-10 08:16
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *25 votes*
2020-12-14 05:09
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-12-16 14:08
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-12-17 02:30
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-12-17 02:31
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2020-12-21 11:17
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-01-06 18:17
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-01-07 04:37
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-01-14 07:57
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
arindam.datta
2021-01-14 22:17
If that's not an immediate plan, is it possible to merge master to the message-pact please?
matt.fellows
2021-01-14 22:42
Beth doesn?t maintain that repository (nor is a .NET dev), so I doubt she?ll try that
matt.fellows
2021-01-14 22:43
One option is for you to re-submit a PR merging master into the branch, if you are able to do so (because you?ll be able to test it and presumably also have the .NET skills to do so)
matt.fellows
2021-01-14 22:43
We?re actively looking for new contributors as the core maintainer is currently quite busy with other things in his life, so doesn?t have the work/home time to contribute significant features
2021-01-18 14:44
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-01-18 22:07
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *25 votes*
2021-01-18 23:57
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-01-18 23:58
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-01-19 00:06
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-01-19 17:39
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-01-19 23:50
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*
2021-01-20 23:56
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-01-21 23:36
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-01-25 17:13
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2021-02-01 07:48
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *25 votes*
2021-02-01 21:25
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-03 21:40
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-04 05:50
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-04 08:39
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-04 09:09
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-04 09:38
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-04 09:47
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-04 10:28
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-04 23:03
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-11 17:17
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2021-02-17 03:27
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-17 03:27
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-17 03:33
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-17 03:52
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-17 03:56
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-17 23:37
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-18 10:59
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-18 22:04
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-21 04:00
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-21 19:29
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-23 00:28
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-23 01:47
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *10 votes*
2021-02-23 01:54
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-23 01:58
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-23 02:00
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
siddharth.gupta
2021-02-23 11:21
can someone point me to comprehensive examples of running provider tests using junit5.
matt.fellows
2021-02-23 11:28
Is this helpful: https://github.com/pactflow/example-provider-springboot? (probably also best asking in #pact-jvm
2021-02-23 14:26
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-02-24 00:56
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2021-03-06 02:55
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-03-08 08:44
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-03-08 23:34
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-03-11 20:54
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-03-11 21:03
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-03-11 21:05
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-03-11 21:05
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2021-03-11 21:07
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-03-12 12:10
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *10 votes*
2021-03-13 00:50
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-03-21 23:19
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-03-22 03:49
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-03-22 05:09
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-03-22 16:11
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-03-23 20:04
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-03-23 22:05
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-03-26 05:01
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-03-29 00:56
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-03-29 08:35
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2021-03-29 23:45
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-03-31 11:13
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-04-01 12:43
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-04-05 13:26
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-04-05 13:35
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-04-06 04:24
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2021-04-06 07:06
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *10 votes*
2021-04-09 14:07
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-04-12 17:13
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-04-13 04:51
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-04-13 04:52
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-04-13 05:24
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-04-13 05:25
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2021-04-13 06:36
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-04-13 08:41
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2021-04-13 08:43
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-04-13 08:44
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-04-13 08:44
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2021-04-13 08:48
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *open*
2021-04-14 11:33
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-04-14 12:40
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-04-15 10:56
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-04-15 15:11
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-04-19 23:41
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-04-29 14:59
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-04-30 06:45
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-05-04 07:42
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2021-05-06 12:07
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-05-10 00:36
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-05-10 03:49
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-05-10 03:49
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-05-10 17:05
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-05-12 18:38
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-05-15 22:23
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-05-24 00:43
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2021-05-26 21:57
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *10 votes*
2021-05-28 08:31
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-06-01 05:44
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-06-05 11:06
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2021-06-05 11:06
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2021-06-05 11:07
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-06-05 11:07
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2021-06-05 11:08
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *planned*
2021-06-05 11:08
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-06-05 11:08
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *planned*
2021-06-05 11:09
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2021-06-07 21:45
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2021-06-08 00:34
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-06-09 03:20
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-06-09 03:58
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-06-09 05:38
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-06-09 06:46
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-06-09 06:46
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*
2021-06-17 00:01
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-06-17 00:02
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2021-06-19 07:40
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-06-20 22:36
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-06-20 23:21
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-06-20 23:29
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-06-21 15:38
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
david.vancouvering
2021-06-23 23:31
Hi. I just added an issue to the Pact Spec for matchers to support the Server-Sent Events format. I'm hoping it can be included in v4. Please let me know if there is a better way for me to do this. Much appreciated! https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/issues/88
2021-06-28 07:27
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-06-29 08:33
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-06-29 08:35
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-06-29 08:43
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-06-29 08:46
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-06-29 10:12
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-06-29 13:47
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-07-05 16:28
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2021-07-09 00:12
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-07-09 03:26
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-07-09 03:28
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-07-09 03:34
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-07-09 04:37
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-07-09 04:39
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-07-09 05:50
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-07-12 00:11
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-07-12 00:34
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2021-07-12 00:35
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2021-07-12 00:36
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2021-07-12 00:39
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2021-07-12 00:39
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2021-07-12 00:42
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-07-12 00:42
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2021-07-16 01:49
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-07-22 14:25
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-07-22 14:25
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-07-25 23:25
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-07-25 23:25
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-07-26 23:53
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2021-07-26 23:53
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2021-08-01 18:03
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2021-08-02 12:59
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-08-05 00:04
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
pedroefajardo_pactio
2021-08-09 04:03
Any plans for Pact to support an Elixir framework for writing Consumer tests?
2021-08-18 23:22
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-08-20 01:44
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2021-08-24 08:06
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-08-26 04:46
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-08-27 08:40
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-09-03 06:58
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-09-03 06:58
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-09-07 15:26
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-09-08 05:05
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-09-08 08:39
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-09-13 00:12
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-09-13 00:14
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-09-15 09:24
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-09-25 00:55
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2021-09-25 00:57
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-09-25 00:59
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-09-25 01:04
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-09-30 05:36
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2021-09-30 05:39
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-09-30 05:40
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2021-09-30 05:41
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-10-13 03:13
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-10-13 03:13
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2021-10-15 06:22
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-10-25 09:02
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-10-25 09:03
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-10-25 10:52
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-11-11 06:24
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-11-11 06:27
A new *internal* comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-11-11 06:31
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-11-11 06:32
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-11-11 06:40
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
matt.fellows
2021-11-11 06:41
(Imagine if I had have said something like, ?oh, that f*cken Dmitry guy is asking for stuff again!? :wink: )
2021-11-11 06:45
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-11-25 22:18
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-11-30 02:41
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-12-02 18:44
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-12-02 22:16
A new *internal* comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
praveen.em
2021-12-03 22:48
Thanks @matt.fellows@matt.fellows@matt.fellows . I think I am seeing only part of your message here? And it is not in canny either.
2021-12-03 22:51
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-12-04 18:17
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2021-12-16 14:43
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2022-01-17 21:20
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
mike.geeves064
2022-01-17 21:36
I really like the robustness and Doing Things Right rather than having to actively make a choice :slightly_smiling_face:
mike.geeves064
2022-01-17 21:37
Although the constructing a desktop app using rust and Vue I was reading about is totally irrelevant for pact but it sounds fun :grinning:
mike.geeves064
2022-01-17 21:45
I'm trying to think the context of something else I was reading recently, if it was rust or other, for treating something like that as a legacy code base, literally wrap up calling the original one to start with, and then gradually rewrite a bit at a time until the original one is no longer used and can be removed :thinking_face: I wonder if that approach could work, or add too much overhead?
bethskurrie
2022-01-17 21:45
yes, I've had similar thoughts. embedding a new rust CLI in the ruby CLI, and calling out to it.
mike.geeves064
2022-01-17 21:55
Ahhh focus. I need to finish things I've started and not get distracted :joy:
bethskurrie
2022-01-17 22:03
I literally wrote "one thing at a time" on a sitcky note and put it on the wall behind my desk yesterday.
bethskurrie
2022-01-17 22:05
one of the things I miss most from having other people around me is being forced to do one thing at a time. when I'm wfh all day, I tend to flit around and try and do everything at once. it makes my brain all panicy. This year is my year of consciously trying to focus!
mike.geeves064
2022-01-17 22:07
Yep! I'm trying to persuade myself to pomodoro again, but first that requires actually doing the one thing of planning :grinning:
bethskurrie
2022-01-17 22:08
I've just installed a pomodoro app yesterday. Got it running, and then realised I actually have to configure the whole "no notifications" thing so it didn't really help :laughing:
mike.geeves064
2022-01-17 22:08
Hmm, alright the last place I was working was generally a full day of interruptions and only being able to do one thing when everyone else had gone home or I had a day off :thinking_face:
mike.geeves064
2022-01-17 22:10
I think it can still be ok as long as you don't react to them, I sometimes found a buzz helped remind me that I was ignoring things buzz until the alarm went off
mike.geeves064
2022-01-17 22:12
I haven't decided if a ticking noise helps me or just leaves me in a state of panic :grinning:
mike.geeves064
2022-01-17 22:15
Hmmmm. Tomorrow will start with planning and one thing at a time again. Thanks for the help :joy:
2022-01-18 04:52
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-01-18 04:55
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
mike.geeves064
2022-01-18 12:46
[thinking about it, I think your suggestion of ruby wrapping up/calling rust as it was gradually implemented would be more practical than rust wrapping up ruby, as you'd struggle on the rust side to be able to actually add any bits in..... but downside of that way round obviously being needing to be comfortable in rust as well as ruby :open_mouth: )
2022-01-21 11:45
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-01-21 11:46
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-01-24 02:44
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2022-01-25 11:40
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-01-25 11:42
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
joshua.badger
2022-01-28 00:00
Hey, what is the likelihood of a per-contract verifier option, rather than forcing all of them to run at once?
matt.fellows
2022-01-28 04:23
can you elaborate on the need/why? you can definitely feed contracts in one-by-one, but I suspect this isn?t what you?re asking
joshua.badger
2022-01-28 17:57
Complicated provider state setup, essentially. We?re building out a framework to try and handle it, but some of the provider states are mutually exclusive states. `pytest` will clear DB between test functions, but since all the provider tests happen in one function, there?s no opportunity to reset state.
joshua.badger
2022-01-28 17:58
I could see something like the following as a solution:
1. A session-level pytest fixture creating a `PerContractVerifier` that gets used in multiple tests (as opposed to a single test)
2. `PerContractVerifier` either loads from the broker or from a file (like existing `Verifier` objects)
3. Individual tests use the `PerContractVerifier` with specific provider states/scenarios, and can verify as many or as few as they want per individual test.
4. Once the test suite is complete, `PerContractVerifier` prepares to publish.
a. It throws an error if any scenarios went untested.
b. It still publishes tests and states whether those pacts were tested or not in the report
c. Still gives the output `Verifier` gives right now.
matt.fellows
2022-01-29 22:53
If I understand correctly, the state handlers aren?t able to properly clear out state between invocations (because they run within a single function). To my knowledge, that?s not a problem elsewhere
matt.fellows
2022-01-29 22:53
that being said, getting granular test feedback is something we do have support for in the Ruby verifier - in Pact Go, we actually spit out test results for every single assertion, including sub tests
matt.fellows
2022-01-29 22:54
so you don?t just get a single pass/fail, you get a suite of test results
2022-02-08 10:27
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-02-08 15:12
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-02-09 00:58
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-02-09 01:00
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-02-09 01:04
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-02-10 20:30
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-02-14 19:33
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2022-03-09 20:28
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-03-17 10:30
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *25 votes*
2022-03-25 01:41
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
matthew.churcher
2022-03-29 09:16
I asked matt:
```We have a team where the provider has toggles that affect the contract.
The consumer team had tests for toggle state A but not B.
I assume the pact would treat this as the consumer implementing a subset of the contract?
Would there be any way to ensure examples for both state A and are executed.
I guest this would be the same as optional parameters in a contract, if the mocked out examples do/don't contain those parameters, then it could change the consumer behavior. Some sort of schema coverage map would be useful here!```
and he replied:
```The general guidance on toggles is currently here: https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/tags#using-tags-with-feature-toggles-instead-of-feature-branches
You might also like this discussion on the topic: https://github.com/pact-foundation/docs.pact.io/pull/126#issuecomment-1078563439 as we think through expanding our support on the matter.
But on the specific question, I think in this case, the provider would also need to ensure all of its toggles are compatible with all of its consumers. i.e. they are logically different versions of a provider which must be tested.
It's an interesting chat, I think best to have this in our slack channel so others (on the team, but including some customers who are also thinking about this) can participate.```
He suggest we bring it to slack, in case anyone in the community has a comment or suggestion
matthew.churcher
2022-03-29 09:34
I still think some kind of coverage metric might be useful. Which goes beyond toggles to general use. If you consume a particular API but have written tests that only implement mandatory fields. Then you are missing a bunch of optional parameters which would be useful to flag. This might help in the case there is a possible error response that isn't handled
hassan.shaikley
2022-03-29 16:15
Also is there any hope using Pact with an Elixir project if there's no support yet (granted we have some other services in other languages as well)
2022-03-30 17:38
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *50 votes*
eddie
2022-03-30 23:52
As per this https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1648668717156689, it would be good (when using CDCT) to be _warned_ if you're missing tests on a *method* + *endpoint* basis - some kind of _hybrid_ of CDCT & BDCT?
In other words - for `POST /order`
? Consumer only has a single test covering the happy path (i.e. where provider returns `200` OK)
? That test results in a pact that is uploaded to the broker and run against the provider
? In the providers Open API Spec, `POST /order` is documented as possibly returning `400` with a RFC-7807 "problem details" response *OR* returning `200` OK
It would be good if the team maintaining the consumer was alerted to the fact that they're missing a test (showing their code handles the possibility of a `400`) ideally, with a failing test. Of course, they should be able to opt-out ("Yeah, we know about the possibility of a 400" - and then either "We haven't written a test for it, but we know it will work" / "We're happy for our application to blow up if it receives a 400 from the provider")
I say "hybrid", because for the pacts that *are* defined (by consumers) we still want those run against the provider. Does that make sense? :thinking_face:
2022-04-18 07:09
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-04-18 07:38
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-04-18 07:40
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-04-30 16:30
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
yousafn
2022-04-30 19:40
If your consumer doesn't do anything specific in the case of a non 200 error, you wouldn't want to serialise a pact interaction to cover that case.
If I was writing a client, that only cared about a 200 from foo, and for example any non 200 returns a generic response to the caller of that client, I'm not reliant on the provider at all to return anything specific. Just anything that's not a 200.
If you started to alert consumers they haven't covered everything in a provider contract, they may be inclined to start encoding things in to the pact contracts that they don't care about, and that introduces unnecessary coupling.
yousafn
2022-04-30 19:50
Hi, I've seen https://github.com/elitau/pact_elixir it looks to be in early alpha state. It's probably community level support as it wasn't built by a member of pact foundation maintainers, but as it's public on GitHub you'd be able to fork and merge back upstream to get it to a usable state for your needs. You'd probably need to look across the languages you will be using in your estate and what versions the library's support to make your decision.
Alternatively on the consumer side, you could generate your own mocks with your tool of choice and convert them to the pact specification. We have some examples with wiremock, cypress, mock service worker, nock and mountebank
2022-05-04 08:06
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-05-04 08:06
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2022-05-04 08:10
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2022-05-11 07:24
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-05-11 07:25
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-05-18 13:42
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-05-18 13:58
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-05-18 23:17
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-05-19 04:36
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-05-24 23:26
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-05-24 23:26
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*
2022-05-26 11:40
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-05-31 06:25
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-01 04:05
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-02 06:35
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-03 07:51
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-03 07:52
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-06 15:06
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-06 16:02
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-07 08:12
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-08 03:40
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-08 03:44
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-08 22:00
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-14 12:54
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-15 03:40
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-17 18:12
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-20 11:11
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-20 11:13
A new *internal* comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-23 03:39
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2022-06-23 03:46
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-23 03:47
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-23 06:48
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
jacek.maciag
2022-06-23 10:00
Hi @matt.fellows. Thanks for the reply. I can't read the full text however. Is is because it's an _internal_ comment?
2022-06-23 22:28
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-24 09:31
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-24 11:29
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-24 13:30
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-24 13:49
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-24 14:06
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-30 04:14
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-06-30 04:14
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2022-07-01 09:44
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-07-01 10:19
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-07-01 10:20
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-07-07 10:51
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-07-07 10:53
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2022-07-07 10:54
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2022-07-07 12:05
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-07-27 02:28
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*
2022-08-03 09:45
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2022-08-12 07:20
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-08-12 11:17
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-08-12 11:31
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-08-12 11:37
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-08-12 11:37
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-08-12 13:47
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-08-15 23:12
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-08-16 13:59
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-08-16 14:05
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-08-16 16:49
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-08-19 03:40
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2022-08-19 03:40
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *10 votes*
2022-08-19 05:36
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-08-19 05:38
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-09-13 00:47
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-09-13 00:53
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-09-14 09:38
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
edouard.lopez
2022-09-20 14:36
Out of curiosity, does Pact offer a way to verify _response latency_ and latency and _throughput are within acceptable limits_ define in the article _https://martinfowler.com/articles/microservice-testing/#testing-contract-introduction_ by Toby Clemson from Thoughtworks?
> These [contract] tests are not component tests. They do not test the behaviour of the service deeply but that the inputs and outputs of service calls contain required attributes and that response latency and throughput are within acceptable limits.
matt.fellows
2022-09-20 23:33
No, we keep fairly narrowly focussed on API contracts, not non-functional tests such as perf
edouard.lopez
2022-09-21 13:05
Is it possible to add metadata to the contract to describe those information?
fabio.rodrigues
2022-09-21 13:25
use a proper tool like k6 or jmeter or other to do that, and send those results to grafana
matt.fellows
2022-09-21 13:43
> Is it possible to add metadata to the contract to describe those information?
This is something proposed in https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/issues/75. It?s not in V4 so realistically, it?s a while away
matt.fellows
2022-09-21 13:44
there is nothing stopping you adding them to the pact file though, just pick a key that is likely not to collide in the future. I know of people that overload the pact file with other stuff - that?s OK.
But to @fabio.rodrigues?s point, Pact obviously is not the tool to _do_ that testing
2022-10-13 13:19
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-10-13 18:52
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-10-14 04:28
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-10-14 10:19
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-10-14 10:22
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-10-14 16:38
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-10-18 13:25
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2022-10-27 18:18
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-10-27 18:23
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-11-15 03:17
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-11-15 03:20
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-11-15 06:50
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-11-15 07:07
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-11-15 07:15
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-11-15 07:21
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-11-15 07:21
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-11-15 13:42
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *10 votes*
2022-11-15 22:21
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-11-24 07:12
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2022-11-28 14:40
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-11-28 20:24
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2022-11-29 07:29
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2022-11-29 07:30
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2022-11-29 07:30
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*
2022-11-29 22:31
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-11-29 22:44
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-11-30 07:15
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-11-30 12:27
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2022-11-30 22:10
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2023-01-24 19:56
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2023-01-24 19:58
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2023-02-06 21:41
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
buckley
2023-02-14 16:55
Forgive me if this is not the correct spot for this request: I would LOVE to see a login link in the top portion/header of the http://pactflow.io website; preferably near the `try for free` or `talk to sales` buttons.
? I know that there's a link below the fold, but it's sometimes a pain in the butt to have to scroll all the way down for it.
? I also know that I could just go to my own subdomain to log in, but sometimes I forget to do that and just go to the base site.
2023-02-16 12:13
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
matt.corby-eaglen
2023-02-21 16:07
Would be nice to have a better separation between different interaction types - e.g. request/response and kafka messages - especially in the network diagram tab (filter by interaction type?)
2023-02-22 09:14
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2023-02-22 10:48
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2023-02-22 11:59
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2023-02-22 12:03
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2023-02-24 01:41
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2023-03-09 12:35
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2023-03-15 00:31
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2023-03-20 13:26
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2023-03-21 01:58
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2023-03-21 01:58
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2023-03-21 01:59
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2023-03-21 02:00
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2023-03-21 02:00
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2023-03-21 02:02
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2023-03-21 02:04
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2023-03-21 02:05
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2023-03-21 02:07
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2023-03-21 02:07
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2023-03-21 02:07
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2023-03-21 02:07
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *open*
2023-03-21 02:09
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*
2023-03-21 02:10
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*
2023-03-21 02:10
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
siddharth.gupta
2023-03-21 07:09
Provide certification course for trainers to get certified and provide comprehensive training on pact .
matt.fellows
2023-03-21 08:00
Good idea, perhaps add it to http://pact.canny.io and people can vote on it?
2023-03-21 11:38
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*
2023-03-27 09:35
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2023-03-27 09:39
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2023-03-27 09:54
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2023-03-27 11:11
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2023-03-27 11:11
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2023-03-28 08:13
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2023-03-28 08:13
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2023-03-30 09:19
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*
2023-04-04 15:04
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*
2023-04-11 09:38
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-04-11 10:31
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-04-11 11:03
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-04-11 11:10
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-04-11 11:15
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-04-13 10:38
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-04-13 11:06
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-04-13 11:47
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-04-18 03:24
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-04-18 04:05
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-04-18 06:31
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*.
2023-04-27 00:11
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-05-15 15:24
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-05-30 10:48
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-05-30 10:49
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*.
2023-06-01 13:46
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-06-02 00:26
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-06-12 11:29
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-06-12 11:31
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-06-12 12:07
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-06-12 12:24
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-06-12 12:26
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-06-12 12:26
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2023-06-12 23:29
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-06-29 10:56
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-06-30 11:30
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *10 votes*.
2023-07-03 22:53
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
eddie
2023-07-06 20:51
In PactFlow it would be helpful if a webhook could be configured to run for multiple consumers:
I'm aware there is an "All" option, however that's not suitable.
We're currently forced to create two copies of the webhook.
matt.fellows
2023-07-06 23:20
If you could add some details on the use case (i.e. why 2) that could help.
matt.fellows
2023-07-06 23:21
in them mean time, tools like the CLI and https://github.com/pactflow/terraform-provider-pact could be used to automate so it wouldn?t be as problematic
2023-07-06 23:25
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-07-06 23:43
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
matt.fellows
2023-07-09 23:47
> ? We?re doing canary-based deployments (similar to blue-green) and for a given logical consumer (Foo) we have two versions of that consumer (Foo-Stable and Foo-Canary) deployed to the environment.
Why do you have two consumers for this? This is really better off being the same consumer, but with different _version_
eddie
2023-07-09 23:48
Cause the instructions basically told us not to use `application-instances` for this
matt.fellows
2023-07-09 23:52
Ah, sorry if I gave that impression. The standard model is just to version the app and deploy a version of the app.
matt.fellows
2023-07-09 23:53
Blue/green is not really long lived as only one of them is promoted to prod, and usually after a short delay
eddie
2023-07-09 23:54
For our canary-based process, we might have two versions (stable and canary) in the environment for somewhere between 1-6 hours
2023-07-20 12:18
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-07-20 12:19
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *planned*.
2023-07-24 04:34
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-07-25 07:41
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-07-25 07:51
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-08-03 11:23
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-08-03 11:24
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2023-08-03 11:25
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-08-03 11:28
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-08-03 11:30
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2023-08-03 12:46
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-08-03 12:57
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-08-03 13:15
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-08-03 14:22
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-08-03 14:23
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*.
2023-08-06 23:23
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-08-07 11:01
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*.
2023-08-15 00:07
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-08-18 05:59
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-08-18 10:05
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-08-30 02:54
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*.
2023-09-05 12:37
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-09-05 12:43
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2023-09-07 01:57
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-09-13 14:31
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-09-13 15:44
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-09-14 16:07
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-09-15 13:28
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-09-15 13:32
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-09-19 13:19
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*.
2023-09-19 13:21
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*.
2023-09-27 02:17
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2023-09-27 02:21
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-09-27 02:22
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *in progress*.
2023-09-27 02:24
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2023-10-04 01:45
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*.
alan.barker
2023-10-26 18:48
Hi,
Can I request a `delete-pacticipant` command or possibly an update to `create-or-update-pacticipant` that allows rename of the pacticipant?
Probably too late for our implementation, but we are renaming the microservices (new naming standards), and it would have been really handy to have some features like the above.
Many Thanks
2023-12-31 19:21
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *10 votes*.
markkellett
2024-01-05 09:24
just been looking at the roadmaps, and was wondering if there was async API support coming for bi-directional contracts?
matt.fellows
2024-01-05 10:56
It's on the https://github.com/pactflow/roadmap/projects/1, but no official timings at this stage
2024-01-08 10:10
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-01-08 21:37
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
markkellett
2024-01-10 09:37
One feature request I would have, is that in TS, there is often a duplication between the matchers and other definitions that would already be present with something like Zod objects. By adding your own set of matchers, it means that developers are forced to define the objects twice which is among other things, a duplication of effort.
It would be great if there was a way to have support for matchers such as Zod or Pydantic which resulted in the same JSON output supported
matt.fellows
2024-01-10 21:58
Did you want to raise a feature request (https://pact.canny.io/) for that here?
matt.fellows
2024-01-10 21:58
I could imagine a drop-in utility that could simply apply a transformation to a Pact matcher
markkellett
2024-01-11 11:49
Yeah, something like that was what I had in mind. Would avoid duplication of structures within a code base, and ALOT of people are using runtime type checking now which is one less thing for you to worry about
matt.fellows
2024-01-11 22:38
Yep. It?s a common question, but sometimes the complexity of mapping them is not so simple - worth seeing if you can spike something out though!
maria.olivero
2024-01-26 18:55
Pretty please, we would love to get out hands on the AI pact test writer for typescript and kotlin and python!
yousafn
2024-01-29 15:07
We mentioned about it over in general recently in case you missed it :slightly_smiling_face:
https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1705033372916649
2024-02-08 17:34
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-02-21 04:25
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*.
2024-02-21 04:26
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*.
2024-02-21 15:44
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-02-21 15:45
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-02-21 22:40
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-05-15 15:55
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-05-15 17:25
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-05-16 11:09
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *10 votes*.
2024-05-16 11:09
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *5 votes*.
2024-05-16 11:13
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-05-16 11:15
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-05-16 11:51
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-05-20 07:56
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-05-20 10:12
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-05-20 11:01
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-05-20 11:09
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-05-20 11:37
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-05-20 11:53
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-05-24 13:35
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-05-24 13:40
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-06-26 11:34
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-06-26 11:35
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 11:37
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 11:43
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 11:48
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*.
2024-06-26 11:51
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *complete*.
2024-06-26 12:04
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 12:10
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 13:25
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 13:29
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 13:37
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 13:38
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 13:40
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
yousafn
2024-06-26 13:54
:trumpet: Hey! We are moving from https://pact.canny.io/ to https://github.com/pact-foundation/roadmap to avoid an extra hop for users & maintainers.
You?ll see documentation updated shortly to reflect it, but in the interim you?ll see issues being moved across from Canny, and closed.
If you still raise one in Canny whilst it?s open, that is okay!
We will also update redirects for the old canny link to the roadmap repo :ok_hand:
2024-06-26 14:32
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:32
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:32
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:38
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:38
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:38
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:38
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:38
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:39
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:40
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:40
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:40
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:40
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:40
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:40
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:41
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:41
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:41
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:41
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:41
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:41
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:41
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:41
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:41
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:42
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:42
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:42
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:42
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:42
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:42
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:42
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:42
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:42
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:43
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:43
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:43
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:43
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:43
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:43
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:44
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:44
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:44
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:44
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:44
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:44
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:44
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:45
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:45
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:45
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:45
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:45
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:45
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:46
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:46
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:46
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:46
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:46
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:47
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:47
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:47
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:51
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:53
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:54
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:55
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:56
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:57
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:58
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 14:59
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 15:02
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 15:08
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 15:09
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 15:11
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 15:15
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 15:15
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 15:16
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 15:17
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 15:19
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 15:19
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 15:20
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-26 16:01
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-27 07:37
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-06-27 11:40
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-06-27 11:43
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2024-06-27 13:19
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-27 17:52
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-27 17:56
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-27 17:58
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-27 18:02
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-27 18:04
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-27 18:07
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-27 18:10
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-27 18:12
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-06-27 18:16
A post in *Feature Requests* has been marked as *closed*.
2024-07-14 18:38
A new post has been created in *Feature Requests*.
matt.fellows
2024-07-15 00:37
Reminder - update all the places where http://pact.canny.io is referenced?
2024-07-19 21:06
A post in *Feature Requests* hit *10 votes*.
grace.sandford
2024-10-08 14:52
Hi, I was wondering how far long on the roadmap (if at all) .NET XML handling is for Pact? If its quite far along I want to see about publishing a recipe for how to handle .NET XML in the interim.
matt.fellows
2024-10-09 01:19
Hi Grace,
Might be best asking over here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-net/issues (if it doesn?t exist, raise a feature request)
grace.sandford
2024-10-09 08:29
Hi, yeah there is already a feature request raised for it that I commented on: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-net/issues/478, was raised last year.
eddie
2024-10-10 21:30
Allow the consumer to send an OpenAPI schema as a contract & mix and match CDCT with bi-directional
? If both the consumer and the provider have submitted OAS schemas as contracts, PactFlow should perform an OAS check using `openapitools/openapi-diff` or similar
? If the consumer has submitted a regular contract-by-example contract and the provider has submitted an OAS, PactFlw should check the example contract against the OAS
? If the consumer has submitted a regular contract-by-example contract & the provider supports it, the provider can verify the CDCT contract
In other words, we want the best of all worlds :slightly_smiling_face:
matt.fellows
2024-10-10 22:44
Thanks Eddie. You can already do the second 2 now, in case it?s not clear
matt.fellows
2024-10-10 22:48
Added 1 to our backlog. We had a similar request from another customer overnight, strangely!
eddie
2024-10-10 22:51
@matt.fellows if the consumer has submitted a regular contract-by-example and the provider has submitted an OAS PactFlow will check the example contract against the OAS - this is just bi-directional testing. But in this case, will the provider *also* have an opportunity to evaluate that contract itself?
In other words
? If the OAS check fails (in the broker), `can-i-deploy` says "no"
? If the CDCT evlauation (on the provider) fails, `can-i-deploy` says "no"
Only if both the OAS check (in the broker) and the CDCT evaluation (on the provider) succeed is the contract OK.
matt.fellows
2024-10-14 06:39
> In partiuclar - if we?re doing bi-directional testing (provider publishes OAS to broker, broker checks example contract against OAS) - will the provider still be given an opportuntity to check itself against the actual contract?
If `can-i-deploy` is called _before_ the provider verification is done, however, it will only use the result of the OAS comparison. But you can still upload a provider verification and that will change answers to future results
matt.fellows
2024-10-14 06:40
There is no ?explicit? enabling of both checks, which is maybe what you want?
eddie
2024-10-15 19:58
> There is no ?explicit? enabling of both checks, which is maybe what you want?
Yep, I think that would be ideal.
Otherwise you have a potential race condition (deployment potentially should have been blocked)
Out of interest, if both checks (OAS and provider verification) have run, does the PactFlow UI clearly show the result of each check?
matt.fellows
2024-10-15 22:11
> Out of interest, if both checks (OAS and provider verification) have run, does the PactFlow UI clearly show the result of each check?
Yes, the ?classic pact test? results show alongside the compatibility tab here: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/user-interface/bi-directional#consumer-contract-tab
gabriel.vasconcelos
2025-01-15 15:55
Hello.
I recently came upon this: https://pactflow.io/blog/extending-pact-with-plugins/.
Are there any plans to extend bidirectional provider validation to asyncapi?
Thanks.
2025-01-15 15:55
You mentioned a blog - don't forget to add useful content and articles to this page :point_right: https://docs.pact.io/blogs_videos_and_articles
2025-02-26 16:23
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
2025-02-26 16:27
A new comment has been created in *Feature Requests*.
joshua.ellis
2025-02-27 04:37
I thought we were retiring Canny? @matt.fellows, is there a more permanent way to do this?
d.willian_sc
2025-03-30 18:04
*TL;DR:*
I?m proposing a way for consumers to verify they exercised all interactions in a shared `pact.json`, even if they didn?t generate it.
Pact already supports provider verification from a pact file; this would add optional support for consumer-side verification by failing tests if any interactions weren?t used.
It?s a small step toward bi-directional confidence, without compromising the consumer-driven philosophy.
Hey all :wave:, I have a proposal that I think could complement Pact?s philosophy while supporting teams working in highly collaborative environments.
In some cases, teams may want to mutually agree on a shared `pact.json` file, hand-written, but collaboratively authored and version-controlled, and use it as a behavioral contract.
This allows both sides to contribute: the consumer knows what it wants, but the provider knows what it can do.
It would be really helpful if Pact supported workflows for teams that want to validate both sides of such a contract, even when the consumer isn?t generating the pact file through tests.
Right now, Pact already fully supports the provider side of this setup, but not the consumer side.
In this verification approach, the consumer would:
? Spin up a stub/mock server from the shared pact (as Pact already allows)
? Run consumer tests against that stub (doesn?t require Pact support)
? Fail the test suite if any interactions in the pact were not exercised (not currently supported, but would be really helpful)
The goal is to ensure the consumer really uses what the pact says it does, just like it does with the provider.
I know Pact is consumer-driven and discourages hand-written contracts, mainly because people might rely on the contract instead of verifying their usage through real tests, and I fully agree with that philosophy.
This proposal isn?t about skipping tests, it's about adding strictness to ensure the consumer truly adheres to the shared contract. It's a small step toward bi-directional testing without compromising the core consumer-driven model.
I?m asking because Pact provides the strongest confidence in contract testing available today ? thanks to its precise request/response mapping (not just schema validation) and the compatibility matrix enabled by `can-i-deploy`.
Creating a new tool just to support this small bi-directional need feels like a waste when Pact is already so close to solving it.
Would this be a welcome addition to the tooling, for example, a flag in the mock server or test library that serves only one interaction at a time, to force full coverage?
Or is this too far outside Pact?s intended model?
Also, let me know if this is the right place to ask for that
matt.fellows
2025-03-31 04:12
It?s an interesting idea (and something discussed previously, although likely lost to our slack history).
I?d certainly be open to you putting together a prototype and trying it out in the real world (often times, this is where the real value is felt or pain is discovered). I think most of the infra is there, as you say.
One issue, is that the Pact Broker currently doesn?t have a (first-class) way for a provider to publish it?s own provider contract (effectively that?s what it is). But you could probably handle that by creating a faux consumer, and pull the contract from it.
> Fail the test suite if any interactions in the pact were not exercised (not currently supported, but would be really helpful)
if you were to remove this constraint, you could create a more ?provider driven? workflow. What you could do is:
1. Load the `pact.json` file into the mock server
2. Record any interactions that match
3. Spit out a contract that is now a subset of `pact.json`
4. The rest of the workflow is as per usual Pact
joshua.ellis
2025-03-31 09:33
Depending on how the prototype goes and how the idea gets fleshed out, this could become a candidate for a more formal https://github.com/pact-foundation/roadmap/blob/master/rfc/0000-rfc-process.md
The idea of using Pact as a contract specification in and of itself is interesting, which of course opens up the verification of not just consumers, but also consumers.
I think the biggest hurdle, as Matt pointed out, is around the management of the 'source of truth'. Maintaining a `pact.json` file by hand does not feel right, and flipping the model to be provider-driven also does not feel right (afterall, just because I _can_ query an endpoint does not mean that I _must_).
This last point I think is worth elaborating on. The reason Pact is consumer driven is that consumers make the requests with some expectation of what to get in return. Just because a provider has a path to `/some/obscure/deprecated/endpoint` should not then cause the consumer to fail because it did not make a request to that endpoint.
I'm curious to hear your thoughts here.
d.willian_sc
2025-03-31 09:33
Thanks! I appreciate the thoughtful response.
At this moment, I?m not even asking for full support within the Pact Broker, just a way for this workflow to work when teams already have the contract as an artifact (e.g., committed to a repo or downloaded manually).
I agree that a ?subset contract? approach is technically possible, load the pact, track matched interactions, and output a trimmed pact.
But this doesn?t fail the test if something is missing, and usually requires extra setup code that's unrelated to the business test itself.
That?s the small piece I?m hoping for: a minimal support mechanism to help consumer tests assert coverage of a shared contract, keeping test logic clean and focused. It would make this workflow feel native to Pact, not duct-taped onto it.
Coming from the Java world, I imagine an implementation could look something like this:
? Use a `@State("some description")` annotation on each test, mapped to a specific interaction in the pact
? During test execution, track which interactions were matched
? At the end of the test suite, fail if any pact interaction was not exercised
This would keep the test code clean and expressive, while still enforcing strict validation ? and would make this workflow feel native to Pact, not bolted on externally
joshua.ellis
2025-03-31 09:36
(haha, messages have crossed)
One last thing I would mention is that when a consumer sets up the interactions to be verified, the subsequent test _must_ test _every_ interaction defined in that test. This is typically to allow for multi-query actions (e.g., perhaps a `DELETE` always has a `GET` to ensure the right resource is being deleted).
Taking that existing mechanism to its extreme, you could read the `pact.json` to set up all the interactions, and then run the test suite against the Pact server to ensure all interactions succeed. This may in fact achieve what you want.
This feature of Pact is by design, and is part of the https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-compatibility-suite/blob/1acfa1ecbd9d63e4465c687b3cdd7e0d3ac5811c/features/V1/http_consumer.feature#L31-L38.
d.willian_sc
2025-03-31 09:39
Absolutely, I completely agree that the strength of Pact is its consumer-driven model, and I?m not proposing flipping it to be provider-driven.
What I?m describing is a third path: a shared, collaboratively-authored contract that both teams agree on, for example, a `pact.json` committed to a shared GitHub repo where both the consumer and provider teams are listed as owners.
This isn't about saying "the provider defines what?s available" ? it's more like:
"Here?s what we?ve agreed the consumer depends on and the provider guarantees."
In that sense, it's still _consumer-led_ ? because only interactions the consumer claims to use are in the contract ? but the contract itself might be:
? Derived from a consumer test
? Agreed upon through collaboration (e.g., in an interface meeting)
? Reviewed and maintained jointly
The reason I?m asking for consumer-side interaction verification is not to force consumers to match the provider?s full API (which would break everything), but to ensure that when both sides have agreed to a set of interactions, the consumer actually exercises all of them ? and nothing silently gets left behind.
So I fully agree: this should never fail because of some unused, deprecated endpoint the consumer doesn?t care about. But if there are five agreed-upon interactions in a pact file, and the consumer only hits three during testing, that?s worth flagging ? especially in collaborative environments.
When adding or removing interactions, both teams have to be aware and approve.
If the prototype proves useful, I?d definitely be open to working on a more formal RFC. The goal would be to enhance Pact's flexibility while staying faithful to its core philosophy: test what you use, guarantee what you return.
matt.fellows
2025-03-31 09:50
In practice, having all consumers adhere exactly to the same contract is usually very difficult - it requires all of them to synchronise changes.
Is this actually _desirable_, or just part of the current proposed solution? That is, why would it be an issue if a consumer didn?t call an endpoint? The classic example I go to here are mobile applications - you have an Android and iOS app in native languages, maintained by two teams. This creates places for 2 divergences
1. One team may move faster than another
2. One team may need slightly different things (a real life example was when I was working for a banking provider, they needed to support different payment tokens for apple and google pay and the configuration endpoints were different)
Personally, I think the idea of a provider contract (that is shared/authored) and a consumer contract (that tracks the specific differences) might be another approach.
matt.fellows
2025-03-31 09:50
The provider contract says ?here is all of the APIs and scenarios I support? and the consumers each use a subset of them. This way, the verification is much faster (it just happens once and they get to control that process). The consumer contract is effectively ?did you use test scenarios from this contract??.
d.willian_sc
2025-03-31 10:04
I agree. I also think your idea of a provider-authored superset + consumer overlays is compelling ? but that would be a much bigger shift, requiring changes to the Pact file format, how verification works, and how `can-i-deploy` interprets compatibility.
That?s a heavy lift, and possibly worth exploring in the long term.
But in contrast, this proposal fits entirely within the existing model and format ? just an opt-in verification mode to help consumers enforce their own accuracy.
I agree consumers shouldn?t be forced to use all of a provider?s contract, and in complex systems, it?s totally expected that teams move at different speeds or need different capabilities. Pact already handles that well through versioning and *`can-i-deploy`*. And the shared contracts are versioned as well.
But in the workflow I?m describing, the contract isn?t authored by the provider, it?s a `pact.json` that the consumer themselves agreed to and published. So the concern isn?t that the consumer must fulfill some arbitrary external spec ? it?s that:
If the consumer stops using part of what they said they use, there?s no signal ? not from `can-i-deploy`, not from provider verification, and not from consumer tests unless they explicitly clean up the shared pact.
That?s the danger: the illusion of coverage. The pact becomes stale, but no one notices.
What I?m suggesting is:
? Don?t force consumers to use everything the provider supports
? But allow consumers to assert that they exercised all the interactions they?ve declared in their own pact
? And if they stop using one, they should remove it ? which is already part of good contract hygiene
This isn?t about enforcing a provider-driven model ? far from it. It?s about giving consumer teams more tooling to enforce the contracts they authored, and keep them clean, the same tools that exist on the provider side.
If that works well, it could evolve naturally and maybe even feed into longer-term ideas like a formal RFC for collaborative contracts or bi-directional overlays.
matt.fellows
2025-04-02 10:56
Sorry for the delay!
> But in contrast, this proposal fits entirely within the existing model and format ? just an opt-in verification mode to help consumers enforce their own accuracy.
This is a very helpful (and pragmatic) clarification, thanks.
> That?s the danger: the illusion of coverage. The pact becomes stale, but no one notices.
Yes, as you say, that?s a problem today anyway. It?s hard to automate your way around it (maybe the consumer is just really stable and doesn?t change?). PactFlow AI aims to help with this because it will (soon) review code and compare against tests to generate recommended fixes (i.e. gaps that need filling, or over specifying).
Back to your idea. I think it?s a prototype worth exploring - is it something you?re up for giving a crack?
d.willian_sc
2025-04-02 13:25
Yeah, I?m definitely up for giving it a crack, though I?m not sure exactly when :sweat_smile:
It could be next week, or it could be a few months from now. I mainly wanted to confirm there was genuine interest before putting time into it, and it?s great to see that there is.
That said, I don?t see any issue with multiple people exploring this in parallel. I?d be more than happy to collaborate, share ideas, or support anyone else who wants to jump in sooner. It feels like a valuable addition, and I?d love to see it move forward however it happens.
matt.fellows
2025-04-02 21:34
> That said, I don?t see any issue with multiple people exploring this in parallel. I?d be more than happy to collaborate, share ideas, or support anyone else who wants to jump in sooner. It feels like a valuable addition, and I?d love to see it move forward however it happens.
totally agree.
matt.fellows
2025-04-02 22:00
> Fail the test suite if any interactions in the pact were not exercised (not currently supported, but would be really helpful)
I believe this capability might already exist. https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/blob/master/rust/pact_ffi/src/mock_server/mod.rs#L109 accepts a fully formed Pact JSON and would behave as per the usual mock server rules - any interactions not exercise will fail the test.
One consideration you would need to ensure there are no overlapping interactions in the pact file when loading into the mock server.
a. e.g. provider states won?t be very helpful in allowing you to test the `200` and `404` use case for `GET /users/xyz`, because the mock server won?t know which one you want
b. Perhaps this could be addressed with warnings (or even errors?) if overlapping scenarios are detected when loading the server
Also, I propose moving this conversation to a github discussion. I?ll do that today (the reason being is that this slack workspace has a free tier conversation limit, and I don?t want to lose the great work here to the trash can)
d.willian_sc
2025-04-03 13:08
Oh, interesting, I wasn?t aware the mock server already fails when interactions aren?t exercised. That?s really helpful to know!
Just to share some context: in our consumer tests, we were using the `pactfoundation/pact-stub-server` Docker image inside a Testcontainers setup in Java. We mounted our `pact.json` into the container and pointed our client at the stub server like this, but programmatically in Java:
```docker run --rm \
-v $(pwd)/pacts:/pacts \
-p 1234:8080 \
pactfoundation/pact-stub-server:latest \
/pacts```
From what we observed, the tests would still pass even if we only exercised a subset of the interactions, which led us to believe that unused interactions weren?t being validated. Knowing now that this behavior is enforced by the stub server makes me think we may have missed something in the way we were using it.
That brings me to a question: Is this "fail on unused interactions" behavior exposed in Pact JVM natively, or is it currently specific to the Rust-based stub server?
We didn?t see any documentation in the Pact JVM or Testcontainers guides about the Rust stub server, so it wasn?t clear whether using it directly was the intended or supported path for consumer-side testing in Java. If there?s a more idiomatic way to do this using Pact JVM itself, I?d love to learn about it. And if not, maybe this is a gap worth bridging.
Also, regarding overlapping or conflicting interactions (e.g., same method/path but different response codes), I?d be in favor of the stub server erroring out on load in those cases. I think early failures here would be helpful and promote cleaner, more intentional contract definitions.
And finally, I totally support moving this to GitHub Discussions. Thanks for doing that! I?d love to keep the thread alive and visible for others who might be exploring similar ideas or building similar tooling.
matt.fellows
2025-04-03 21:54
I can't speak for JVM I'm afraid. @rholshausen might be able to provide some pointers, but perhaps the distinction between stubs and mocks might help
d.willian_sc
2025-04-11 22:43
Hey folks!
Now that we've confirmed this verification process works with a pact file, the potential next step would be to make it work seamlessly by retrieving the pact from the Pact Broker.
At this point, the remaining piece isn't strictly a technical gap, but more of a proposal around how contracts are published and retrieved in the Pact Broker.
Specifically:
I'm exploring the idea of enabling shared or draft contracts, pacts that aren't just produced and verified by consumers and providers independently but are agreed upon collaboratively, versioned intentionally, and uploaded to the broker with that purpose in mind.
These would not follow the usual semantics of:
> ?Participant A produced a pact, and participant B verified it.?
Instead, these contracts would be:
? Versioned artifacts (e.g., `contract-v1.2.0`, `draft-v1.2.0`, `agreed-v1.2.0`)
? Used by both sides, each binding to a specific version and verifying they adhere to it
Just to clarify: even though both sides are binding to the same contract, they would continue to publish verification results as usual, reporting that they fulfill a pact file.
At this stage, the shared contract and the pact being verified would be the same file, but not formally linked in the Broker?s participant/version graph.
This is just about using the Broker as a source of truth for contract retrieval, nothing more yet.
I believe this model offers a path to true bi-directional testing that really plays to Pact?s strengths:
? Example-based request/response mapping, not just schema validation
? Integration with Pact?s compatibility matrix and can-i-deploy
? A natural extension of existing Pact semantics, not a reinvention
Whereas some directions for bi-directional testing are leaning toward OpenAPI-based schema validation, I believe this approach retains the behavioral confidence Pact is known for while enabling better collaboration across teams.
Of course, I realize this requires a semantic shift in what a "version" means in the Pact Broker, from "a version of a participant's contract" to sometimes "a version of an agreed interface."
So I wanted to ask directly:
> Would this be considered too broad of a change to be supported in the Broker and Pact ecosystem, or is it something that could be explored formally?
Really appreciate all the feedback and openness so far, and I'm happy to contribute more structured thoughts if there's interest in taking this further.
Thanks again :pray:
matt.fellows
2025-04-14 00:29
FYI moved the conversation here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/roadmap/discussions/117
Hopefully the copy/paste didn?t break stuff. If you can share your GH handle I?ll tag you back into the conversation properly
d.willian_sc
2025-04-14 11:59
Hey, thanks for moving the convo over to GitHub! My handle is https://github.com/DanielWillian if you want to tag me in properly.
Really cool to see this being considered as a potential roadmap direction.
Looking forward to hearing your response on that thread!
