is there meant to be a difference? what is the point, if not?

bethskurrie

Hm. Bug Ron about that.

abubics

hey, you brought it up :stuck_out_tongue:

abubics

I already forgot about it xD hence the mild confusion

abubics

2018-05-04 09:12

which (of the 2 issues) were you asking about? :innocent:

bethskurrie

2018-05-04 09:13

I can't remember. Just in general. Because the last time we chatted, we ended up questioning the reason for living.

bethskurrie

2018-05-04 09:13

Just needed to make sure you hadn't topped yourself because of Ron.

abubics

2018-05-04 09:13

lololol

abubics

2018-05-04 09:14

yeah, I?m unblocked :stuck_out_tongue: no thanks to @uglyog :troll:

bethskurrie

2018-05-04 09:14

What a slacker.

bethskurrie

2018-05-04 09:14

matt.fellows

2018-05-07 09:04

New member join url: http://slack.pact.io

matt.fellows

2018-05-07 09:04

@matt.fellows pinned a message to this channel.

matthew

2018-05-07 14:38

has joined #general

thomas.heilbronner

2018-05-07 20:50

has joined #general

sgleadow

2018-05-08 00:27

has joined #general

philip.sturman

2018-05-08 06:12

has joined #general

david

2018-05-08 07:45

has joined #general

david

2018-05-08 07:47

hello :wave:

dominic.jones

2018-05-08 08:33

has joined #general

mark.bridgett

2018-05-08 08:40

has joined #general

mark.bridgett

2018-05-08 08:40

Greetings

david.j.smith

2018-05-08 08:42

Hello :wave:

mboudreau

2018-05-08 08:50

:wave:

abubics

2018-05-08 23:59

howdy howdy howdy :wave:

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 03:35

Hi all. Welcome.

sgleadow

2018-05-09 05:07

Pacticipants unite!

sgleadow

2018-05-09 05:10

Can I start asking questions now? Is this instead of Gitter? (I'm not on Pact gitter) We're looking to set up Pact between some mobile apps (Swift/Kotlin) and an aggregation API (Node). My question is about setting up provider state. Our API is stateless, so it looks like we're not so much injecting eg. data into a DB as setting up stubs of downstream calls that reflect the provider state. How do people go about doing that? Spin up a separate stub server where you set up the state, and run your API in a configuration where it points there rather than to real dependencies?

abubics

2018-05-09 05:17

There are several approaches, and it depends how cleanly layered your architecture is

abubics

2018-05-09 05:19

The leanest just gives you confidence that your response entities are the right shape: > just stub the response objects at the endpoint layer

abubics

2018-05-09 05:19

The most integrated means you go through all layers (and potentially hit other complications on the way): > inject data in the DB, or responses at the DB client

abubics

2018-05-09 05:20

and a heap of stuff in-between

abubics

2018-05-09 05:21

As for Pact?s intended philosophical usage . . . I?ll leave that answer to @bethskurrie, @uglyog, and @matt.fellows :slightly_smiling_face:

abubics

2018-05-09 05:21

but if you?re treating Pact as an asynchronous pair of network interface unit tests, the leanest approach gives you value

abubics

2018-05-09 05:23

if you phrase the state and requests as ?given no/some/many? and upon receiving ?a valid/invalid request for blah?, there?s no implied logic to stub, just happy & sad response shapes

uglyog

2018-05-09 05:26

Yes, @sgleadow, it's stub and mock servers all the way down.

uglyog

2018-05-09 05:26

Maybe a turtle or two

uglyog

2018-05-09 05:28

Not sure how you would tie the state to the stub with node, but @matt.fellows would prob be able to help there

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 05:48

One way to do it is to create your own mock implementation class that to can set up response objects on, no "mocking library" necessary. Ideally, you could reuse something in that test that would be an input with your downstream contract tests.

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 05:57

For example, you could stub your `AnimalService#get_alligator(...)` to return `Alligator.new(name: Mary)`, and then use that same object in the pact test for `AnimalService#get_alligator`. eg `given... when... will return... expect(AlligatorService.get_alligator(Mary)).to eq Alligator.new(name: Mary)`

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 05:57

So you can use a shared object as a "contract" too.

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 06:01

Or, you could use the pact that you generated for the AnimalService in your unit tests, to create a stub server using the pact-stub-server. You want to make your request expectations quite relaxed if you do this though, because otherwise it will be quite brittle. Normally, when you use pact in a unit test, you can be quite strict, as you're in full control of the outgoing request.

bethskurrie

I've just announced on the gitter channel that it will be closing down, so hopefully we'll have some new pacters soon. Let's try and keep conversations in threads, so it's easier to see which questions have been answered, and which haven't. There are a few really good questions on gitter that didn't get answered recently because of all the noise.

vinod.baradwaj

has joined #general

bethskurrie

Death to gitter!

bethskurrie

Welcome @vinod.baradwaj

vinod.baradwaj

thank you :slightly_smiling_face:

ashish.dubey91

2018-05-09 06:13

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 06:14

:wave:

rgshah781988

2018-05-09 06:14

has joined #general

rgshah781988

2018-05-09 06:15

I am facing issue with matchers.

rgshah781988

2018-05-09 06:15

Can any buddy help me ?

bethskurrie

shoot

vinod.baradwaj

@bethskurrie i tried using hash arguments in mock setup for query parameters and it worked fine... will i be able to use the same approach for an endpoint like this, `/api/tagCollections/{tagCollectionId}/tags/{tagId}` where both tagCollectionId and tagId are dynamic ones

bethskurrie

Firstly, which language?

bethskurrie

Secondly, I'll move this to a thread. It makes the conversations cleaner.

bethskurrie

Ok, @vinod.baradwaj let's continue here.

vinod.baradwaj

yeah sure

rgshah781988

bethskurrie

Which language?

vinod.baradwaj

bethskurrie

Ok, I can probably help you.

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 06:18

You can create a matcher using a regular expression but the nice URL format using {} isn't supported. I'd like it to be. Let's put it in v4.

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 06:18

Or... you could create a JS wrapper method that would turn your {} path into a regexp.

rgshah781988

2018-05-09 06:19

Do we need to create a matchers class?

priyank.shah217

2018-05-09 06:19

has joined #general

bethskurrie

@uglyog in the Ruby impl, I made a little util that would allow you to construct a Pact Response body with all the matchers, and then tell it to give you the JSON example for it. I then used that body in the pact test, but also used it in a plain stub for other tests (eg. verifications of upstream pacts). Is this something that could be done with the JVM?

bethskurrie

It would be the regular expression class

bethskurrie

It's called a `term`

rgshah781988

https://gist.github.com/bethesque/43eef1bf47afea4445c8b8bdebf28df0

vinod.baradwaj

2018-05-09 06:21

we need to create a method which will use regex to create path instead of these {} args @rgshah781988

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 06:21

When you use a term, you give it a regular expression, and an example.

abubics

2018-05-09 06:21

@abubics pinned a message to this channel.

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 06:22

You could make a `Pact.path("/foo/{id}", {id: 2})` that would build a `Pact.term` with the right regular expression and the expanded path as the example.

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 06:22

Does that make sense?

vinod.baradwaj

2018-05-09 06:27

yeah understood... in case of two arguments(`/foo/{fooId}/action/{actionId}`), will the same approach work ?

vinod.baradwaj

2018-05-09 06:27

would i be able to create Pact.term for this ?

rgshah781988

2018-05-09 06:34

@bethskurrie would i be able to create Pact.term for this ?

sgleadow

2018-05-09 06:50

I think this is a difference in the ruby vs node approaches. The node approach, it's not in the same process, so I can't set mocks in code that get called at runtime (at least not out of the box). I think I'll start with some stubs right at the top, and see if actually running downstream stubs through the entire flow makes sense. (although I'm not 100% sure how I'd set this state in a stateless API)

rgshah781988

2018-05-09 06:51

Response body - i have use :

2018-05-09 06:51

A file was commented on

rgshah781988

2018-05-09 06:53

I am trying same think with pactjs but I am not getting success.

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 07:06

@rgshah781988 ask in the js channel, and tag @matt.fellows or @mboudreau

rgshah781988

2018-05-09 07:12

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 07:13

@sgleadow the provider state set up URL could be on the downstream http mock

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 07:13

I'm writing up a list of options with their various pros and cons. Will post here when finished.

rgshah781988

2018-05-09 07:15

Please share channel link

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 07:41

Absolutely

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 07:41

It's still just a regular expression.

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 07:41

And an example.

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 07:49

If you called something like `Pact.path("/api/tagCollections/{tagCollectionId}/tags/{tagId}", {tagCollectionId: 1, tagId: 2})` it would create a Pact.term with a pattern of `\/api\/tagCollections\/[^/]+\/tags/[^/]+\/` as the regular expression (or similar, don't quote me on the backslashes) and `/api/tagCollections/1/tags/1` as the example.

vinod.baradwaj

2018-05-09 08:27

okay got it.. thanks @bethskurrie :slightly_smiling_face:

rgshah781988

2018-05-09 08:53

:+1:

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 09:21

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 09:21

Here's a start.

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 09:28

@uglyog would you like to add any options or content to the gist? I'll put it in the docs when it's had some more eyes on it.

uglyog

2018-05-09 09:29

I'll have a look tomorrow

bethskurrie

2018-05-09 09:29

uglyog

2018-05-09 09:30

I guess, there are model classes that underpin the pact format

vinod.baradwaj

2018-05-09 13:09

i am not able to start pact-stub-server, tried with the example pact file(https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-stub-server) i am getting the following error ``` pact-stub-server git:(master) ? docker run -t -p 8080:8080 -v "$(pwd)/pacts/:/app/pacts" pactfoundation/pact-stub-server -p 8080 -d pacts 13:08:16 [WARN] No metadata found in pact file "\"pacts/billy-bobby.json\"", assuming V2 specification 13:08:16 [ERROR] There were errors loading the pact files. 13:08:16 [ERROR] - Failed to load pact from 'pacts' - Failed to parse Pact JSON - expected value at line 1 column 1 ```

rgshah781988

2018-05-09 13:39

How can I get dynamic response from pact files ? I tried using matchers such as like,eachlike I am working on API which has POST call with different payload values. (edited) According response changes.

david.j.smith

2018-05-09 16:18

@rgshah781988 You can't :slightly_smiling_face: Pact testing is done in a *known* state, if you want a different response, you need to define a different request. Essentially you're saying "There are different responses I can get for different requests" but they're all 1 to 1. A common thing to do in unit testing with mocks is to make the same request to, say, `/foo` in every test request but get the mocking framework to supply a different response each time with a before and/or after statement in your test framework. Pact does not do that.

david.j.smith

2018-05-09 16:22

@vinod.baradwaj It's saying that is can't parse your Pact contract files, which it has assumed to be V2 formatted, so the first question is: Do you know you have V2 Pact files? Also, do both of those folders contain Pact files? Are they all the same format? You could try adding the metadata to the files (as a test) to see what happens, I believe it looks like: ``` ...rest of Pact file... "metadata": { "pact-specification": { "version": "2.0.0" } } } ```

vinod.baradwaj

2018-05-09 16:26

@david.j.smith i am trying with the example pact file which is in that repo, the pact file has the metadata which you have given in it.. it was working fine before but now i am not able to start the server with the same pact file.

david.j.smith

2018-05-09 16:41

@vinod.baradwaj It's hard to tell from here but it clear isn't happy with something in that directory. Do you have files in there that aren't Pact files? Can you refresh that file to make sure it hasn't be accidentally changed? Failing that you could send it over for us to look at but if it was working and now it isn't... then something has changed. :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2018-05-09 20:44

@rgshah781988 can you please explain what you're trying to do with more details?

brentbarker9

2018-05-09 20:55

has joined #general

uglyog

2018-05-09 21:55

@vinod.baradwaj looks like it can't parse your pact file. You can enable debug logging with `-l debug`

mboudreau

2018-05-09 22:26

please don't repost in several channels

mboudreau

2018-05-09 22:26

use the threads, dave

shekharsp27

2018-05-10 05:27

has joined #general

rgshah781988

2018-05-10 05:38

ok sure

rgshah781988

2018-05-10 05:40

Thanks @david.j.smith

rgshah781988

2018-05-10 05:41

But I have one API call with different payload and response should be dependent on payload. So, what to do? It seems that PACTs doesn't have such feature.

rgshah781988

2018-05-10 05:43

@david.j.smith @vinod.baradwaj But same pact file is working in my computer.

rgshah781988

2018-05-10 05:45

I have one API call with different payload and I am expecting different response as per payload values. Eg : API call is url/assets - POST call. I am providing payload as JSON - {"name":"ravi"} , expected response is name as ravi. Now,API call is url/assets - POST call. I am providing payload as JSON - {"name":"shah"} , expected response is name as shah.

matt.fellows

2018-05-10 05:50

Hopefully that?s an example just to illustrate the point (because you wouldn?t use pact just to test different data values)

matt.fellows

2018-05-10 05:50

BUT? that is entirely possible to do with Pact. What?s the issue you?re running into?

mboudreau

2018-05-10 05:50

@rgshah781988 I've responded to you in a thread in pact-js

rgshah781988

2018-05-10 05:52

I am mocking with pact file via pact stub server. And I need to use pact file.

rgshah781988

2018-05-10 05:52

For test , I can use this as per example . I had posted.

rgshah781988

2018-05-10 05:52

But I need to mock into pact stub server and need to use it.

rgshah781988

2018-05-10 05:53

@vinod.baradwaj Please look into respond also.

rgshah781988

2018-05-10 05:54

pact do same as per my example when I test with consumer.spec.js but I need to mock pact files in pact stub server

matt.fellows

2018-05-10 05:55

ok, so this is the _stubs_, and not the tests themselves right?

rgshah781988

2018-05-10 05:58

Yes,We can write a test for different payload and we will get different responses and according pact interactions will be created

matt.fellows

2018-05-10 05:58

ok cool

matt.fellows

2018-05-10 05:58

so yes, the stub server is not able to do what you?re asking unfortunately

rgshah781988

how to do that? I am working on mocking with pact files

matt.fellows

See the note at https://docs.pact.io/getting-started/local-api-stubs. We don?t support matching on predicates etc., unless I?m mistaken @uglyog @bethskurrie?

matt.fellows

Perhaps there?s a way with headers or something. Typically we use other tools for that job

rgshah781988

Yes sure , I am look into link

matt.fellows

https://github.com/uglyog/pact-stub-server/issues

:thumbsup:

matt.fellows

2018-05-10 06:01

brb

rgshah781988

2018-05-10 06:01

Can you suggest some tool to do such job. I am working on mocking of my each micor services in pact-server at different port.

uglyog

2018-05-10 06:03

The stub server returns responses based on the method + path + query parameters. You can raise an issue to get it to have an option to include the request body as well

rgshah781988

2018-05-10 06:09

Where should I raised issue? @uglyog Please help me

uglyog

2018-05-10 06:10

rgshah781988

2018-05-10 06:19

https://github.com/uglyog/pact-stub-server/issues/10

rgshah781988

2018-05-10 06:19

https://github.com/uglyog/pact-stub-server/issues/10

uglyog

2018-05-10 06:21

I'll sort it out for you this weekend, and upgrade it to V3 spec as well

rgshah781988

2018-05-10 06:23

thanks

matt.fellows

2018-05-10 06:28

:thumbsup:

vinod.baradwaj

2018-05-10 06:56

@matt.fellows is there any examples in JS to implement `term` in path ? the endpoint i am trying to mock is like `/api/tagCollections/{tagCollectionId}/tags/{tagId}` which will have dynamic values for both tagCollectionId and tagId.

matt.fellows

2018-05-10 06:58

Maybe not examples, but it?s doable - are you having issues?

bethskurrie

2018-05-10 07:02

It's just the same as a term for any other part of the request.

bethskurrie

2018-05-10 07:02

path : Pact.term(...)

vinod.baradwaj

2018-05-10 07:03

term will expect a matcher and generate right ?

matt.fellows

2018-05-10 07:12

yep

david.j.smith

2018-05-10 08:47

@rgshah781988, I'm 99% sure the Scala stubber does do that. However it's probably more hassle than you'd want to get into.

david.j.smith

2018-05-10 08:49

@mboudreau I'll try but I don't like them very much so often forget :slightly_smiling_face: (Hard to scan for relevant information since it's hidden under threads)

mboudreau

2018-05-10 08:55

the point is to keep details out of the main channels so it's not cluttered

omar

2018-05-10 19:49

has joined #general

kateleighrose

2018-05-10 22:09

has joined #general

rgshah781988

2018-05-11 05:04

I need to create pact file which contain interactions eg : id:1234 is randomly created by other API. Can I provide or pass dynamic number in interactions?

uglyog

2018-05-11 05:08

@rgshah781988 what are you using to create the pact file?

rgshah781988

2018-05-11 05:09

I used Pactjs

uglyog

2018-05-11 05:10

Does it need to be dynamic?

uglyog

2018-05-11 05:10

As long as it is correctly formatted, the actual value should not matter

uglyog

2018-05-11 05:11

You can try use a regex matcher without a example, it might generate a random one

rgshah781988

2018-05-11 05:23

@uglyog: Actually , id:1234 is created by other API. And same ID , i need to used in interactions for next API call

matt.fellows

2018-05-11 06:17

That sounds like a functional test - you don?t want to use pact for functional tests (https://docs.pact.io/best-practices/consumer/contract-tests-vs-functional-tests)

kateleighrose

2018-05-11 14:47

hi, I have kind of a weird use case that I'm hoping to use pact-python for but can't figure out. I have a service in python that calls out to a lambda function via boto3, that lambda is a java app I also have ownership of. I want to write a contract test for the consumer (python service) and provider (java app)

kateleighrose

2018-05-11 14:48

but since the consumer is calling boto and not making a standard HTTP request to an api, I can't use the `with_request` param... unless I'm missing something

matt.fellows

2018-05-11 23:58

interesting

matt.fellows

2018-05-12 00:00

how does the service call lambda via boto - triggering an event or something? Boto is an interface to the AWS SDK, so it must just be triggering the lambda function and therefore it would be an asynchronous interaction

matt.fellows

2018-05-12 00:00

Python doesn?t yet support message pact, but we?ve just introduced it to Pact JS and Pact Go with some success, and will hopefully be rolling it out to Python et. al over the coming months

matt.fellows

2018-05-12 00:01

if you wanted to help contribute, @matthew.balvanz would be the guy to chat with

kateleighrose

2018-05-13 01:31

message sounds like what I need, yeah. good to know it's in the plans

uglyog

2018-05-13 06:41

@rgshah781988 `pactfoundation/pact-stub-server:v0.0.8` has been released with your fix and support for V3 spec pact files

ragarwal

2018-05-14 00:45

Hello, I am using pact-js and jest to write consumer side pact tests. As per https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/master/examples/jest/__tests__/another.spec.js example, we can do `.then(() => provider.verify());` with same it block. When I am doing this for 1 test it works seamlessly. But when I have multiple pact tests, interactions start getting confused and results in test failure. To fix the issue, I end up doing `it('successfully verifies', () => provider.verify());` for each test. Now if I have 2 pact tests, I end up having 4 tests => 2 actual tests and 2 verify `it` block. This is just extra noise, can someone help me with this?

mboudreau

2018-05-14 00:53

I think the problem is that you're returning a promise, but also using the `done` function. You're calling `done` before the actual function is done

mboudreau

2018-05-14 00:53

since it still has to verify

mboudreau

2018-05-14 00:53

just remove the `done`, and it should work

ragarwal

2018-05-14 01:08

describe(?pact tests?, () => { const expectedCreateAgencyResponse = { agencyId: ?A000001?, }; beforeAll(() => { process.env.NAILGUN_API_BASE_URL = ?http://localhost:7080'; return provider.addInteraction(interaction); }); it(?should return an success response with the formatted message?, done => { createAgency(createRequest, response).then(() => { expect(response.send).toHaveBeenCalledWith(expectedCreateAgencyResponse); done(); }); }); it(?successfully verifies?, () => provider.verify()); });

ragarwal

2018-05-14 01:09

This is how I am adding tests as of now

ragarwal

2018-05-14 01:10

Are you suggesting to remove done completely, or calling it in a different way?

mboudreau

2018-05-14 01:10

remove it and put your verify back in the then

ragarwal

2018-05-14 01:15

I will try doing that. Thanks @mboudreau

ragarwal

2018-05-14 01:25

It?s not working without done.

matt.fellows

2018-05-14 01:25

What?s it doing - timing out?

matt.fellows

2018-05-14 01:25

Did you remove the done argument (and not just the `done()`?)

ragarwal

2018-05-14 01:26

yes, I removed the done argument

ragarwal

2018-05-14 01:26

it(?should return an success response with the formatted message?, () => { createAgency(createRequest, response) .then(() => { expect(response.send).toHaveBeenCalledWith(expectedCreateAgencyResponse); }) .then(() => { provider.verify(); }); });

ragarwal

2018-05-14 01:27

Now I am getting this error: console.warn node_modules/bluebird/js/release/debuggability.js:873 Unhandled rejection Error: expect(jest.fn()).toHaveBeenCalledWith(expected) Expected mock function to have been called with: [{?agencyId?: ?A000001"}] But it was not called.

ragarwal

2018-05-14 01:27

I can see this in logs, but entire test suite is saying successful. :flushed:

matt.fellows

2018-05-14 01:27

My recommendation is to have a structure like this ` beforeAll(() => provider.setup()); afterEach(() => provider.verify()); afterAll(() => provider.finalize()); describe ?some big important scenario? it ?does something? it ?does something else? describe ?next big important scenario? ...

matt.fellows

2018-05-14 01:28

It reads a lot better, and is less error prone

matt.fellows

2018-05-14 01:29

Also consider that Jest may run in _parallel_ - if that?s the case, then that could explain the weird issues you?re having.

matt.fellows

2018-05-14 01:29

See https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js#note-on-jest

mboudreau

2018-05-14 01:30

@ragarwal if you're not using `done` you need to return the promise in the test

mboudreau

2018-05-14 01:30

ie. return your `createAgency` function

mboudreau

2018-05-14 01:31

and yeah, paralellization might be an issue with jest

ragarwal

2018-05-14 01:33

I am already passing `runInBand` to solve that issue

mboudreau

2018-05-14 01:34

``` it(?should return an success response with the formatted message?, () => { return createAgency(createRequest, response) .then(() => expect(response.send).toHaveBeenCalledWith(expectedCreateAgencyResponse)) .then(() => provider.verify()); }); ```

matt.fellows

2018-05-14 01:34

``` .then(() => { provider.verify(); }); ``` should be ``` .then(() => { return provider.verify(); }); ``` or just? ``` .then(() => provider.verify()) ```

ragarwal

2018-05-14 01:45

adding return to provider.verify() worked!

mboudreau

2018-05-14 01:45

magic! :stuck_out_tongue:

ragarwal

2018-05-14 01:45

also, as suggested by @matt.fellows, I moved it to afterEach() and now I have it only once in a file, which is more cleaner.

ragarwal

2018-05-14 02:01

with `.then(() => { return provider.verify(); })` my test became flaky. I ran them multiple times and they are randomly passing and failing without any code change.

santoshtrip

2018-05-14 03:24

has joined #general

santoshtrip

2018-05-14 03:26

Has anybody tried out swagger mock validator for contract testing

rgshah781988

2018-05-14 04:52

Thanks

rgshah781988

2018-05-14 04:52

Let me try this out

shekharsp27

2018-05-14 06:41

I have done POC using swagger petstore

rgshah781988

2018-05-14 09:05

can you share a link ?

shekharsp27

2018-05-14 09:43

I have used examples mentioned here https://bitbucket.org/atlassian/swagger-request-validator/src/04551f1ff4a7fa0be58ed72af226181f27df7faf/swagger-request-validator-examples/src/test/java/com/atlassian/oai/validator/examples/pact/?at=master

shekharsp27

2018-05-14 09:45

My POC is on local machine, so please let me know if you still require a POC. Will commit it to repo.

ashish.dubey91

2018-05-14 11:51

hey guys. I have a question. I'm thinking of writing pact based tests and automate execution based on collection of BDD scenarios

ashish.dubey91

2018-05-14 11:52

is it possible that I can do provider verification per behavior basis?

ashish.dubey91

2018-05-14 11:52

if there was some way to tag interactions with steps definitions like in cucumber, that would have helped

ashish.dubey91

2018-05-14 11:52

I haven't seen anything like that in the docs hence I'm asking here

matt.fellows

2018-05-14 12:06

Hmm in theory it is possible, with environment variables

matt.fellows

2018-05-14 12:07

I'm on mobile, but off the top of my head, you can replay specific provider interactions, keyed by the description in the pact

matt.fellows

2018-05-14 12:07

But why?

ashish.dubey91

2018-05-14 15:09

so that I can pick certain provider interactions based on the relative importance. or at some point, I can tell for certain descriptions (BDD scenarios) in my case, if there exists a provider interaction that I can verify

santoshtrip

2018-05-14 16:29

Thanks @shekharsp27

timothy.clifford

2018-05-15 00:08

has joined #general

tjones

2018-05-15 01:04

has joined #general

vinod.baradwaj

2018-05-15 08:46

@matt.fellows term worked fine for endpoint which is `/api/tagCollections/{tagCollectionId}` but when i use the same technique for `/api/tagCollections/{tagCollectionId}/tags/{tagId}` i get `multiple interaction found`

vinod.baradwaj

2018-05-15 08:48

because both the endpoints `/api/tagCollections/{tagCollectionId}/tags/{tagId}` and `/api/tagCollections/{tagCollectionId}/tags` are getting matched

matt.fellows

2018-05-15 08:48

Are you clearing interactions between tests? As a general rule, you should only hit one per test. Or is this for local stubs?

vinod.baradwaj

2018-05-15 08:48

this is for local stubs

bethskurrie

2018-05-15 08:50

Can you give more information @vinod.baradwaj

bethskurrie

2018-05-15 08:50

I'm not sure we have the same understanding of "local stubs".

bethskurrie

2018-05-15 08:51

I think the regular expression you're using needs start and end markers on it.

bethskurrie

2018-05-15 08:51

^ and $

vinod.baradwaj

2018-05-15 08:54

i have not used start and end markers, let me try with that

bethskurrie

2018-05-15 11:11

Needs more Tims!

vinod.baradwaj

2018-05-15 11:52

i have used term like this `path: term({generate: "/api/tagCollections/10197", matcher: "/api/tagCollections/"+'\\d{5}'})`

bethskurrie

2018-05-15 12:04

You'll need to escape the forward slashes correctly. And put a $ at the end.

bethskurrie

2018-05-15 12:05

`\/api`

timothy.clifford

2018-05-15 23:01

I'll see what I can do

timothy.clifford

2018-05-15 23:04

Day 2 at Orica and I've already seen "contract testing" on the wish list

timothy.clifford

2018-05-15 23:04

I automatically started muttering "PACT" over and over

matt.fellows

2018-05-15 23:06

:laughing:

matt.fellows

2018-05-15 23:06

You know who to talk to :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2018-05-15 23:07

Try using something like this to test your regexes: http://rubular.com/

timothy.clifford

I get a commission now, right?

matt.fellows

Sure

matt.fellows

You can own 1/20th of a slide deck :slightly_smiling_face:

timothy.clifford

YES! I'm in

rgshah781988

2018-05-16 05:21

I have a scenario - When I make a GET API call , response is unknown in my application.

rgshah781988

2018-05-16 05:22

How can I create pact for this kind of GET API call ?

uglyog

2018-05-16 05:23

You'll need to be more specific on what "response is unknown in my application" means

rgshah781988

2018-05-16 05:25

Few job are running automatically and it will have id and response depend on job. When I create a pact file for GET api call then response should be different.

uglyog

2018-05-16 05:26

and the job is specified in the path or as query parameters?

bethskurrie

2018-05-16 06:17

@rgshah781988 please provide some example code (ideally in a git repository), describe your expected outcome, and the actual outcome.

vinod.baradwaj

2018-05-16 06:18

same api end point but with different responses every time when u make request to the same endpoint ? @rgshah781988

rgshah781988

2018-05-16 06:20

@vinod.baradwaj :same api end point but with different responses every time when u make request to the same endpoint - > Yes

rgshah781988

2018-05-16 06:20

We need this case for GET Call. I am not changing end-point data - api/assets

bethskurrie

2018-05-16 06:23

It's perfectly normal to set up the same request and expect different responses for different situations. You need to run each test separately, however. You can't load all the interactions into the mock service at the same time. You'll have to do a set up, 1 interaction, test it, tear down, set up the 2nd interaction, test it, tear down etc.

rgshah781988

2018-05-16 06:24

ashish.dubey91

2018-05-16 06:57

Is it possible to do provider verification programmatically (say, in a python function) for a specific interaction? Sorry if it's too obviously mentioned in the docs. I think this slack group is friendly, and I'm exploiting that fact too much

mboudreau

2018-05-16 07:04

probably ask in the python channel if it's python specific since each language has a different way of doing things

nand.sharma

2018-05-16 07:25

has joined #general

nand.sharma

2018-05-16 07:28

Is there a ways to provide pact broker url to pact stub server ? As per https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-stub-server documentation , we can provide directory of pact file

ashish.dubey91

2018-05-16 07:30

@nand.sharma https://github.com/uglyog/pact-stub-server#pact-file-sources does this help?

bethskurrie

2018-05-16 07:58

No, I don't think the rust implementation supports that. The ruby one does though (if I released it. I only did the code for it the other day. Let me check.)

bethskurrie

2018-05-16 07:59

Oh, I beg your pardon. Just read the docs. Yes!

vinod.baradwaj

2018-05-16 08:44

thanks @matt.fellows @bethskurrie

james.hogarth

2018-05-16 09:21

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-05-16 10:55

:+1:

uglyog

2018-05-16 23:38

@nand.sharma directly supporting the pact broker is an excellent idea. Can you raise an issue for that?

gnewitt

2018-05-17 03:28

has joined #general

jaime.jaramillo

2018-05-17 18:24

has joined #general

rollertone

2018-05-19 17:21

has joined #general

minhdoan

2018-05-21 03:13

has joined #general

minhdoan

Hi team, i am buidling a Pact record with the response contains:

minhdoan

{ "Id": 35345786, "DATA_TYPE": { "EntityTypeName": "STRING", } }

minhdoan

minhdoan

{ "Id": 35345786, "DATA_TYPE": null

minhdoan

2018-05-21 08:56

I used the pact-jvm-consumer-junit_2.12:3.5.16 and it seems the or() method, e.g: or("DATA_TYPE", null, PM.nullValue(), PM.stringType()) does not work in this case

minhdoan

2018-05-21 08:56

Could you please help to instruct me how to build it?

minhdoan

2018-05-21 08:56

Many thanks!

abhilash.hanumanth

2018-05-21 09:43

has joined #general

abhilash.hanumanth

I am also having similar requirement as @minhdoan

abhilash.hanumanth

I have a simple pact record :

abhilash.hanumanth

[ { "id":123, "name":"Abhilash" }, { "id":1234, "name":"Hanumanth" } ]

abhilash.hanumanth

How do I construct the pactDslJsonBody for the above example body ?

abhilash.hanumanth

2018-05-21 09:49

@uglyog: Can you pls provide a solution for this as I see ``` public PactDslJsonArray array() { throw new UnsupportedOperationException("use the array(String name) form"); } ``` in PactDslJsonBody.java

minhdoan

2018-05-21 09:58

@abhilash.hanumanth for your case

minhdoan

2018-05-21 09:58

body(new PactDslJsonBody() .id("Id") .stringValue("name", "Abhilash") ).toPact();

minhdoan

2018-05-21 09:59

and the pact record:

minhdoan

2018-05-21 09:59

{ "status": 200, "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json" }, "body": { "name": "Abhilash", "Id": 1234567890 } }

minhdoan

2018-05-21 09:59

Is it satisfied your need?

abhilash.hanumanth

2018-05-21 10:20

Sorry @minhdoan. My bad. I changed my requirement. Please check

abhilash.hanumanth

2018-05-21 10:21

body: ``` [ { "id":123, "name":"Abhilash" }, { "id":1234, "name":"Hanumanth" } ] ```

minhdoan

2018-05-21 10:36

@abhilash.hanumanth

minhdoan

.body(new PactDslJsonBody() .array("value") .object() .id("id") .stringValue("name", "Abhilash") .closeObject() .object() .id("id") .stringValue("name", "Hanumanth") .closeObject() .closeArray() ).toPact();

minhdoan

and pact record:

minhdoan

"body": { "value": [ { "name": "Abhilash", "id": 1234567890 }, { "name": "Hanumanth", "id": 1234567890 } ] }

minhdoan

try it

peter.banjo

2018-05-21 10:49

has joined #general

abhilash.hanumanth

2018-05-21 10:52

Hi @minhdoan: If you observe my Json body, i dont have "value". In your solution, "value" is passed to array() which will generate key name as "value" which is not there in my response. And passing parameter is mandatory to .array() method as I said : ``` public PactDslJsonArray array() { throw new UnsupportedOperationException("use the array(String name) form"); } ```

minhdoan

2018-05-21 11:03

@abhilash.hanumanth Could you send your detail API response received from Postman or some thing like that? Because almost the response have format as:

minhdoan

2018-05-21 11:03

{ value: [} } or { "Name": "Value" }

minhdoan

2018-05-21 11:05

I have not seen the format: { [] }

bethskurrie

2018-05-21 11:21

@abhilash.hanumanth @minhdoan would you mind moving your conversation to the #pact-jvm channel please? We like to keep the conversations focussed so that we can ensure everyone gets their issues addressed. Using threads helps with this too. Thanks! Hope you get your problem worked out.

abhilash.hanumanth

2018-05-21 11:22

Sure Beth

scott.osborne1

2018-05-21 21:55

has joined #general

scott.osborne1

2018-05-22 20:27

I noticed that the pact-broker database has a table called config. Can anyone point me to examples for how to set up pact-broker configuration in the database? Or maybe there's a separate slack channel for pact-broker issues.

aphelps

2018-05-22 21:08

has joined #general

avinash.eediga

2018-05-23 05:55

has joined #general

avinash.eediga

2018-05-23 05:58

any one can share a simple example to start with pact

avinash.eediga

2018-05-23 05:58

in js /jvm

avinash.eediga

2018-05-23 05:58

thanks in advance

vinod.baradwaj

2018-05-23 06:08

try this @avinash.eediga `https://github.com/Mikuu/Pact-JVM-Example` this is in jvm

rgshah781988

2018-05-23 06:21

@avinash.eediga Pactjs is little bit easy to understand

rgshah781988

2018-05-23 06:24

Can we have some automation in creating a pact file ? When user provide swagger file with its details. Then automatically pact file created. Is it possible ? We should have such kind of automation script? Which will boost use of pact.

bethskurrie

2018-05-23 06:25

Hi @rgshah781988 it could be written, but it's not going to help you. The value of pact is that the contract is generated by tests that execute the actual calls that your codebase will make in real life. A pact file generated from a swagger document misses the whole point.

rgshah781988

2018-05-23 06:25

Presently, It is difficult to update contract regularly whenever endpoint changes.

rgshah781988

Can we have solution over this?

bethskurrie

Presently, your contract tests are making you keep your code in sync with the provider changes. If they didn't do that, then there would be no value in them.

rgshah781988

Agreed 100%.

bethskurrie

I don't understand your question, sorry.

rgshah781988

2018-05-23 06:27

Can we make it automation to update end-point in contract file of pact

rgshah781988

2018-05-23 06:28

A pact file generated from a swagger document misses the whole point. - Can we find solution on this ?

tom

2018-05-23 06:42

has joined #general

tom

2018-05-23 06:45

I know that this isn't bet practice, but I need a matcher that make confirms that at object has been sent up, but the key/values aren't important

tom

2018-05-23 06:45

Does something like that exist?

tom

2018-05-23 06:59

I should add that is the values themselves would be objects

tom

2018-05-23 07:00

so using like({}) doesn't work

tom

2018-05-23 07:00

I should have mention that i am using pact-js

matt.fellows

2018-05-23 10:08

I'm sure this discussion has been had before.

matt.fellows

2018-05-23 10:09

We should get it up on our website so at least the key aspects to the problem and solution space are documented

matt.fellows

2018-05-23 10:10

:grin:

matt.fellows

2018-05-23 10:11

Hmmm. I don't think so, at least not in pact JS that I'm aware of

matt.fellows

2018-05-23 10:13

The keys are not matchable to my knowledge, they must be known in advance

bethskurrie

2018-05-23 10:15

The point of this sort of contract testing is not to *have* a pact file, it's to have two sets of tests (one in the consumer project using a mock provider, and one in the provider project using a "mock consumer") that are linked together so they can't get out of sync - the pact file is the mechanism for doing that. Generating a pact file from a swagger document is pointless, and is like marking your own exam, as I've heard someone once describe it before.

bethskurrie

2018-05-23 10:17

@tom is the expectation for the request body or the response body?

tom

2018-05-23 10:34

request body

tom

2018-05-23 10:34

Long story:

tom

2018-05-23 10:35

We use Redux

bethskurrie

2018-05-23 10:35

Hm. If it was the response body, you'd be fine, but for the request body, you really have to specify everything you're sending. Read up on Postel's Law if you're not familiar with it.

tom

2018-05-23 10:36

Yeah. Read that in the docs

tom

2018-05-23 10:37

and i totally agree .... EXCEPT

bethskurrie

2018-05-23 10:37

Redux puts extra stuff in that you don't care about?

tom

2018-05-23 10:37

we have 'screen capture'

tom

2018-05-23 10:38

we are currently achieving this by sending the entire state up as an additional parameter

tom

2018-05-23 10:38

HORRIBLE, i know

tom

2018-05-23 10:38

but, genius in comparison to how we were doing it

bethskurrie

2018-05-23 10:39

What level are you writing your pact tests at? Are they going through the UI, or just testing the API client class?

tom

2018-05-23 10:39

through the ui

bethskurrie

2018-05-23 10:39

there's your problem.

bethskurrie

Ideally, you write pact tests for as little code as possible. Just the client that is responsible for making the API calls.

bethskurrie

Then, you're in control of everything that gets passed into that client.

rgshah781988

Thanks for update

tom

Hmmmm. You are right (as always)

bethskurrie

Back door of the consumer to front door of the provider.

bethskurrie

2018-05-23 10:41

Ha! My husband would disagree with you there :stuck_out_tongue:

bethskurrie

2018-05-23 10:41

But I have done this enough to know how to write painful pact tests, and I know that the more code you cover with them, the more painful they are.

tom

2018-05-23 10:41

BUT, it doesn't help with the next point

tom

2018-05-23 10:42

It will fail on the mock server

tom

2018-05-23 10:42

which would suck because i am using that for deving

tom

2018-05-23 10:42

....

tom

2018-05-23 10:43

the cheat answer is to change it to pass up a stringified json object

bethskurrie

2018-05-23 10:43

There may be a workaround. Let me have a look and see if some naughty code I once put in there is still there.

tom

2018-05-23 10:43

but i was hoping to not have to do any re work

tom

2018-05-23 10:44

The weird thing is, it works in 4

tom

2018-05-23 10:44

it broke updating to 5

bethskurrie

4/5 of what?

bethskurrie

Is that a pact-js version?

tom

yeah

tom

it shouldn't have worked, so 5 didn't break it,

bethskurrie

2018-05-23 10:46

i haven't touched that part of the code for years.

bethskurrie

2018-05-23 10:46

I'm just seeing if the dirty hack I once put in to allow this sort of thing is still there

tom

2018-05-23 10:46

:crossed_fingers:

tom

2018-05-23 10:48

The weird thing is, as I was explaining to Beth) that it worked in 4.

tom

2018-05-23 10:48

It shouldn't have

bethskurrie

2018-05-23 10:48

ok... we have two options. We can hack the ruby code or we can hack the js code.

tom

I am WAY more comfortable with JS

bethskurrie

In the request that gets sent to the mock service, at the same level as the body, path, headers keys, you can add another key called `options`.

tom

yep

bethskurrie

In that hash, if you set `{"allow_unexpected_keys_in_body": true}` then it will allow extra keys in the body

bethskurrie

2018-05-23 10:50

You'll have to override the javascript code that sends the request. Is monkeypatching js a thing?

tom

2018-05-23 10:50

I will make it so

bethskurrie

2018-05-23 10:50

If that doesn't work, there's a built in mechanism for allowing us to monkeypatch the ruby :wink:

bethskurrie

2018-05-23 10:51

I persuaded michel to put it in, despite great protestations.

tom

2018-05-23 10:51

So i need to send that up with every request where I need this attribute?

bethskurrie

2018-05-23 10:51

yes

tom

2018-05-23 10:52

Sweet!

tom

2018-05-23 10:52

I will have a play around with it and get back to you.

bethskurrie

2018-05-23 10:53

ok. if that fails, I can send you the ruby for the monkeypatch.

tom

The other option is to change the request to strings and then just parse it on the server site

tom

side*

tom

thanks again

bethskurrie

good to know there's a backup plan.

bethskurrie

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker-client#can-i-deploy

tom

2018-05-23 10:55

but it is only after updated to 5 that it started.

tom

2018-05-23 10:55

It is my fault

matt.fellows

2018-05-23 10:58

We might need an option to pass that through @bethskurrie, with a warning when used

gopinathlangote11

2018-05-23 13:29

has joined #general

scott.osborne1

2018-05-23 15:25

I would love to be able to set pact-broker configuration through the database instead of in the http://config.ru file. Can anyone point me to examples for setting up configuration in the database?

scott.osborne1

2018-05-23 15:26

Specifically I want to set "order_versions_by_date = true" and have it persist over restarts and upgrades to the pact-broker docker image.

scott.osborne1

2018-05-23 15:27

I could package my own docker image that uses your image and updates the config file, but the http://config.ru is not consistent between pact-broker-docker images either, so I would prefer to put these kinds of settings in the database.

peter.banjo

2018-05-23 15:41

hi. i'm trying to test a swagger API with Pact using swagger-mock-validator. the tests are failing and I'm not sure where the problem is. my setup is like this ``` // secure.spec.js const interaction = { state: "authenticated request", uponReceiving: "a request for a secure resource", withRequest: { method: "GET", path: "/secure", headers: { Accept: "application/json", Authorization: "Bearer 1234XYz" } }, willRespondWith: { status: 200, headers: { "Content-Type": "application/json" }, body: EXPECTED_BODY } }; ```

peter.banjo

2018-05-23 15:42

``` // swagger.yaml swagger: "2.0" ... securityDefinitions: Bearer: type: apiKey name: Authorization in: header ... /secure: x-swagger-router-controller: secure get: description: Allows only secure requests operationId: secure security: - Bearer: [] responses: "200": description: Success schema: $ref: "#/definitions/SecureResponse" default: description: Error schema: $ref: "#/definitions/UnauthorizedError" ```

peter.banjo

2018-05-23 15:43

is anyone familiar with using swagger and pact?

greg

2018-05-23 15:45

has joined #general

peter.banjo

2018-05-23 15:50

I found the issue... i had multiple definitions in my pact file so `pactfileWriteMode: "overwrite",` solved it

paulswilliams

2018-05-23 19:33

has joined #general

paulswilliams

2018-05-23 19:35

Hi all.

bethskurrie

2018-05-24 04:17

It's not a feature I really advertise! But there are certain situations where it's better than the alternatives.

gopinathlangote11

2018-05-24 05:18

Hello

bethskurrie

2018-05-24 08:37

This line in the http://config.ru loads the config from the database https://github.com/DiUS/pact_broker-docker/blob/master/pact_broker/config.ru#L14

bethskurrie

2018-05-24 08:37

I haven't gotten around to making an API for the configuration, but here is the sql to set the config you want:

bethskurrie

2018-05-24 08:38

``` insert into config (name, type, value, created_at, updated_at) values ('order_versions_by_date', 'boolean', '1', now(), now()); ```

bethskurrie

2018-05-24 08:40

Any luck @tom?

bethskurrie

2018-05-24 08:47

I've added this to the faq https://docs.pact.io/faq#can-i-generate-my-pact-file-from-something-like-swagger @matt.fellows @tjones

rgshah781988

2018-05-24 11:54

:+1:

matt.fellows

2018-05-24 12:19

Nice, thanks Beth

scott.osborne1

2018-05-24 15:26

That's great! Thank you! I was putting in "true" in the database and it wasn't working. I'll use your example. Appreciate it!

santoshtrip

2018-05-24 23:12

@shekharsp27 can you please share the whole dependency set to run this

santoshtrip

2018-05-24 23:13

Having tough time with multiple versions causing conflict

eumirg

2018-05-25 05:14

has joined #general

shirren

2018-05-25 05:44

has joined #general

shekharsp27

2018-05-25 11:11

Here is consumer dependency

shekharsp27

2018-05-25 11:12

<dependencies> <dependency> <groupId>au.com.dius</groupId> <artifactId>pact-jvm-consumer-junit_2.12</artifactId> <version>3.5.13</version> <scope>test</scope> </dependency> <dependency> <groupId>au.com.dius</groupId> <artifactId>pact-jvm-consumer-java8_2.12</artifactId> <version>3.5.13</version> <scope>test</scope> </dependency> <dependency> <groupId>junit</groupId> <artifactId>junit</artifactId> <version>4.12</version> <scope>test</scope> </dependency> <dependency> <groupId>com.atlassian.oai</groupId> <artifactId>swagger-request-validator-pact</artifactId> <version>1.3.8</version> </dependency>  <dependency> <groupId>io.rest-assured</groupId> <artifactId>rest-assured</artifactId> <version>3.0.7</version> <scope>test</scope> </dependency> <dependency> <groupId>io.swagger</groupId> <artifactId>swagger-parser</artifactId> <version>1.0.34</version> </dependency> </dependencies>

shekharsp27

2018-05-25 11:13

Here is provider dependency <dependencies> <dependency> <groupId>au.com.dius</groupId> <artifactId>pact-jvm-provider-junit_2.12</artifactId> <version>3.5.13</version> </dependency> <dependency> <groupId>com.atlassian.oai</groupId> <artifactId>swagger-request-validator-pact</artifactId> <version>1.3.8</version> </dependency> <dependency> <groupId>io.rest-assured</groupId> <artifactId>rest-assured</artifactId> <version>3.0.7</version> <scope>test</scope> </dependency> <dependency> <groupId>io.swagger</groupId> <artifactId>swagger-parser</artifactId> <version>1.0.34</version> </dependency> <dependency> <groupId>com.fasterxml.jackson.core</groupId> <artifactId>jackson-annotations</artifactId> <version>2.9.4</version> </dependency> <dependency> <groupId>com.fasterxml.jackson.core</groupId> <artifactId>jackson-core</artifactId> <version>2.9.4</version> </dependency> </dependencies>

dervis4

2018-05-28 09:08

has joined #general

dervis4

2018-05-28 10:22

Hi guys! We (at Norwegian LWA) had some issues with the content-type header when running our tests against a Jetty-server. We have made a improvement in Pact-JVM that makes Pact able to accept content-type header with an optional whitespace character (as pr the W3C-specification). Please see our pull-request here: https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/pull/688. :slightly_smiling_face:

mboudreau

2018-05-28 12:00

thanks for the PR. It's night time for most of the core contributors, but I'm sure it will be looked at soon. Cheers :slightly_smiling_face:

dervis4

2018-05-28 12:15

Thank you @mboudreau (its day time here in Norway)

paulswilliams

2018-05-28 12:34

So I?ve got a reliable consumer + provider test working with contracts held by the broker. However, I now want to add a test for an exception case as well as the positive case. Should I just add a uponReceiving? section to this DSL, and another authClient.login chunk into my existing @Test? As you can only have one test per class using the JUnit integration, should I be using the DSL instead? Using this approach, there seems to be a lot of boilerplate needed :confused: ```public class AuthClientTest { @Rule public PactProviderRuleMk2 mockProvider = new PactProviderRuleMk2("simple-auth-api", "localhost", 8081, this); @Pact(consumer = "simple-web") public RequestResponsePact createPact(PactDslWithProvider builder) { Map<String, String> requestHeaders = new HashMap<>(); requestHeaders.put("Accept", "application/json, application/cbor, application/*+json"); Map<String, String> expectedResponseHeaders = new HashMap<>(); expectedResponseHeaders.put("Content-Type", "application/json;charset=UTF-8"); return builder .given("Paul exists with password Secret") .uponReceiving("valid authentication details") .path("/login") .query("username=Paul&password=Secret") .headers(requestHeaders) .method("GET") .willRespondWith() .status(200) .headers(expectedResponseHeaders) .body("{\"id\":123,\"username\":\"paul\",\"firstname\":\"Paul\",\"lastname\":\"Williams\"}") .toPact(); } @Test @PactVerification() public void successfulLogin() { User login = new AuthClient().login("Paul", "Secret"); assertThat(login, is(notNullValue())); assertThat(login.getId(), is(123)); assertThat(login.getUsername(), is("paul")); assertThat(login.getFirstname(), is("Paul")); assertThat(login.getLastname(), is("Williams")); } }```

paulswilliams

2018-05-28 12:37

Although one large test testing multiple interactions would work, it gives many reasons for it to fail?

matt.fellows

2018-05-28 12:38

Personally i would try to keep one test for each single interaction rather than make each test more complex, even if it does involve more verbosity/boilerplate. @uglyog might have some opinions tho

mboudreau

2018-05-28 12:40

one way to reduce boilerplate is to have shared 'util' classes that setup the repetitive things from your DSL definition

paulswilliams

2018-05-28 12:40

The boilerplate I?m referring to is less the DSL, more the assertions. Most of: ```MockProviderConfig config = MockProviderConfig.createDefault(); PactVerificationResult result = runConsumerTest(pact, config, mockServer -> { Map expectedResponse = new HashMap(); expectedResponse.put("hello", "harry"); try { assertEquals(new ProviderClient(mockServer.getUrl()).hello("{\"name\": \"harry\"}"), expectedResponse); } catch (IOException e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); } }); if (result instanceof PactVerificationResult.Error) { throw new RuntimeException(((PactVerificationResult.Error)result).getError()); } assertEquals(PactVerificationResult.Ok.INSTANCE, result);```

paulswilliams

2018-05-28 12:41

Testing one thing per test is generally how I?ve done things for 10 years, just trying to work out how to do that succinctly.

paulswilliams

2018-05-28 13:48

Further, is it possible for mocks to throw exceptions in @State methods? The following code seems to cause the exception to be thrown in the wrong context, and thus my ControllerAdvice doesn?t pick it up and convert to 401. ``` @State("Paul exists with password Secret") public void returnSuccessfulLogin() { when(authService.login("Paul", "Secret")).thenReturn(new User(123, "paul", "Paul", "Williams")); when(authService.login("Paul", "Unconcealed")).thenThrow(new BadCredentialsException()); }```

abhilash.hanumanth

2018-05-28 14:06

Did anyone implement PACT for kakfa message queue consumer and provider ?

matt.fellows

2018-05-28 21:00

It's been done, which language?

abhilash.hanumanth

2018-05-29 05:36

using pact jvm

gaurav

2018-05-29 07:56

has joined #general

gaurav

2018-05-29 07:58

configuration for maven plugin.

gaurav

2018-05-29 07:58

Not able to do `mvn pact:publish`

gaurav

2018-05-29 07:58

with above configuration.

gaurav

2018-05-29 07:59

Is there anything wrong I am doing?

gaurav

2018-05-29 08:00

also how can I publish tag? thanks a lot..

gaurav

2018-05-29 08:01

I get this error: `No plugin found for prefix 'pact' in the current project `.. Its in plugins management..

gaurav

2018-05-29 08:03

I was not able to find documentation related to this.. so if someone knows a link then please share.. thanks

such.su

2018-05-29 09:41

has joined #general

such.su

2018-05-29 10:02

Hi all, I am just investigating pact-python to see if it can be used in my services but I got some questions. Could anyone help: 1. Does pact-python support services based on XML message? 2. Is there any reason that it's not implemented or it will be implemented soon?

bethskurrie

2018-05-29 10:03

It isn't yet, but we've just started discussions with someone who is interested in implemeting it. You can use exact string matching, but it will be quite brittle.

such.su

2018-05-29 11:06

Yeah, exact string matching is quite brittle. Is there a release plan for supporting XML? I am quite interesting in using this awesome Pact.

bethskurrie

2018-05-29 11:07

If you look at the pact-dev mailing list, you'll find the current "plan" such as it is.

bethskurrie

2018-05-29 11:08

Oh, actually, that conversation wasn't on that list. Sorry.

such.su

2018-05-29 11:12

Hmmm, where to look at the pact-dev mailing list?:thinking_face:

bethskurrie

2018-05-29 11:12

Sorry, I realised it wasn't on that mailing list

such.su

2018-05-29 11:15

Got it. I am also interested in that mailing list.

bethskurrie

2018-05-29 11:15

I think you can just join it. We're trying to move conversation to slack however.

such.su

2018-05-29 11:16

Cool, thanks:+1:

aswini.j

2018-05-29 11:52

has joined #general

premmkrishna.shenoy

2018-05-29 12:09

has joined #general

premmkrishna.shenoy

2018-05-29 12:11

Hi I am performing a pact test where the provider response is 'application/javascript' with json as body. My provider test is failing on body while my consumer test are good. Do you support 'application/javascript' content type?

aswini.j

2018-05-29 12:13

Does it support JavaScript content-type? The third party service that my microservice interacts with returns the response with the content-type application/JavaScript;charset=UTF-8. Therefore, pact json has response body as string & matching rules has empty body.

aswini.j

2018-05-29 12:14

Using the following pact dependencies:

aswini.j

2018-05-29 12:15

testIntegrationCompile('au.com.dius:pact-jvm-consumer-junit_2.12:3.5.11') testIntegrationCompile('au.com.dius:pact-jvm-provider-junit_2.12:3.5.11') testIntegrationCompile('au.com.dius:pact-jvm-provider-spring_2.12:3.5.11') testIntegrationCompile('au.com.dius:pact-jvm-consumer-java8_2.12:3.5.11')

dagarwal

2018-05-29 20:27

has joined #general

jeremy.shipman

2018-05-29 21:55

has joined #general

jeremy.shipman

2018-05-29 21:57

Hello PACT?ers. I have a random query string being added inside my jQuery ajax config. Is there a way to specify in an interaction that the mock provider service ignore this?

matt.fellows

2018-05-29 21:58

Does the qs have a pattern you can use to match? If it's a cache buster, you could just add a regex matcher for it

jeremy.shipman

2018-05-29 21:58

Ok - yes it?s like a cache buster. Gets around some Safari bug, I see commented

matt.fellows

2018-05-29 22:00

That would work then

bethskurrie

2018-05-29 22:14

You will unfortunately lose the ability to have your pacts "pre-verified" in the broker if you use random data. Let me know if that makes no sense.

uglyog

2018-05-29 23:29

Try using the full artifact name: `pact-jvm-provider-junit_2.12:publish`

uglyog

2018-05-29 23:30

`application/javascript` should be used for Javascript source files. `application/json` should be used for JSON bodies.

uglyog

2018-05-29 23:32

Unfortunately, JavaScript is not a supported content type.

gaurav

2018-05-30 01:11

my bad! I should be using: `pact-jvm-provider-maven_2.12` (not junit_2.12) thanks a lot. Although I believe there should be another maven plugin like `pact-jvm-consumer-maven_2.12` to publish pacts, as publishing pacts are done at consumer side. Anyways, Is there any documentation for this maven plugin goals? Thanks again!

gaurav

2018-05-30 01:15

This time, I am more looking for "how to tag using this maven plugin".. but would love to explore other options this plugin provides.

uglyog

2018-05-30 01:16

Have a look at https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/pact-jvm-provider-maven#publishing-pact-files-to-a-pact-broker

jeremy.shipman

2018-05-30 02:15

Here?s my code. Is the `query` part of withRequest correct? I?m still getting ?missing requests? urls spitting out. ``` return { uponReceiving: title || mockjax.url, withRequest: { method: mockjax.type || "GET", path: mockjax.url, query: { r: like({ generate: "163aece11f20.7ff22681c8afd", matcher: ".*" }) } }, willRespondWith: { status: mockjax.status || 200, headers: { "Content-Type": "application/json" }, body: mockjax.responseJSON } }; ``` (I?m reusing mock configuration intended for mockjax options)

jeremy.shipman

2018-05-30 02:23

The documentation here: https://docs.pact.io/implementation-guides/javascript suggests the query field should be in this form: `query: /* '?query=parameters' (string) */,`

jeremy.shipman

2018-05-30 02:23

I?m not sure if this means I can?t use js objects to configure it

gaurav

2018-05-30 02:42

thanks a lot. I could pass tags as -D by defining a maven properties. I have another question however bit unrelated so will put that as new slack message. thanks again!

gaurav

2018-05-30 02:53

Hello all, as a best practice, which is more preferable 1. 'mvn pact:verify' to run provider tests 2. Run test with sure-fire plugin (like we we do for normal unit tests in our case). and why?

mboudreau

2018-05-30 02:55

what works best for you?

gaurav

2018-05-30 02:57

I tried both.. both works fine for current purpose so I am trying to decide which one to use. :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2018-05-30 02:57

I would suggest it doesn't matter then!

bethskurrie

2018-05-30 02:58

@uglyog may have an opinion

gaurav

2018-05-30 03:00

thanks.. I will also spend little more time experience the whole flow.. checking which one would fit better with our CI pipeline practically. At this point, from my current understanding: both should work just fine.

gaurav

2018-05-30 03:54

I wonder how I can pass 'tag' from command line when running tests through sure-fire.. l have a profile to run provider tests: providerTests. so `mvn test -PproviderTests` will run my provider tests.. However if I want to run provider tests using pacts with a particular tag: 'head' or 'prod' etc., I am wondering how I could achieve that. any ideas? Thanks a lot.

bethskurrie

2018-05-30 03:55

I believe there is a configuration in the maven task config

bethskurrie

2018-05-30 03:55

Can you find the page for the mvn config?

gaurav

2018-05-30 03:56

I see it here.. https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/pact-jvm-provider-maven

gaurav

2018-05-30 03:58

but thats when I am using `mvn pact:verify` right?

bethskurrie

2018-05-30 03:58

Scroll down until you read the part about the tags.

gaurav

2018-05-30 04:01

I will have to use `mvn pact:verify` if I want to use tag this way..

bethskurrie

2018-05-30 04:01

:thumbsup:

gaurav

2018-05-30 04:01

If I am using surefire then I am defining tags currently as `@PactBroker(host = ?localhost?, port = "80", tags = {"TEST","DEV"})`

uglyog

2018-05-30 04:02

You will probably have to use Java system properties

gaurav

2018-05-30 04:03

I see.. so if I set system properties `pactbroker.tags` to a tag then it should work..

uglyog

2018-05-30 04:04

yes, that's the general idea: https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/pact-jvm-provider-junit#version-353---more-java-system-properties

gaurav

2018-05-30 04:13

great. Awesome. Its working. Thanks a lot.

aswini.j

2018-05-30 05:38

Thank you

gaurav

2018-05-30 07:06

Thinking about a bit, I see a possible gap regarding verifying pact with provider when making changes on consumer side. Don?t know how to fill the gap. Following is the scenario: - I checkout a branch on consumer side: my_branch - I make some changes that might impact pact. - I do: `mvn pact:publish -Dpact.tag=my_branch` - Now I want to validate my pact so lets suppose I checkout provider code and do: `mvn test -PproviderTests -Dpactbroker.tags=my_branch` (assuming pom is setup this way) Tests pass and I am happy. BUT I have run master-version-provider to verify pacts. Current master provider code might be different than current production code. I am still not sure whether if I deploy my changes in production then there won?t be any contract issue. Its possible that my current expectation as consumer is not valid with provider service currently running in production.

gopinathlangote11

2018-05-30 07:13

@gaurav I feel, You verified the pacts against your branch, not against master. Whenever you merge the branch to master I think you need to verify once again.

gaurav

2018-05-30 07:15

I verified a pact: consumer-branch with provider-master.. my question is how do I make sure that my consumer-branch will be fine with provider-prod.

bethskurrie

2018-05-30 07:46

@gaurav you need to use the can-i-deploy tool

bethskurrie

2018-05-30 07:47

bethskurrie

2018-05-30 07:49

Also, read this. Step 8 specifically addresses that question. https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRf1kSDccImNipOOm1G-bjcSs-ifbZjf1v54K-dIcq8BLKeFPAAm_bf_p71UKqkRMIx30QWWL-kN8TI/pub

gaurav

2018-05-30 07:50

thanks a lot Beth. I will read the documentation and try can-i-deploy tool

gaurav

2018-05-30 08:24

thanks, it is starting to make sense now.. So provider version in pact matrix should ideally be git-sha (or anything that can be used to checkout prod version of provider).. right? consumer version does not need git-sha version etc. if doing proper tagging, but probably better to do that way for sake of uniformity.. I am going to do some experiments to get some practical experience of how it would work. Thanks a lot @bethskurrie I also see a scope of a maven plugin to handle many of these things.. Thanks again!

bethskurrie

2018-05-30 08:26

Yes, you should use a git sha (or a version with the git sha in the metadata) for your version. I need to update all the examples, because currently, they have a semantic version, which is now not recommended. Make sure your broker is sorting by date and not semantic version as well. You'll find that setting in the configuration docs in the Pact Broker wiki.

gaurav

2018-05-30 08:33

yea.. may be in next broker release, we can change name ?Consumer Version? to ?Consumer SCM Identifier/tag..etc.? or something like that..

bethskurrie

2018-05-30 08:35

Yes, i wish I'd called it something different. I didn't realise quite what the API would turn into when I first wrote it.

gaurav

2018-05-30 08:35

being agile :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2018-05-30 08:36

indeed

gaurav

2018-05-30 08:39

Also the fact that 'the default value is {project.version}' is bit misguiding now.

uldis.sturms

2018-05-30 13:39

has joined #general

jeremy.shipman

2018-05-30 21:09

I?m currently trying to write our first PACT test from a web-based client using pact-web to the ruby stand alone mock provider. We haven?t reached the point of setting up a broker yet.

jeremy.shipman

2018-05-30 21:10

Can anyone @here comment?

jeremy.shipman

2018-05-30 21:12

I?m getting a list of `Missing requests`, but I can?t make make the list smaller. I?m assuming it?ll get smaller if the mock service provider will have correctly configured interactions - where effectively the `r` query param is ignored.

jeremy.shipman

2018-05-30 21:14

I?ve tried deleting previously generated pacts in case that was interfering.

jeremy.shipman

2018-05-30 21:16

I?ve tried the following formats of query matching ``` query: "?r=163aece11f20.7ff22681c8afd", query: { r: somethingLike("163aece11f20.7ff22681c8afd") }, query: { r: like({ generate: "163aece11f20.7ff22681c8afd", matcher: ".*" }) } ```

mboudreau

2018-05-30 22:23

yeah, looking into it

mboudreau

2018-05-30 22:28

ah, right, 'like' isn't the right one for the query

mboudreau

2018-05-30 22:29

you want to use `term` if you want to use the generate/matcher

mboudreau

2018-05-30 22:33

here's the reference https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/69683bf35d99ab2581360ae5bb040c266e49a279/src/dsl/matchers.ts#L40

seb

2018-05-31 08:16

has joined #general

gaurav

2018-05-31 09:38

getting this strangely.. will put more information in the thread comments.

2018-05-31 09:39

A file was commented on

mboudreau

2018-05-31 09:54

can you post the dsl code you're using for this test?

matt.fellows

2018-05-31 09:57

Is myCategory a Boolean value? That error seems to indicate it got a Boolean, but the wrong calue

matt.fellows

2018-05-31 09:57

Value*

g.r.mccann

2018-05-31 10:37

has joined #general

g.r.mccann

2018-05-31 10:41

g.r.mccann

2018-05-31 10:43

I was hoping I could pick your brains on a migration from https://www.npmjs.com/package/pact to https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-node or pact-js

g.r.mccann

2018-05-31 10:44

we have a number of tests using the older version. As of this morning one of its downstream dependencies appears to have dissapeared from npm registry @types/node/-/node-9.4.2.tgz so am looking to upgrade the tests

g.r.mccann

2018-05-31 10:46

the current tests make use of the Matchers (eachLike, somethingLike) which don't seem to present in pact-node. According to the docs they should be in pact-js but upon destructing Matchers I'm getting undefined

g.r.mccann

2018-05-31 10:46

are they in a seperate repo or am I barking up the wrong tree

g.r.mccann

2018-05-31 10:46

any help would be much appreciated

matt.fellows

You probably want @pact-foundation/pact

g.r.mccann

so thats the one I'm trying now

matt.fellows

Those matchers are now in `Matchers`

g.r.mccann

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/master/examples/e2e/test/consumer.spec.js#L23

const { Pact } = require('@pact-foundation/pact'); const {Matchers} = Pact;

g.r.mccann

2018-05-31 10:48

Matchers seems to be undefined

matt.fellows

2018-05-31 10:49

matt.fellows

2018-05-31 10:50

This example should help

matt.fellows

2018-05-31 10:50

Sorry just jumping in a car

g.r.mccann

2018-05-31 10:59

That's fine thanks for your help, much appreciated

g.r.mccann

2018-05-31 10:59

const { Pact, Matchers } = require('@pact-foundation/pact');

g.r.mccann

2018-05-31 11:00

seems to do the job as opposed to how we had it before.

matt.fellows

2018-05-31 13:19

Great!

gaurav

2018-06-01 00:49

Thanks Matt.. got it right! the test code was sending different value in the request.. I am still wondering why mock server gave back the response, if request body was different..

gaurav

2018-06-01 01:28

I understand now.. request body is PactDslJsonBody so it matches with field and field type.. not with field value.

jeremy.shipman

2018-06-01 02:09

Thanks @mboudreau for your help :wave:

mboudreau

2018-06-01 02:12

np :slightly_smiling_face:

gaurav

2018-06-01 05:33

Getting 500 suddenly with mvn pact:publish -Dpact.tag=myBranch (pom is setup accordingly).. was working fine and suddenly stopeed working. Any log that can help?

uglyog

2018-06-01 05:34

What broker are you using?

gaurav

x-pact-broker-version: 2.19.1

bethskurrie

Docker container?

bethskurrie

https://github.com/DiUS/pact_broker-docker/wiki/Troubleshooting

gaurav

yea its container.. checking troubleshooting page.

gaurav

2018-06-01 05:38

pact-broker restart fixed it.. however I am going to set PACT_BROKER_LOG_LEVEL to DEBUG .. just in case it happens again.. thanks all. :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2018-06-01 05:38

bethskurrie

2018-06-01 05:39

did you find any logs?

gaurav

2018-06-01 05:43

running broker in mesos using marathon and getting logs is bit tricky (our other applications use logstash so we can check app logs in kibana).. We are working on making it better.. however I am going to put ssh in broker docker image so that I can do ssh and get logs from container.. or for any other troubleshooting

gaurav

2018-06-01 07:40

From Pact Nirvana Document: `To reach Pact Nirvana, the final step is to have a CI build that checks out the code for the production version of your provider, and have it verify the same pacts that the head version does.` In case consumer has new pact tests with new states, this won?t work right? because production version of provider code will be having older version of provider tests, that might not run with head version consumer pacts.

bethskurrie

2018-06-01 07:41

I see you've thought this through ;-)

bethskurrie

2018-06-01 07:42

My thought on this is that you could keep the provider state code in a separate repo

bethskurrie

2018-06-01 07:42

This may be difficult

bethskurrie

2018-06-01 07:42

Too difficult

gaurav

2018-06-01 07:43

I intend to put ?independent deployment? in practice so have to think a bit.. :slightly_smiling_face: will think about how to resolve it in our case..

bethskurrie

2018-06-01 07:44

I think it should be OK if you don't go back further than the earliest version that used pacts.

bethskurrie

2018-06-01 07:44

And I'm not 100% sure that it's necessary.

bethskurrie

2018-06-01 07:45

Ensuring that you deploy consume and provider as often as possible should mean you're never in that situation.

gaurav

2018-06-01 07:53

hmm that seems right.. however just to be on safer side: we have all our microservices always running in pre-prod env (same version as prod). If we will be able to replay pact files against those microservices running in pre-prod, and somehow verify that contracts are fine then it might work. at least for few cases (assuming we are using pre-prod data in consumer tests requests).. For negative tests e.g. 404 etc it won?t work. But we don?t need pacts for negative scenarios.

matt.fellows

2018-06-01 11:38

that sort things out Jeremy?

shekharsp27

2018-06-01 13:11

Hi, I have a question about "pact-provider-verifier-docker", as per the document I have done the setup 1) Following is my API docker file, its a simple spring application FROM openjdk:8-jre-alpine COPY ./target/updated-provider-service-0.0.1-SNAPSHOT.jar /usr/src/animal/ WORKDIR /usr/src/animal EXPOSE 8080 CMD ["java", "-jar", "updated-provider-service-0.0.1-SNAPSHOT.jar"] 2) Following is docker-compose yml file <pre>version: '3' services: animalwebapp: build: ./ ports: - "8000:8080" pactverifier: image: dius/pact-provider-verifier-docker links: - animalwebapp environment: - pact_urls=http://192.168.99.100/pacts/provider/zoo__update_provider/consumer/zoo_update_consumer/latest - provider_base_url=http://192.168.99.100:8000</pre> Issue is : When I execute "docker-compose up", the pact verification task is executing before my application gets up & running(also checked by adding depends_on flag). Please let me know what should be the approach here.

gaurav

2018-06-01 13:28

more a docker related question I think.. but if you add ?depends_on? in docker-compose file preferably with a health check then it should be fine. more: https://docs.docker.com/compose/startup-order/

matt.fellows

2018-06-01 13:42

Yep

vikassd2012

2018-06-02 03:35

has joined #general

vikassd2012

2018-06-02 03:36

Hi All needed some of your help. I am trying to run my first test using Pact on dotnet core and I am getting this error {StatusCode: 500, ReasonPhrase: 'Internal Server Error ' I ran the sample solution here https://github.com/tdshipley/pact-workshop-dotnet-core-v1 and it works as expected. I wrote the sample for my application under test following the example

vikassd2012

2018-06-02 03:38

@vikassd2012 uploaded a file: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/files/UB1FNBFU7/FB1FNNJ8P/image.png

vikassd2012

2018-06-02 03:38

here is my sample code

vikassd2012

2018-06-02 03:38

public void InstrumentReturnsInformationBySerialNumber() { // Arrange var expectedMessage = "{\"runName\":\"dummyRun\",\"instrumentSerialNumber\":\"ea82e963\",\"instrumentDescription\":\"f2bbec3c\",\"instrumenttype\":\"MiSeq\",\"instrumentSoftwareVersion\":\"1.0.0\",\"instrumentApiKeyUsed\":\"c67f59a6b9794c5fb14a594ab1dfe5eb\"}"; _mockProviderService.Given("there is data") .UponReceiving("A valid GET request for Instrument API with a serial number") .With(new ProviderServiceRequest { Method = HttpVerb.Get, Path = "/v3/instruments", Query = "ea82e963", }) .WillRespondWith(new ProviderServiceResponse { Status = 200, Headers = new Dictionary<string, object> { { "Content-Type", "application/json; charset=utf-8" } }, Body = new { message = expectedMessage } }); // Act var result = InstrumentServiceApiClient.GetInstrumentBySerialNumberUsingInstrumentService("ea82e963", _mockProviderServiceBaseUri).GetAwaiter().GetResult(); Console.WriteLine(result.ToString()); var resultBodyText = result.Content.ReadAsStringAsync().GetAwaiter().GetResult(); // Assert Assert.Contains(expectedMessage, resultBodyText); }

vikassd2012

2018-06-02 03:39

please note if I hit my consumer api itself, consuming the provider api, it works as expected

vikassd2012

2018-06-02 03:59

Found an extra comma in the ProviderServiceRequest, removed that but still the same error.

vikassd2012

2018-06-02 04:49

I found my problem

vikassd2012

2018-06-02 04:50

@vikassd2012 uploaded a file: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/files/UB1FNBFU7/FB0JLPLSZ/-.cs

vikassd2012

also I was mucking with mockerserver

vikassd2012

MockProviderService = PactBuilder.MockService(MockServerPort, new JsonSerializerSettings());

vikassd2012

modified that to MockProviderService = PactBuilder.MockService(MockServerPort);

vikassd2012

and now it works

bethskurrie

2018-06-02 04:52

Hello Vikas. Can you ask in the pact net channel, and remember to use threads so we can keep conversations focussed. Thanks!

bethskurrie

2018-06-02 04:53

Putting ``` before and after your code will keep it formatted nicely.

hstene

2018-06-02 05:20

has joined #general

hstene

2018-06-02 05:21

God morning. Migrating to Slack is a great idea! :)

vikassd2012

2018-06-02 05:25

Sure Beth got your points. Didn't use Slave before.

bethskurrie

2018-06-02 08:48

Hi all. We have been alerted to a vulnerability in the Pact Broker webhooks and have released a fix in version 2.19.2. The latest Docker image has been upgraded to this version. If you're unsure of the version of your current installation, you'll find the version number in the X-Pact-Broker-Version header in the API Browser. Please upgrade your instance as soon as possible. If you are using the DiUS hosted version, it has already been updated, and no further action is necessary.

richard.peckett

2018-06-02 11:35

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-06-02 12:19

Cross post from the Pact Broker slack, but just note that if you?re using the hosted broker from http://pact.dius.com.au, it is already updated

heymega

2018-06-02 13:05

has joined #general

james.carman

2018-06-02 13:09

has joined #general

james.carman

2018-06-02 13:11

When doing pact verification, I want to spin up my provider locally, download all consumer pacts, and run them against my local instance?

james.carman

2018-06-02 13:13

Does that mean I?m mocking out any downstream services? If so, should these mocks be generating pacts for those downstream services also? Basically, do we have a cascading pact situation going on?

james.carman

2018-06-02 20:09

Is that the right pattern or should I verify against a ?deployed? instance of my provider?

hstene

2018-06-02 21:01

deployed

hstene

2018-06-02 21:03

If you want to mock away downstream services, then you are free to do so. That is what I am recommending in my projects as you want to escape the "integration test hell" that downstream services create.

james.carman

2018-06-02 21:04

@hstene so your recommendation is to do the ?cascading? I?m talking about?

james.carman

2018-06-02 21:04

I like that idea :slightly_smiling_face:

james.carman

2018-06-02 21:05

I mean, if you have to push your provider out to some deployment environment in order to verify the pacts against it, then aren?t you basically doing an ?end-to-end? test (the first end is just one less hop)?

james.carman

2018-06-02 21:06

I?m just trying to understand the best practices here, as I?m somewhat new to this world (and I love the idea)

hstene

2018-06-02 21:06

Who are these downstream services? Is it external APIs or services that you control?

james.carman

2018-06-02 21:06

services I control

james.carman

2018-06-02 21:07

Now, would the pact verification run be a bad time to establish new pacts for the downstream services?

james.carman

2018-06-02 21:08

Or, do I just do regular downstream mocks during the ?verify? run and then during my regular pact establishment run (whatever that is called) I publish my pacts against my downstream service?

james.carman

2018-06-02 21:08

Consider the case of Service A --> Service B --> Service C.

james.carman

2018-06-02 21:08

Service A runs some tests, establishing its ?pact? with Service B

james.carman

2018-06-02 21:09

Now, while I?m verifying Service A?s pact it published against Service B, would I publish my pact for Service C during that verify run?

james.carman

2018-06-02 21:09

Or, would that be a different build and I just use a regular (non-pact) mock of Service C during the verify run for Service B

james.carman

2018-06-02 21:09

I hope I?m making sense. I don?t know all the lingo yet I?m afraid :slightly_smiling_face:

hstene

2018-06-02 21:23

Ok, so in your scenario you have Service A that consumes B, and Service B consumes C. By having created a pact between Service B and Service C, you already have *a trusting relationship* with that provider. You already agree on both input and output data of all endpoints you are using. This trusting relationship is the key to this. When you are creating a new release of your service (Service A) you create a new pact and upload it to the broker. When deploying your new Service you run your integration tests to make sure that your service and Service B are communicating correctly. When Service B is getting a new release, it has to verify all pacts before creating the release. When running pacts, Service B *will not* need to talk to downstream service. Because Service B has a trusting relationship with Service C guaranteed by their pact.

hstene

2018-06-02 21:23

Did that answer your question? :thinking_face: (I am going to bed now, but if you have more questions I will answer them later)

matt.fellows

2018-06-02 22:05

So the recommended approach from the Pact team is the cascading pacts you talk about. The choice can then be how you stub the services in each case. This little gist helps explain the tradeoffs https://gist.github.com/bethesque/43eef1bf47afea4445c8b8bdebf28df0

gaurav

2018-06-03 02:39

I have similar scenario and, for now, I just stub downstream services without pact (hard coded). For contract creation with those downstream services: I have another set of consumer tests. I don?t know whether its the best approach but it keeps things simple (1:1) and works for us fine as we are just using simple 1-2 endpoints of downstream services when running provider tests. The approach of using existing consumer tests to create pact and then create stub is interesting, I will definitely try it and see how it works, in case I have more complex mocking to do.

uglyog

2018-06-03 02:40

It is always best to have the test concentrate on a single integration point at a time

gaurav

2018-06-03 02:41

agree! keeps things simple and we quickly know where the breaking points are. :slightly_smiling_face:

james.carman

2018-06-03 21:53

@matt.fellows Thanks! I will take a look.

james.carman

2018-06-03 21:54

@hstene thank you for your info also. :slightly_smiling_face: I am just now getting back in here. Didn?t see the notification. Sorry

james.carman

2018-06-03 21:55

@gaurav so, you?re saying just do regular mocks while verifying Service B?s pacts? Just tell the WireMock (or whatever) what to do and don?t upload pacts?

gaurav

2018-06-03 23:53

@james.carman thats what I am doing currently. I am not in Pact Foundation Team though.. just a user :slightly_smiling_face:

uglyog

2018-06-03 23:56

You don't have to be in Pact Foundation Team to dispense good advice :smile:

bethskurrie

2018-06-04 00:13

@james.carman make sure that you have something to keep your regular mocks in sync with reality still. That gist Matt sent should give you some ideas how.

james.carman

2018-06-04 01:43

Thanks, guys and gals. This is great stuff. Good community vibe here!

gaurav

2018-06-04 01:47

Thanks. Just wanted him to know that I am not an expert and don?t know ins-outs :slightly_smiling_face:. Also as a user I am kind of new.. used it few months before for short time and now picked up again.. enjoying learning it more and more.

james.carman

2018-06-04 01:48

So, the pact team recommends the cascade method, but multiple community members say to just use regular ole service mocks?

james.carman

2018-06-04 01:50

I?m trying to digest this.

james.carman

2018-06-04 01:51

And to clarify, my ?cascade? terminology means that a service?s verify run yields new pacts for its downstream dependencies.

james.carman

2018-06-04 01:53

Are there perhaps scenarios that might lend themselves better to one approach over the other? Or is this just a general pattern?

james.carman

2018-06-04 01:55

Sorry if my questions are silly and I?m not trying to start a religious war here. Just trying to stand on the shoulders of giants so that I can provide informed guidance to folks at work.

james.carman

2018-06-04 02:01

This is a very interesting debate, though

bethskurrie

2018-06-04 02:36

No, I wouldn't recommend that your verify tests generate pacts for downstream services. That would be quite brittle. But, I do recommend that you ensure that your mocks are kept in sync with reality by using some shared artifact between the plain old mocks and your downstream pact tests. Otherwise, your "chain" has a break in it.

hstene

2018-06-04 05:09

Has there been given any consideration to what happens if a consumer publishes two pacts with conflicting response values from the same endpoint? Like if one field of the response has been renamed. Example: `Consumer v0.0.1 performs POST - /customer` Should return ``` { "status": 200, "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json;charset=UTF-8" }, "body": { "name": "Roger Antonsen", "id": 0, "ssn": "71039012345" } } ``` Example: `Consumer v0.0.2 performs POST - /customer` Should return ``` { "status": 201, "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json;charset=UTF-8" }, "body": { "socialSecurityNumber": "31129012345", "name": "Henrik Stene", "id": 0 } } ``` Right now I can never get my provider to verify the pacts as they are conflicting. How would I on the provider side handle this? Can I somehow ignore pacts with older version numbers?

bethskurrie

2018-06-04 05:11

Let's continue this in a thread.

bethskurrie

2018-06-04 05:12

With traditional versioning, you would release a major version with a renamed field. With CDC, you would add the field with the new name, transition all the consumers on to the new field, then, once your contracts showed you that everyone was using the new name, remove the old field.

hstene

2018-06-04 05:13

Ok, so if my consumer suddenly requires the field to be renamed (bad bad consumers) I should just add it?

bethskurrie

2018-06-04 05:13

how would you do it if you didn't have CDC?

hstene

Heh, good question. Nothing would happen and all our developers would argue who?s fault it is? :smile:

bethskurrie

sounds about right.

bethskurrie

:stuck_out_tongue:

bethskurrie

I would suggest that if a field needed to be renamed, you'd get together and talk about it first.

bethskurrie

and you'd work out the impact

bethskurrie

2018-06-04 05:15

same with cdc.

hstene

2018-06-04 05:15

Yeah, but this is why CDC is such a great idea. It makes changes so apparent and visible!

bethskurrie

2018-06-04 05:15

cdc isn't a license for consumer teams to make up a wish list. it's a concrete artifact that should reflect the agreement that has already been made in person.

bethskurrie

2018-06-04 05:16

consumer teams shouldn't just arbitrarily rename a field.

hstene

2018-06-04 05:16

Unless you want to practice Consumer Driven Development. But that would also be agreed upon first (hopefully)

bethskurrie

2018-06-04 05:16

but if there is business justification for it, it give you a process to migrate everyone.

bethskurrie

2018-06-04 05:17

just because an API is driven by the requirements of a consumer, doesn't mean the consumer team gets to dictate everything :stuck_out_tongue:

bethskurrie

2018-06-04 05:17

"it's not dictator driven contracts" is one of our commonly used lines.

hstene

2018-06-04 05:18

Hah, nice quote! Will definitely use that

bethskurrie

2018-06-04 05:18

In answer to your original question, no there is nothing stopping people putting in conflicting expectations. But at least the conflict is made apparent to all.

hstene

2018-06-04 05:19

How do I remove a single pact from the broker?

bethskurrie

2018-06-04 05:19

http delete request

bethskurrie

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Deleting-resources

bethskurrie

Have you read all the docs? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki

bethskurrie

Also https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRf1kSDccImNipOOm1G-bjcSs-ifbZjf1v54K-dIcq8BLKeFPAAm_bf_p71UKqkRMIx30QWWL-kN8TI/pub

hstene

https://blog.risingstack.com/advanced-contract-testing-pact-verification-with-pattern-matching/

So there is no ?quick key? in the broker? (Maybe to prevent people from just removing pacts?)

bethskurrie

2018-06-04 05:21

There's no quick key because 99% of the broker development is done by me, and I just don't have enough free time to make a pretty UI.

bethskurrie

2018-06-04 05:21

I figure if you're testing APIs, you can handle a HAL browser.

bethskurrie

2018-06-04 05:22

How's your Ruby? :wink:

bethskurrie

2018-06-04 05:22

(Actually, ideally, it could use a nice react UI)

hstene

2018-06-04 05:23

Hah, No Ruby or Rect on my part I?m afraid. Not yet anyway

hstene

2018-06-04 05:23

Thanks for your input!

bethskurrie

2018-06-04 05:24

Please do read the "Steps to reaching Pact Nirvana" doc (link above). It will answer some of your questions. I see you're doing a talk at NDC. Happy to help out with any questions you have.

hstene

2018-06-04 05:25

Will read it and yes I am. Thank you! :slightly_smiling_face:

shekharsp27

2018-06-04 13:06

Thanks @gaurav, however looks like pact-provider-verifier-docker is not capable of doing matching based on regex

gaurav

2018-06-04 13:07

never tried pact-provider-verifier-docker.. so can?t comment on that :slightly_smiling_face:

richard.peckett

2018-06-04 13:57

@bethskurrie Hi Beth, just following up your email are you saying there is now a .net implementation of PACT which can be used mock AMQP? Cheers

james.carman

2018-06-04 15:49

@bethskurrie so, to follow-up a bit. Do you suggest using the pact mocking system to set up my mocks for my verify run, but just not publish the generated pacts?

james.carman

2018-06-04 20:22

Do we have an updated AWS terraform script for PactBroker or are we focusing on the docker stuff these days?

james.carman

2018-06-04 20:23

I was trying to get it set up in our VPC, but it appears the terraform scripts are out of date a bit

matt.fellows

2018-06-04 21:56

We have a terraform script?

matt.fellows

2018-06-04 21:57

Ah, yes

matt.fellows

2018-06-04 21:57

We don?t maintain that script, it was something a community member created and was willing to share. It may not be up to date

matt.fellows

2018-06-04 21:57

You could look at http://pact.dius.com.au

shekharsp27

2018-06-05 04:26

:+1:

shekharsp27

2018-06-05 05:25

I am exploring "pact-provider-verifier-docker" and I have observed that is not doing matching based on regex. Am I missing something?

bethskurrie

2018-06-05 05:40

I guess you could. There are probably more fully featured http mocking solutions however.

bethskurrie

2018-06-05 05:41

I personally wouldn't use pact as a stub.

bethskurrie

2018-06-05 05:42

No, the underlying ruby code is done, and ready for a dot net dev to wrap the dot net code around it, as the http implementation does.

bethskurrie

2018-06-05 05:44

@shekharsp27 What version of the pact specification are your pacts?

shekharsp27

2018-06-05 06:31

@bethskurrie V3

bethskurrie

2018-06-05 06:31

Sorry, you'll need to use v2 pacts

bethskurrie

2018-06-05 06:32

We haven't implemented v3 matching yet

shekharsp27

2018-06-05 06:32

Ok, Thanks @bethskurrie

bethskurrie

2018-06-05 06:33

Or use the Java verifier

bethskurrie

2018-06-05 06:42

@shekharsp27 try using this https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases

bethskurrie

2018-06-05 06:42

You don't need Ruby

bethskurrie

2018-06-05 06:42

Use the pact-provider-verifier command in that package. It may work with your v3 pacts.

bethskurrie

2018-06-05 06:43

that docker image is WAY out of date.

bethskurrie

2018-06-05 06:43

We should look at retiring it.

bethskurrie

2018-06-05 06:44

@matt.fellows should we make a new version of the verifier in pact-foundation with the nice pact-provider-verifier code?

bethskurrie

2018-06-05 06:44

That one uses the old way that you had to cobble together when I was on mat leave.

matt.fellows

2018-06-05 08:43

I think probably modernise it, people might have it in their build pipelines as docker steps. At the very least, a notice on the repo saying that its out of date

dlucas

2018-06-05 09:32

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-06-05 09:42

To make it match the current pact-provider-verifier, we'd need to make breaking changes, which makes me think it would be just easier to deprecate the dius one in favour of a new one in the pact-foundation

matt.fellows

2018-06-05 10:05

good point

richard.peckett

2018-06-05 18:09

this issue is still causing me problems :disappointed:

2018-06-05 22:17

A file, which can't be shown because your team is past the free storage limit, was commented on.

2018-06-06 00:11

A file, which can't be shown because your team is past the free storage limit, was commented on.

bethskurrie

2018-06-06 00:50

I'm surprised more people haven't complained

neil

2018-06-06 00:51

Yeah me too actually.

bethskurrie

2018-06-06 00:51

I don't know of any way to compress the file paths for the gems.

neil

2018-06-06 00:52

I?ll do a bit more investigation, and see what options we have. Path limits in windows is such a PITA!

bethskurrie

2018-06-06 00:52

Docker containers?

bethskurrie

2018-06-06 00:52

Or, same problem?

neil

2018-06-06 00:54

as in linux container running the ruby core?

bethskurrie

2018-06-06 00:56

I'm not sure.

bethskurrie

2018-06-06 00:56

Just throwing random technologies at it and seeing if anything sticks!

neil

2018-06-06 00:57

haha, nah it?s good to think of different options :smile:

neil

2018-06-06 00:57

Is anyone using the rust core? I think that would fix the issue

bethskurrie

2018-06-06 00:57

It would.

bethskurrie

2018-06-06 00:58

@uglyog can tell you. Though, I have had someone roll their eyes when discussing ffi bindings to rust on windows, so it may not be completely straightforward.

neil

2018-06-06 01:12

Yeah like a lot of things trade off one pain for another :stuck_out_tongue:

bethskurrie

2018-06-06 01:12

Sorry, realised we're not in a thread, and are spamming people.

bethskurrie

2018-06-06 01:12

Let's continue this here.

neil

2018-06-06 01:13

Oops :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2018-06-06 01:13

If it was just the pact gems, I could try and rearrange the files inside the gems, but the error is coming up for bundler - something I don't control.

bethskurrie

2018-06-06 01:14

@richard.peckett what version of windows are you on?

neil

2018-06-06 01:17

Yeah totally understand, why you can?t change things

uglyog

2018-06-06 01:21

You should drop the ruby core, seems to be causing a lot of issues

uglyog

2018-06-06 01:23

The rust implementation is V3, you just need to work out how to interface to it

neil

2018-06-06 01:32

@uglyog Cool. Sounds like a fun experiment either way. Any docs you could point me to? Also is there any other impl using it yet?

uglyog

2018-06-06 01:32

There is a POC with the Swift implementation, but I don't know where that got to

uglyog

2018-06-06 01:38

A quick google seems that an FFI-based interface will be needed. I also found this: https://github.com/KodrAus/cargo-nuget

neil

2018-06-06 01:43

Nice. Yeah I looked into it a while back and there were a couple of FFI interfaces. The gotcha is making sure we can get .NET core compatibility, which has been quite painful in the past.

uglyog

2018-06-06 01:53

Here is the swift branch: https://github.com/DiUS/pact-consumer-swift/commits/feature/native-mock-server

gaurav

2018-06-06 06:54

For windows 10 build 1607 onwards, a workaround on user side could be to disable max path using registry key/group policy: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa365247%28VS.85%29.aspx?f=255&MSPPError=-2147217396#maxpath

richard.peckett

2018-06-06 09:34

thanks for the replies guys @gaurav I'll give that a go in the meantime :thumbsup:

richard.peckett

2018-06-06 09:36

@bethskurrie Windows 10

kossling

2018-06-06 10:03

has joined #general

mboudreau

2018-06-06 10:08

@uglyog wait, the rust core is done?! Since when?

uglyog

2018-06-06 10:41

V3 implementation was released 7 April: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases

richard.peckett

2018-06-06 11:05

Still get the issue when I enable the long file path feature in windows 10, is there something I need to add the project file in Visual Studio to get this to work? :confused:

gaurav

2018-06-06 11:22

It does need a restart @richard.peckett as per the document. Windows typical :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:. Just in case you haven't done so.

richard.peckett

2018-06-06 11:22

Yeah I have done :disappointed: @gaurav

gaurav

2018-06-06 11:24

You can test whether it's actually enabled by trying to create a long path with CMD.

gaurav

2018-06-06 11:25

And it also needs at least build 1607.

richard.peckett

2018-06-06 11:30

build is on

richard.peckett

2018-06-06 11:31

when I run mkdir and enter a long file path I get the error "The filename, directory name, or volume label syntax is incorrect."

richard.peckett

2018-06-06 11:31

:neutral_face:

richard.peckett

2018-06-06 11:32

not sure what's going on

mboudreau

2018-06-06 11:54

@uglyog why didn't say so! that's massive news! I need to implement that in pact-node ASAP

matt.fellows

2018-06-06 12:39

@uglyog does this include provider side verification and the stuff we talked about? IIRC one if the primary reasons I didn't adopt it in Pact Go was that a) we had to generate the pact file (unlike how we work with Ruby) and b) the verifier interface hadn't been agreed on. Now that we have message pact, we can probably use the lessons from there

matt.fellows

2018-06-06 12:41

Don't forget we had a fully working Spike in Go, so it doesn't work! E.g. https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/feature/native/dsl/native/mock_server_darwin.go

james.carman

2018-06-06 15:29

Thank you, @bethskurrie

gbeckmann

2018-06-06 18:57

has joined #general

uglyog

2018-06-07 00:14

@matt.fellows there is a verifier, not no verifier language interface. That will come with the first language to interface to it. Maybe .Net is a good candidate.

matt.fellows

2018-06-07 00:48

I'm not sure what words you need from me to confirm that I've already interfaced to it and am ready :laughing:

kra

2018-06-07 06:41

has joined #general

raffi.schmid

2018-06-07 06:41

has joined #general

dervis4

2018-06-07 08:26

Hi guys, could you please guide me to information regarding what the best strategy for testing providers are? At the Norwegian LWA we test our providers against instances that are already deployed and running in Test-environments, however now I am looking into starting local instances of the providers instead. What is your recommendation?

hstene

2018-06-07 08:27

Hello again, Dervis! :slightly_smiling_face:

mboudreau

2018-06-07 08:54

Recommendation? The consumer of you data structure needs use pact to create a contract, that contract can then be shared with pact-broker to the provider (whatever gives the data), the provider, before it goes out to production, would then test to make sure it's not breaking the contract. After both are satisfied, they're not okay to deploy.

mboudreau

2018-06-07 08:54

that is the very very short version of it

hstene

2018-06-07 09:00

They are _not_ okay to deploy? Or did you mean that they _are_ okay?

dervis4

2018-06-07 09:00

We share Pact using the Pact Broker and also tag our deployed Pacts with Production. However, when Jenkins is building our Providers, it runs the Provider-test (using HttpTarget) against an already running instance in the Test-environment.

dervis4

2018-06-07 09:02

My question was more about - every build will then test against the previous version (sort of). I wanted to understand how this idea work when aiming to use the Pact-matrix.

mboudreau

2018-06-07 09:35

@hstene sorry, autocorrect. Meant to say now.

matt.fellows

2018-06-07 09:56

Have a read of https://docs.pact.io/best-practices/provider and https://gist.github.com/bethesque/43eef1bf47afea4445c8b8bdebf28df0

rgshah781988

2018-06-07 12:06

dervis4

2018-06-07 12:36

Thanks :+1:

richard.peckett

2018-06-07 17:40

Peeps, can someone explain to me how verify works? assuming I've started my provider service using something like: " var providerApi = WebHost.CreateDefaultBuilder(null) .UseStartup<Startup>() .UseUrls("http://localhost:9223") .Build(); await providerApi.StartAsync();" Does verify actual query the test server using the URI specified inside the PACT file it retrieves from the broker?

richard.jones

2018-06-07 22:58

has joined #general

matthew.ceroni

2018-06-07 23:28

has joined #general

matthew.ceroni

2018-06-07 23:32

Updated configuration of pact broker as such. But broker still isn?t ordering based on date. This shows in that newly tagged consumer versions, don?t show latest on the latest version.

bethskurrie

2018-06-07 23:33

the latest release of the pact broker has a more elegant solution to the webhooks vulnerability found recently. You will now be able to configure a whitelist to ensure webhooks can only be execute against "safe" hosts. You can read about how to configure the whitelist [here](https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/blob/master/lib/pact_broker/doc/views/webhooks.markdown#webhook-whitelist)

2018-06-07 23:45

A file was commented on

biaofu

2018-06-08 02:23

has joined #general

mmonson

2018-06-08 03:03

has joined #general

peter.odonovan

2018-06-08 03:30

has joined #general

mikey

2018-06-08 03:31

has joined #general

peter.odonovan

2018-06-08 03:31

:wave:

sam.jarrett

2018-06-08 03:32

has joined #general

niek

2018-06-08 07:13

has joined #general

nic

2018-06-08 08:33

has joined #general

richard.peckett

2018-06-08 09:23

@neil cheers Neil :+1::skin-tone-2:

oliver.gramberg

2018-06-08 09:38

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-06-08 09:52

Welcome everyone.

mr.matt.r.long

2018-06-08 13:44

has joined #general

gonzalogarcia243

2018-06-08 14:58

has joined #general

snatarajan

2018-06-08 16:38

has joined #general

rlamb

2018-06-08 17:09

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-06-09 04:01

:wave:

daniel.delatorrebabi

2018-06-10 10:38

has joined #general

daniel.delatorrebabi

2018-06-10 10:46

Hello guys, I am having some issues when I try to execute gradlew pactVerify from my provider.

daniel.delatorrebabi

2018-06-10 10:48

My jetty server starts correctly but the process gets stuck when it is executing pact:pact-spring-provider:startProvider

daniel.delatorrebabi

2018-06-10 10:49

it seems that it never goes to my pactbroker server to verify the pact

daniel.delatorrebabi

2018-06-10 10:49

any idea about this?

bethskurrie

2018-06-10 11:15

Hi Daniel. Try the pact-jvm channel. I believe there is a way to switch on debug logs for the pact verify, have a look at the docs.

daniel.delatorrebabi

2018-06-10 11:22

Thanks for the answer Beth, I will do

matt

2018-06-11 01:35

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-06-11 11:42

Hi I've just released a new version of the Docker Pact Broker image, with environment variables to configure the new webhooks whitelist. Please remember to upgrade to the latest version ASAP if you haven't already to ensure you are not susceptible to the webhooks vulnerability that was found recently. In other news, I've added a heap of new parameters to the webhooks templates that now make it possible to send pact verification status updates to github. Check out the Webhook template library to see how this is done https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Webhook-template-library

mr.matt.r.long

2018-06-11 13:44

Hi is anyone able to confirm if the matchers for header Content-Type values perform a full match including charset value? I'm currently seeing a validation error my my jvm provider for the header matcher `application\\/json` throwing the error `Expected 'application/json; charset=utf-8' to match 'application\\/json'`

mr.matt.r.long

2018-06-11 13:46

Sorry I see the fix for partial matching is included in 3.5.17: https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/commit/f7d73250c3986c812459d9ada3677fbdd14693e3. I'm currently running 3.5.16

vinod.baradwaj

2018-06-12 09:46

Has anyone implemented Pact in their pipeline jobs? I am planning to make use of Pacts as a stub in place of the real provider to perform acceptance tests for my application.. and also as part of the pipeline i need to do the provider verification as well with the pact files to be sure that the contract is not broken. Can anyone provide me a heads up on how to start working on the flow for this pipeline ?

bethskurrie

2018-06-12 10:15

@vinod.baradwaj have a read of: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRf1kSDccImNipOOm1G-bjcSs-ifbZjf1v54K-dIcq8BLKeFPAAm_bf_p71UKqkRMIx30QWWL-kN8TI/pub

bethskurrie

2018-06-12 10:16

Also https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Webhooks

bethskurrie

2018-06-12 10:17

Be aware of the fact that the higher level you use your pact tests for, the more fiddly and higher maintenance they become. Pact is generally best for unit tests, not acceptance tests.

bethskurrie

2018-06-12 10:17

https://docs.pact.io/best-practices/consumer#use-pact-for-isolated-unit-tests

bethskurrie

2018-06-12 10:19

You can re-use the pact that you generate in unit tests to make a stub, but you may have problems with the exact matching https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service#stub-service-usage

bethskurrie

2018-06-12 10:20

Generally, the higher level the tests, the more flexible you want your matching.

vinod.baradwaj

2018-06-12 10:25

thanks @bethskurrie for mocking stuff i wont be needing much matchers since i can control the flow of data, and can make sure that the data remains unchanged every time the tests are executed. The reason why i am planning to make use of stubs is to speed up my AT's. if i have to rely on actual provider, it takes me more than 15 mins to bring up the environment.

dominic.jones

2018-06-12 11:51

@vinod.baradwaj we?ve taken the approach you?re talking about and it seems to be working pretty well so far. You definitely have to be careful about the implicit coupling you create between different types of test. We?ve created common fixtures that we draw from to run our pact unit tests (and therefore create the pacts) and to use in our ?acceptance? tests (running against a stub server generated from pacts). That at least makes it clear that there is coupling there, though can still be a bit fiddly

dominic.jones

2018-06-12 11:56

Hello! This is a slightly lazy question, but is it a know problem that publication fails if one tries to publish the verification result for the same pact twice. I am getting a rather gnarly db error being spat out when we publish a verification from our Java provider side tests (using the Junit runner) ``` {"message":"PG::UniqueViolation: ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint \"verifications_pact_version_id_number_index\"\nDETAIL: Key (pact_version_id, number)=(66, 181) already exists.\n","backtrace":["/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/adapters/postgres.rb:166:in `async_exec'","/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/adapters/postgres.rb:166:in `block in execute_query'","/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/database/logging.rb:49:in `log_connection_yield'","/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/adapters/postgres.rb:166:in `execute_query'","/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/adapters/postgres.rb:153:in `block in execute'","/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/adapters/postgres.rb:129:in `check_disconnect_errors'","/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/adapters/postgres.rb:153:in `execute'","/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/adapters/postgres.rb:514:in `_execute'","/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/adapters/postgres.rb:326:in `block (2 levels) in execute'","/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/adapters/postgres.rb:536:in `check_database_errors'","/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/adapters/postgres.rb:326:in `block in execute'","/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/database/connecting.rb:301:in `block in synchronize'","/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/connection_pool/threaded.rb:103:in `hold'","/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/database/connecting.rb:301:in `synchronize'","/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/adapters/postgres.rb:326:in `execute'","/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/dataset/actions.rb:1081:in `execute'","/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/adapters/postgres.rb:679:in `fetch_rows'","/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/dataset/actions.rb:942:in `with_sql_each'","/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/dataset/actions.rb:950:in `with_sql_first'","/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/adapters/shared/postgres.rb:1607:in `insert_select'","/home/app/pact_broker/vendor/bundle/ruby/2.2.0/gems/sequel-4.48.0/lib/sequel/model/base.rb:2165:in `_insert_select_raw'" ``` (whole error available on request)

dominic.jones

2018-06-12 12:24

ah, ignore that, I accidentally deployed the old pact-broker (pact_broker)

drhansen

2018-06-12 19:25

has joined #general

tlane

2018-06-12 20:58

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-06-12 21:44

I can see you've thought it through @dominic.jones. Glad it's working for you.

bethskurrie

2018-06-12 22:15

@dominic.jones is there anything we could do to make it clearer that that one is deprecated?

bethskurrie

2018-06-12 22:16

There's a message in the UI, and the readme, but obviously it's still possible to install it unintentionally.

abhilash.hanumanth

2018-06-13 01:56

I have an array of strings of variable length which is expected in response body. For example : ```"{ Conditions":[ "conditionA", "conditionB", "conditionC" ] }``` How do I use stringType() or stringMatcher() for generalizing while creating pact using LambdaDsl ? Can someone help me with the above problem ?

bethskurrie

2018-06-13 01:57

@abhilash.hanumanth can you ask in pact-jvm please? It makes it easier to find relevant answers.

bethskurrie

2018-06-13 01:58

Please indicate which documentation you have read already, and if there is something missing, let us know which section you would expect it to be in.

abhilash.hanumanth

2018-06-13 03:19

sure @bethskurrie: I have gone through https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/blob/master/pact-jvm-consumer-java8/src/test/java/io/pactfoundation/consumer/dsl/LambdaDslJsonArrayTest.java#L270 and couldnt find an example for my use case

vinod.baradwaj

2018-06-13 04:24

@dominic.jones can you share me flow of your process so that i can understand and get an idea how the flow will be ?

dominic.jones

2018-06-13 05:42

I noticed when I loaded it up and saw the UI message, so that was good. Not sure what else you could do without breaking things for people. Maybe add something to logging? But that could be a big faff

dominic.jones

2018-06-13 05:44

@vinod.baradwaj I can try. What would work best? Maybe if I just try to describe in more detail how our process works? I?m busy just now but should have some time later today (I?m in London)

vinod.baradwaj

2018-06-13 05:59

sure, let me know once you are free :slightly_smiling_face:

dominic.jones

2018-06-13 06:13

What time zone are you :slightly_smiling_face: ?

vinod.baradwaj

2018-06-13 06:13

I am from India, IST

zwttgsmu

2018-06-13 08:02

has joined #general

zwttgsmu

2018-06-13 08:07

Hello everyone!)

bethskurrie

2018-06-13 08:09

:wave:

zwttgsmu

2018-06-13 08:10

I want to make a check that an array can contain strings or null Found solutions for Java: "It would also be required to define whether the matchers should be combined with logical AND (all matchers must match) or OR (at least one matcher must match). AND should be the default, but there are cases where an OR makes sense. { "matchingRules": { "header": { "HEADERY": { "combine": "AND", "matchers": [ {"match": "include", "value": "ValueA"}, {"match": "include", "value": "ValueB"} ] } } } }" How can I do this in .NET?

bethskurrie

2018-06-13 08:10

You can't. That functionality is, I believe, being deprecated in the next version of Pact JVM

bethskurrie

2018-06-13 08:11

Let me find the explanation.

bethskurrie

2018-06-13 08:11

https://docs.pact.io/faq#why-is-there-no-support-for-specifying-optional-attributes

bethskurrie

2018-06-13 08:14

Also, the functionality you're describing is in the Pact Specification version 3, and pact net is only up to version 2.

bethskurrie

2018-06-13 09:00

Hopefully someone in the pact-jvm channel can help. Unfortunately, I haven't written or used it, so I'm out of advice!

zwttgsmu

2018-06-13 10:48

Thank you) one more question)) I check for type integer, but in the logs I see an error: -"param1": Bignum +"param1": Fixnum in Google I found such a description: The problem is that FixNum is a platform-dependent type. Ruby automatically switches from FixNum to BigNum if the number becomes bigger than native integer(which has different length on 32-bit and 64-bit platforms). So if you just want to check whether it's an integer you should use Integer for it. For example: timestamp = Time.now.to_i #bad timestamp.is_a? FixNum timestamp.is_a? BigNum #good timestamp.is_a? Integer how can I test this without error?

bethskurrie

2018-06-13 11:40

Can you recreate the issue using this project, and I'll fix the problem in the underlying code https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone-e2e-example

matt

2018-06-13 18:12

i'm wondering if we should disable `@` here and `@` channel for regular users.

matt

2018-06-13 18:12

i think slack provides a configuration option to make those admin only

jsyrinek

2018-06-13 23:12

has joined #general

jsyrinek

2018-06-13 23:14

Should we test third-party API's regularly using our consumer contracts?

bethskurrie

2018-06-13 23:15

Pact is not great for testing third party APIs. It assumes you're able to set up provider states without having to use the API you're actually testing.

matt.fellows

2018-06-13 23:16

Thanks for reminding me, this is done :white_check_mark:

bethskurrie

2018-06-13 23:16

Each interaction is tested in isolation, which is fine when you can manipulate the pre-existing data, but not great if you need to set up the data using an API.

jsyrinek

2018-06-13 23:18

That makes sense, but to be clear, my question is more about ensuring that the third-party continues to provide the data our (consuming) application depends on. I'm not asking if we should hit a real API to verify our application/consumer.

jsyrinek

2018-06-13 23:19

Obviously we don't control the third-party API, but if the third-party ever stops providing the things we need, we would want to know.

bethskurrie

2018-06-13 23:19

Indeed. I'm not sure what tool I'd recommend in this situation. If I was using Ruby, I'd use something like VCR.

bethskurrie

2018-06-13 23:19

I don't know what exists in other languages.

jsyrinek

2018-06-13 23:20

I've used yakbak

jsyrinek

2018-06-13 23:20

which is the Javascript analog of VCR, but I'm not sure how to use that in this situation.

bethskurrie

2018-06-13 23:25

I'd probably have a build that ran the live tests regularly and reported if there was a change in the response.

jsyrinek

2018-06-13 23:26

That's what we're thinking as well. And we're thinking of hitting a real API (maybe with Yakback/VCR to mask over third-party outages) then validating using our consumer contract.

jsyrinek

2018-06-13 23:28

We're having a conversation at the office about when/if we should take this approach. In our case, we have a good working relationship with the third-party, so if the contract ever changes, we have a way to address that. I think if we didn't have a relationship like this, we may not take this approach. For instance, if Twitter was the third-party API, we probably can't stop them from changing what they provide. In that case, we should just build the application in a way that it can handle changes gracefully and/or setup alerts when things break so we can take swift action.

jsyrinek

2018-06-13 23:28

I think this thought process is somewhat explained in the bullet points in the FAQ, but you kind of have to piece ideas together.

jsyrinek

2018-06-13 23:29

It might be a good idea to add two recommendations for working with third-party APIs: one for providers that can/will make changes if requested, and one for providers that would not.

bethskurrie

2018-06-13 23:32

That's a good suggestion.

bethskurrie

2018-06-13 23:33

How do you feel about writing those thoughts down and doing a PR to the FAQ page?

jsyrinek

2018-06-13 23:35

I could take a stab at that

bethskurrie

2018-06-13 23:41

That would be greatly appreciated.

matt

2018-06-14 02:57

thank you :simple_smile: now i won't get randomly pinged by people

matt.fellows

2018-06-14 03:15

:slightly_smiling_face:

jonas.lergell

2018-06-14 07:12

has joined #general

oswald.quek

2018-06-14 09:51

has joined #general

dominic.jones

2018-06-14 09:52

we?ve got a bit confused about versions and tags. We version our pacts using the git sha of the consumer code used to produce it. However, as per your docs, the pacts are ordered according ?semver? of version. Obviously this then leads to arbitrary ordering of pacts in our case. If we then want to retrieve the ?latest? (chronologically speaking) pact for a given tag, we seem to be stuck. There is something in your docs about changing a config flag to change how pacts are ordered, but a) we use your docker image b) I?m not sure if this would solve our problem Any suggestions?

bethskurrie

2018-06-14 09:55

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Configuration#ordering-versions-by-date @dominic.jones

bethskurrie

Oh, right, the docker version.

dominic.jones

and do I have ?access? to that config if I?m using your docker image?

dominic.jones

snap

bethskurrie

You know what, I've been meaning to change the default any way.

bethskurrie

Hang about.

dominic.jones

it?s not configurable via env var I assume?

bethskurrie

2018-06-14 09:57

You can insert a config in the db.

bethskurrie

2018-06-14 09:57

But I'll just change it

dominic.jones

2018-06-14 09:58

wow, thanks!

bethskurrie

2018-06-14 10:13

grab 2.22.0-2 when it's built

bethskurrie

2018-06-14 10:13

you'll need to publish another completely new version after you've upgraded to trigger the reordering

dominic.jones

2018-06-14 10:15

ok, great. Thanks very much

bethskurrie

2018-06-14 10:16

dominic.jones

2018-06-14 12:16

it works and everything :simple_smile:

bethskurrie

2018-06-14 21:10

Like a shop bought one!

rcheeniyil

2018-06-14 22:26

has joined #general

rcheeniyil

2018-06-14 22:49

Hi there, I see the following warning on verify step: `WARN: Ignoring unsupported matching rules {"min"=>1} for path $['body']` this happens in all tests where each_like is used for type matching array elements in pact-ruby (gem says version 2.7.6). Is this expected behavior or is there some way to use each_like that does not result in this warning?

bethskurrie

2018-06-14 22:50

I'm really sorry - you can ignore that error. It's a very tricky bit of logic to get rid of it, and I just haven't had the brainspace to fix it.

bethskurrie

2018-06-14 22:50

It's all working fine though.

rcheeniyil

2018-06-14 22:50

ya it has expected behavior the warnings are sort of piling up though

rcheeniyil

2018-06-14 22:51

```WARN: Ignoring unsupported matching rules {"min"=>1} for path $['body'] WARN: Ignoring unsupported matching rules {"min"=>1} for path $['body'] WARN: Ignoring unsupported matching rules {"min"=>1} for path $['body'] WARN: Ignoring unsupported matching rules {"min"=>1} for path $['body'] WARN: Ignoring unsupported matching rules {"min"=>1} for path $['body']['child_events'] WARN: Ignoring unsupported matching rules {"min"=>1} for path $['body'] WARN: Ignoring unsupported matching rules {"min"=>1} for path $['body'] WARN: Ignoring unsupported matching rules {"min"=>1} for path $['body'] WARN: Ignoring unsupported matching rules {"min"=>1} for path $['body'] WARN: Ignoring unsupported matching rules {"min"=>1} for path $['body'] WARN: Ignoring unsupported matching rules {"min"=>1} for path $['body'] WARN: Ignoring unsupported matching rules {"min"=>1} for path $['body'] WARN: Ignoring unsupported matching rules {"min"=>1} for path $['body']```

abe

has joined #general

omar10594

has joined #general

rob.lugton

has joined #general

rob-manger

has joined #general

rholshausen

has joined #general

raul.garcia

has joined #general

raghunandanjahagirdar

has joined #general

prudhvi

has joined #general

pivison

has joined #general

phil

has joined #general

pfajardo

has joined #general

paul.davidson

has joined #general

patrick

has joined #general

ngbrown

has joined #general

sai.dileepjana

has joined #general

mzacharska

has joined #general

mouser

has joined #general

mngau

has joined #general

mlk

has joined #general

mhargiss

has joined #general

mende

has joined #general

mellis

has joined #general

matthewcanty

has joined #general

mattfaries

has joined #general

mattcoder

has joined #general

abhijeet.daspatnaik

has joined #general

matt.canty

has joined #general

marcevers

has joined #general

rolyat.wilson

has joined #general

sdulebskiy

has joined #general

m.groeneweg

has joined #general

timbailey

has joined #general

zac.sims

has joined #general

willmadison

has joined #general

w.everse

has joined #general

vinny

has joined #general

vijaynag

has joined #general

veganjenny

has joined #general

v.lukoyanov

has joined #general

trenthornibrook

has joined #general

travi

has joined #general

tom.vanasch

has joined #general

tmok01

has joined #general

tmcknight

has joined #general

tigris

has joined #general

shahzadahmad

has joined #general

theresa

has joined #general

thadir

has joined #general

sumit080

has joined #general

sudhapatil3

has joined #general

stuparty

has joined #general

stein

has joined #general

sinclair.calleja

has joined #general

siaynoqmage

has joined #general

shenahas

has joined #general

sheetal

has joined #general

shashidesai

has joined #general

sharding

has joined #general

shamilton

has joined #general

m.pleijte

has joined #general

zerocooljs

has joined #general

lukvermeulen

has joined #general

eskimoquinn

has joined #general

bangn

has joined #general

giuseppe.landolfi575

has joined #general

areddy

has joined #general

aserafim

has joined #general

giuseppe.landolfi

has joined #general

lkingsley

has joined #general

gareth

has joined #general

fpelletier

has joined #general

fkoner

has joined #general

fitzoh

has joined #general

finkingma

has joined #general

fergusstrange

has joined #general

ecoan

has joined #general

harryw

has joined #general

dniles

has joined #general

divs.kanna

has joined #general

d.van.dijk

has joined #general

cornelia.zintl

has joined #general

cormac

has joined #general

coco

has joined #general

claire.thomson

has joined #general

cass

has joined #general

asfan.siddiqui

has joined #general

beth

has joined #general

berisberis

has joined #general

benjamin.l.tse

has joined #general

gtondi

has joined #general

andycampbell92

has joined #general

icapurrofagian

has joined #general

kanchana

has joined #general

lihongmei

has joined #general

liam.fisher

has joined #general

acooper106

has joined #general

lardcanoe

has joined #general

kunwardeep

has joined #general

krishnaraj.krishnan

has joined #general

kong

has joined #general

alexei

has joined #general

king-smith

has joined #general

kevinkraus

has joined #general

kevin.meiresonne

has joined #general

j03w

has joined #general

ken.westdorp

has joined #general

kale.mcnaney

has joined #general

kabagchi87

has joined #general

james

has joined #general

jdbann

has joined #general

jeanmarclai

has joined #general

jeffutter

has joined #general

andrew.nicholson

has joined #general

jfeng

has joined #general

alok.pandey

has joined #general

joel_a

has joined #general

jsilver

https://github.com/amazin-demo

has joined #general

gaurav

2018-06-15 03:42

Does anyone have some experience to share using swagger-request-validator-pact? https://bitbucket.org/atlassian/swagger-request-validator/src/master/swagger-request-validator-pact/ From the looks of it, it looks like quite simpler way of achieving CI of contract tests (in organisations using swagger).

shekharsp27

2018-06-15 05:40

Yeah, it verifies pact contract against Swagger specification and enables contract checking from Consumer side as well. It also provides capabilities to enable checks on Response missing required field,Response has the incorrect type for a field among others thought validations are lenient and can control using properties

gaurav

2018-06-15 05:43

seems like worth giving a try. :slightly_smiling_face:

shekharsp27

2018-06-15 05:52

:+1:

bethskurrie

2018-06-15 06:17

I'll try and get back to it soon.

vk.regs

2018-06-15 08:02

has joined #general

gxsham

2018-06-15 12:03

has joined #general

adamgreen

2018-06-15 13:54

has joined #general

santoshtrip

2018-06-15 17:55

This was something great

santoshtrip

2018-06-15 17:55

@shekharsp27 thanks for sharing this earlier with me

minhdoan

2018-06-16 08:53

Hi team,

minhdoan

2018-06-16 08:54

I face an stuck described in the ticket https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/issues/704

minhdoan

2018-06-16 08:54

Any help is highly appreciated!

minhdoan

2018-06-16 08:54

Many thanks

dsbenghe

2018-06-17 16:26

has joined #general

jonas.lergell

2018-06-18 09:25

Hey, im using the pact broker docker image, getting response code 405 when posting to /webhooks, but /webhooks/provider.... works, does the docker image currently not support creating global webhooks?

bethskurrie

2018-06-18 10:33

Nope. I haven't released that yet.

bethskurrie

2018-06-18 10:34

It's on master, but I have to finish off bit more before it can be released. Try again tomorrow.

bethskurrie

2018-06-18 10:34

The gem itself hasn't been released.

bethskurrie

2018-06-18 11:37

@jonas.lergell I've just released a version of the docker image tagged `edge` with the latest code from the repo (not a released gem). There's a known bug if you try and execute a test request (by POSTing to `/webhooks/UUID/execute`) for global webhooks, or ones that have just a consumer or provider, but they execute correctly during normal operation.

jonas.lergell

2018-06-18 11:47

Awesome! Thx

mats.lundkvist

2018-06-18 11:50

has joined #general

mats.lundkvist

2018-06-18 11:56

Hi, I'm using pact ruby standalone and pact-go to write consumer tests in golang but it looks like the generated json file is wrong ```"metadata": { "pactSpecification": { // this is should be pact-specification right? "version": "3.0.0" } }``` Is this an issue or am I just using it wrong?

bethskurrie

2018-06-18 11:56

Version 3 is not yet supported

bethskurrie

2018-06-18 11:57

Oh, the format of the JSON

bethskurrie

2018-06-18 11:57

No, it's the right format. @uglyog needs to update the jvm impl.

mats.lundkvist

2018-06-18 11:58

ok, so the jvm impl will get an update?

bethskurrie

2018-06-18 11:59

It was supposed to a year ago :-P

mats.lundkvist

2018-06-18 11:59

haha okey, I'll inform the people I work with, thanks for the help :smile:

bethskurrie

2018-06-18 11:59

We ended up with about 3 different formats, and I just made the ruby code read it from all three!

bethskurrie

2018-06-18 12:00

It's an embarrassing shemozle.

matt.fellows

2018-06-18 12:22

Out of interest, which bits are you using pact ruby standalone for?

mats.lundkvist

2018-06-18 12:28

what do you mean?

matt.fellows

2018-06-18 13:07

OH, have you just installed them on the command line as per the instructions? I for some reason had the impression you were explicitly using some of the tools (e.g. manually running provider tests or something)

matt.fellows

2018-06-18 13:07

all good if you?ve just added them to the path :thumbsup:

mats.lundkvist

2018-06-18 13:07

okey good :slightly_smiling_face:

adrian.flucus

2018-06-18 14:45

has joined #general

uglyog

2018-06-18 23:51

Sigh, just checked the JVM code, and I didn't fix it as well as I thought :pensive:

bethskurrie

2018-06-18 23:53

I had the thought last night, I could always fix it in the broker. But that wouldn't help pacts exchanged outside the broker.

uglyog

2018-06-18 23:54

I'm going to change it now, but I have a suspicion that the code will just change itself back

bethskurrie

2018-06-18 23:55

It's obviously got gremlins in it.

vk.regs

2018-06-19 07:00

Hi, A am trying to verify request with null field values on consumer pact tests, but pact Framework return error for such field. How can I process such cases? "description": "A request to get export data", "request": { "method": "patch", "path": "/api/export/data", "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json; charset=utf-8" }, "body": { "CState": { "ConceptId": 0, }, "FileName": null } }

2018-06-19 07:05

A file, which can't be shown because your team is past the free storage limit, was commented on.

vk.regs

2018-06-19 07:07

@bethskurrie thanks, It is .net, sorry

matt.fellows

2018-06-19 07:12

james.carman

2018-06-19 21:28

When I verify my pact, it prints out the ?returns a response which? part twice. I only specify 1 request

james.carman

2018-06-19 21:32

Would a github link help?

james.carman

2018-06-19 21:37

james.carman

2018-06-19 21:38

I am creating a demo ?org? for doing this pact testing.

james.carman

2018-06-19 21:38

When I run this test: https://github.com/amazin-demo/payments/blob/master/src/test/java/amazin/payments/web/PaymentsWebServicePactTest.java

james.carman

2018-06-19 21:38

@james.carman uploaded a file: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/files/UB0LNSPEZ/FB9UGPL9F/-.txt

james.carman

2018-06-19 21:39

That pact is specified here: https://github.com/amazin-demo/orders/blob/master/src/test/java/amazin/orders/client/payment/DefaultPaymentsClientTest.java

uglyog

2018-06-19 23:24

Could you raise an issue at the github site for that?

uglyog

2018-06-19 23:48

Oh, there is already an issue raised: https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/issues/706

james.carman

2018-06-20 01:10

It doesn?t really bother me, per se. I was more worried I was doing something wrong. Thanks for the heads-up.

james.carman

2018-06-20 01:30

I?m going to submit a patch for it.

uglyog

2018-06-20 01:35

already fixed it :smile:

james.carman

2018-06-20 01:36

dang it! I wanted to contribute and this one was easy

james.carman

2018-06-20 01:36

oh well

james.carman

2018-06-20 01:37

I would have been done faster, but the wifi here at starbucks is slow and downloading Gradle was taking forever.

james.carman

2018-06-20 01:38

I changed it to: for(i in 0 until runTimes)

james.carman

2018-06-20 01:38

what did you do @uglyog?

uglyog

2018-06-20 01:39

Nothing very fancy: https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/commit/866209a67710822f8533435853f18c1324076327#diff-0d0017b2cdc55028522ba54b57ec9572L68

james.carman

2018-06-20 01:40

that?d work too

djrimokbp

2018-06-20 07:54

has joined #general

santoshtrip

2018-06-21 01:03

I was trying to convert the project to gradle

santoshtrip

2018-06-21 01:03

But facing some challenges consumer.consumer.SwaggerValidatorPactConsumerTest > testGetOrderWithInvalidResponse FAILED java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: au.com.dius.pact.model.MockProviderConfig.createDefault(Lau/com/dius/pact/model/PactSpecVersion;)Lau/com/dius/pact/model/MockProviderConfig; at au.com.dius.pact.consumer.PactProviderRule.<init>(PactProviderRule.java:51) at au.com.dius.pact.consumer.PactProviderRule.<init>(PactProviderRule.java:110) at com.atlassian.oai.validator.pact.ValidatedPactProviderRule.<init>(ValidatedPactProviderRule.java:33) at consumer.consumer.SwaggerValidatorPactConsumerTest.<init>(SwaggerValidatorPactConsumerTest.java:42) consumer.consumer.SwaggerValidatorPactConsumerTest > testGetOrderWithAdditionalPropertiesInResponse FAILED java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: au.com.dius.pact.model.MockProviderConfig.createDefault(Lau/com/dius/pact/model/PactSpecVersion;)Lau/com/dius/pact/model/MockProviderConfig; at au.com.dius.pact.consumer.PactProviderRule.<init>(PactProviderRule.java:51) at au.com.dius.pact.consumer.PactProviderRule.<init>(PactProviderRule.java:110) at com.atlassian.oai.validator.pact.ValidatedPactProviderRule.<init>(ValidatedPactProviderRule.java:33) at consumer.consumer.SwaggerValidatorPactConsumerTest.<init>(SwaggerValidatorPactConsumerTest.java:42)

santoshtrip

2018-06-21 01:04

at @Rule public ValidatedPactProviderRule provider = new ValidatedPactProviderRule(SWAGGER_JSON_URL, null, PROVIDER_ID, this);

santoshtrip

2018-06-21 01:04

for the consumer tests

santoshtrip

2018-06-21 01:05

@shekharsp27 do you know what could be the potential issue

shekharsp27

2018-06-21 05:51

@santoshtrip Please check your pact version as mentioned in this issue https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/issues/456

shekharsp27

2018-06-21 13:24

Hi, In case there is no change in pact content, is there a automated way to trigger can-i-deploy utility from consumer side or does the consumer team has to trigger the job manually

matt.fellows

2018-06-21 13:31

what are you trying to do?

james.carman

2018-06-21 14:14

I gave a talk about PactBroker at our local Cincinnati Java User Group yesterday and folks seemed really interested. Thanks for all your help while I prepared for the talk, guys (and gals)!

james.carman

2018-06-21 14:15

@matt.fellows are you the same ?Matt? that answers the emails about the hosted PactBroker?

matt.fellows

2018-06-21 21:13

That's awesome! (And yes)

shekharsp27

2018-06-22 05:49

Hi Matt, Thanks for your reply. As mentioned in wiki https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Webhooks#example-cicd-and-webhook-configuration. If the changes in consumer side does not affect the contract( pact content has not changed), so its in pre verified state; in this case how I'll trigger can-i-deploy utility automatically in consumer pip-line or in this case consumer has to trigger this check manually

matt.fellows

2018-06-22 09:23

You might need to give us more context and what you?re trying to do, though. If a new consumer contract is being published, presumably the consumer is the one publishing it, so why do you need something to trigger the `can-i-deploy` utility? It should just be a step in the consumer pipeline. If nothing has changed from a contract point of view, `can-i-deploy` will return true

madhukar.mishra

2018-06-22 09:37

has joined #general

wchuang

2018-06-22 16:30

has joined #general

james.carman

2018-06-22 16:51

@matt.fellows I might want to set up a PB account for my personal email also. Is that something I need to fill out another form for?

0xorial

2018-06-23 11:23

has joined #general

0xorial

2018-06-23 11:36

Hi! I am here following up this: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/issues/59#issuecomment-399667103 . From what I understood, pact is going to use shared ruby core approach, which is not something I like - it is slow and difficult to debug (especially since I use debugging as a learning tool). I would prefer to have a clear specifications and implementations for different platforms (v2 specs seems to require only around 1 week of work to implement). Hence I started my own port (https://github.com/0xorial/PactNetCore). Perhaps there is something else I should know?

bethskurrie

2018-06-23 11:37

Hi ironic. The wrapped ruby implementation is going to be replaced by a shared Rust implementation, which will be called via FFI. This means there will only be ONE implementation for all the "business logic" of pact, which can be easily shared to all the other languages.

bethskurrie

2018-06-23 11:38

If you want to contribute to this effort, learning about the Rust implementation and how to make FFI calls would be the best use of your time.

bethskurrie

2018-06-23 11:39

@neil who is the current .net maintainer would be the person to talk to about this, as well as @uglyog who has written the rust implementation.

bethskurrie

2018-06-23 11:39

I know how much work goes into creating a pact implementation, and I do not recommend starting from scratch!

0xorial

2018-06-23 11:40

hm....

bethskurrie

2018-06-23 11:40

We are always keen to have people who want to contribute on the team however!

0xorial

2018-06-23 11:41

I am still quite optimistic about making a new implementation. The one I have now seems to cover a lot of cases already. mostly it doesn't work on some annoying cases like null/empty matching

bethskurrie

2018-06-23 11:41

Which pact-specification version are you targeting?

0xorial

2018-06-23 11:41

bethskurrie

v2 is quite simple. v3 is where it gets hard. it's why I've only done v2 in the ruby impl :stuck_out_tongue:

0xorial

well, the goal is get to v3 - we started the whole thing because we needed to test messages

bethskurrie

I've been too busy to pick up the v3 stuff.

0xorial

xD damn

bethskurrie

message support in .net should be quite simple with the ruby impl

bethskurrie

we've already wrapped it in the go and js

0xorial

I will think about it... I still dont feel well about including binaries into packages...

bethskurrie

unfortunately our .net maintainer has been busy moving state, so he hasn't had a chance to pick it up

bethskurrie

none of us like the solution!

bethskurrie

but it's been a pragmatic solution to the problem of trying to support so many different languages.

bethskurrie

it's quite unusual for a library to have to do that.

0xorial

let me have a closer look at v3...

bethskurrie

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-message-demo

it's a dirty hack, but it's got us a long way. hopefully it can be retired soon.

bethskurrie

2018-06-23 11:45

if message pact is what you're really after, I can explain how to wrap that.

bethskurrie

2018-06-23 11:45

it shouldn't be a big amount of work.

0xorial

2018-06-23 11:46

wait, are you talking about wrapping specifically ruby in the package? because for me it is wrapping binaries in general, be it ruby, rust or js

0xorial

2018-06-23 11:47

well, if we can go with your 'recommended' solution and get it to support messaging, my managers/architects will definitely be happy :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2018-06-23 11:47

It has it's problems, but they are fewer than trying to keep 7+ implementations of pact in sync. It's hard enough keeping the java and ruby one compatible.

0xorial

2018-06-23 11:48

hm, isn't it because you don't have a strict spec ?

bethskurrie

2018-06-23 11:48

The spec is not all there is to it.

bethskurrie

2018-06-23 11:49

There is a lot of behaviour in the mock service and the writing of the pacts and the verifications that is not pact of the matching spec.

bethskurrie

2018-06-23 11:49

Matching is the easiest part to enforce.

bethskurrie

2018-06-23 11:50

Yes, we could go through and nut out documentation for every part of pact, but we'd prefer to share the code.

0xorial

2018-06-23 11:51

I see :slightly_smiling_face: well, if you say it should be easy to add messages support to .net wrapper, this sounds like best way to go..

0xorial

2018-06-23 11:52

So far we tried this port (https://github.com/Mattersight/pact-net-messages/) separately for messages but there is no matching at all in it...

bethskurrie

2018-06-23 11:52

0xorial

2018-06-23 11:53

> About time, hey? yes! :grinning:

bethskurrie

2018-06-23 11:54

@matt.fellows is the person who has done the js message impl

bethskurrie

2018-06-23 11:54

If you're comfortable reading javascript, looking at that implementation may help you

0xorial

2018-06-23 11:58

great! I will give a try on Monday :slightly_smiling_face: thanks for all the information!

bethskurrie

2018-06-23 11:58

No worries.

borkke

2018-06-23 13:13

has joined #general

santoshtrip

2018-06-23 22:50

Can someone help me explain the benefits of doing pact validation using swagger request validator vs pact verification by replaying the interaction against a live instance (full blown application)

santoshtrip

2018-06-23 22:50

Trying to weigh both of them

matt.fellows

2018-06-23 23:12

Yes please

matt.fellows

2018-06-23 23:15

@0xorial the reason for using a shared component is so that we can continually push out new features and changes quickly across all implementations.we used Ruby for a number of reasons and has been a good choice IMO. Writing it from scratch will likely take you more than 1 week, and as soon as you need to implement v3 and v4 it gets harder.

matt.fellows

2018-06-23 23:16

We understand Ruby isn't ideal, and that is why we invested in building a proper shared library in Rust

matt.fellows

2018-06-23 23:16

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/blob/master/README.md

matt.fellows

2018-06-23 23:18

This is the future core engine for all official implementations. If you have the time, we'd love to see you spend it getting that in the current pact net impl rather than create another

matt.fellows

2018-06-23 23:20

Bah, didn't see this thread until I answered similarly in general.

matt.fellows

2018-06-23 23:22

Anywho, adding Rust to .net is not like adding a binary, it's a shared library which is totally different. It would be like importong C Git if you needed to link to that. Trust me, writing this yourself is non trivial. Ron, who has done it several times already and has been involved with pact for years, took a long while to get it into Rust with all of the versions supported

matt.fellows

2018-06-23 23:23

As for pact message and here and now, you could definitely get that working in a couple of days with the current wrapper. I'd be happy to have a Hangouts to describe how it currently works

matt.fellows

2018-06-23 23:23

The other relevant link is https://gist.github.com/bethesque/c858e5c15649ae525ef0cc5264b8477c

neil

2018-06-24 10:00

Sorry just saw this. Yeah more than happy to help with getting more support, however as Beth said my free time is very limited at the moment. Ideally we want to move to using the Rust impl, but that is going to take a bit of discovery. The ruby integration at the moment is a stepping stone (hopefully) to something a bit easier to support, debug and maintain

neil

2018-06-24 10:01

We (Pact-Net) originally had a native implementation of the v1 spec, however as we started adding more features it became a real burden to try keep up. That?s why we though moving to a shared core would make sense.

santoshtrip

2018-06-24 19:48

Can we consider contract testing as a replacement for integration testing ?

santoshtrip

2018-06-24 19:49

Whats the advantage of having both rather than one over the other

matt.fellows

2018-06-24 21:56

@santoshtrip to some extent yes you might consider it as replacement for end to end integrated tests, however there are good reasons to have integrated tests in certain circumstances and the answer is "it depends". Things you might consider alongside contract tests are blue green deploys, Canary releases, small batch sizes, continuous delivery, understand as code etc

matt.fellows

2018-06-24 21:56

They all push and pull on the overall test strategy.

matt.fellows

2018-06-24 22:03

One appropriate strategy and my general recommendation is to do the bulk of your integrated test using tools like pact and then supplement your release process with a very small subset of end to end integrated tests - potentially in your blue green env - and that gives you confidence that everything is wired together correctly (i.e. tests your config)

david.j.smith

2018-06-25 09:08

@matt.fellows Do we have a best practice for handling Origin headers in Pact JS? The browser adds the Origin header automatically to an XHR request, so they aren't part of the explicit contract from the consumers perspective. Thoughts?

mboudreau

2018-06-25 09:21

Unless your contract cars about it, don't add it

david.j.smith

2018-06-25 09:28

Well the contract from the consumer side doesn't, and the origin is never explicitly added because it's done by the browser automagically ...but the server requires it. Hence, the origin header will always be sent, but there is no JS code that actually adds the header.

david.j.smith

2018-06-25 09:29

We could add the header explicitly, but that's not technically correct. If you see what I mean.

david.j.smith

2018-06-25 09:29

It's an edge case, but I thought our JS folks must have come across this :slightly_smiling_face:

mboudreau

2018-06-25 09:41

Most people don't care about origin on the backend since it can get spoofed, and no logic should really depend on it

shekharsp27

2018-06-25 10:06

Currently I am trying to incorporate CDC tests in CI pipeline. I have taken following approach 1) I have 4 containers i) Creates pact by executing unit tests & publish pacts to pact-broker ii) Provider application container to run provider application iii) Verify container to verify contract iv) can_i_deploy container to check published results are fine 2) I have created CDC and published those to pact broker, have created webhooks to trigger provider application & verify step (I am checking the application is up and running before executing this step) if there is a content change in pact (by using 'contract_content_changed' for both the steps) and one for when results are published (can_i_deploy) container (by using 'provider_verification_published') 3) This mechanism works well if there is a change in pact content, as webhooks does the job for me 4) However in case there is no change in pact content. I am trying to find-out way, how I can get information that, webhooks from pact broker are not triggered and have to trigger can_i_deploy container by skipping other steps. Please correct me if I am missing something

bethskurrie

2018-06-25 11:18

I would put it in Dave, if it affects behaviour.

bethskurrie

2018-06-25 11:19

If the server requires it.

matt.fellows

2018-06-25 11:35

I would lean towards adding it if you actually have logic on your server side for CORS headers, and not otherwise. In most places as Michel notes it's not really important

matt.fellows

2018-06-25 11:36

It's a good point tho, I think it's not documented anywhere but a related issue on GH

matt.fellows

2018-06-25 11:45

We'll, the whole point of triggering on contract changed means that it only triggers if it changes. You can use that information to your advantage.

matt.fellows

2018-06-25 11:47

My advice is to have one pipeline for your consumer and another for your provider. Each pipeline is simple: build, run tests, publish pacts, can-i-deploy, deploy.

matt.fellows

2018-06-25 11:47

The can-i-deploy step in each pipeline will take care of itself. No need to trigger builds from webhooks.

matt.fellows

2018-06-25 11:48

If a build goes red, it means something went into the mainline before it was added to the provider, or it broke a consumer. Simple

david.j.smith

2018-06-25 12:36

Thanks all :thumbsup:

cfmack

2018-06-25 21:24

Playing with Pact Broker, I think one cannot use both a tag and a consumer version. Can anyone confirm this is true?

matt.fellows

2018-06-25 21:48

What do you mean, Charles?

matt.fellows

2018-06-25 21:49

They are both first class citizens in the broker and they can (and should) definitely be used together. The can-i-deploy tool relies on these to help you make a decision on which bits are deployable at any point in time

santoshtrip

2018-06-26 01:22

Sharing my question again

bethskurrie

2018-06-26 05:14

Hey Charles. A tag belongs to a pacticipant version.

bethskurrie

2018-06-26 05:14

Let me find the docs.

bethskurrie

2018-06-26 05:15

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Overview

bethskurrie

2018-06-26 05:17

There's also a great doc on versioning in the broker on http://docs.pact.io

shekharsp27

2018-06-26 06:09

@matt.fellows Thank you!!

shilkumarjadhav

2018-06-26 14:54

has joined #general

cfmack

2018-06-26 19:12

That is what I thought. I do not think we can answer the question that is asked on https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-php/issues/76#issue-328007239 I think this works: GET /pacts/provider/PROVIDER/consumer/CONSUMER/latest/TAG That GET would retrieve the latest version of this consumer-provider pair with the latest version of the consumer that has this tag. My question is a GET like: GET /pacts/provider/PROVIDER/consumer/CONSUMER/version/VERSION/TAG Get me a particular version of this consumer with this tag and this provider. I cannot see the use case where this would apply, as if you know the version of the CONSUMER, what does the tag matter? Perhaps there is some odd use case like a policy verification step that says all pacts must be tagged a certain way ... super weird use case. To revisit the question: GET /pacts/provider/PROVIDER/consumer/CONSUMER/version/VERSION/TAG This does not make sense to be use together based on my understanding of TAGS. Is that correct?

cfmack

2018-06-26 19:44

Thanks, Matt. My question was poorly worded and missing context. It was one of those times where I had been thinking about it for quiet a while in a particular github issue and that did not translate to my Slack question. There's a thread about it with more background.

matt.fellows

2018-06-26 21:29

:slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2018-06-26 21:31

If your team uses swagger as its format and potentially publishes it to 3rd parties outside of your company (e.g. who won?t use Pact) then it?s a really nice way to guarantee the contract is valid

matt.fellows

2018-06-26 21:32

in addition to that, lots of companies seem to use Swagger internally to document/communicate things, create tooling/stubs, so doing both gives you the benefits of both pact and swagger

spai

2018-06-27 09:26

has joined #general

kuo-tai.hwang

2018-06-27 20:45

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-06-27 21:46

Yes @cfmack. You either retrieve a pact by consumer version number, or by latest tag. Not both.

kristine.jetzke

2018-06-27 22:08

has joined #general

kristine.jetzke

2018-06-27 22:21

Hi @mr.matt.r.long I have a question regarding the `can-i-deploy` command. I have a consumer foo in version 1 and two providers bar and baz. The provider bar has two versions, a and b. Both are tagged with the tag `prod`. Version b is the lastest one. Only version a has a successful verification with the consumer. The other provider has one version tagged with prod and it successfully verified the consumer version 1. If I now run ```can-i-deploy -a foo -e 1 --to prod``` I would expect the command to fail because version 1 was not successfully verified against version b of the provider bar (the latest prod). But what happens instead is that the command succeeds and displays only one line in the result, for the other provider, baz. I assume this happens because the matrix contains no row for consumer version 1 and latest provider tag prod. Is that the expected behavior or is it a bug?

bethskurrie

2018-06-27 22:24

Hi @kristine.jetzke. I can help you with this. I need to draw up a diagram to understand it properly though.

kristine.jetzke

2018-06-27 22:25

thanks!

kristine.jetzke

2018-06-27 22:25

I can try to send sreenshots, I need to change names though

kristine.jetzke

2018-06-27 22:28

I'm still using pact broker 2.17.1

bethskurrie

2018-06-27 22:28

I'm just recreating your scenario as a test and seeing what I get. Give me a few minutes.

bethskurrie

2018-06-27 22:32

Did the verification for bar version b fail, or does it not exist?

kristine.jetzke

2018-06-27 22:33

it does not exist

bethskurrie

2018-06-27 22:34

How does it have a version that is tagged with prod in the broker then?

bethskurrie

2018-06-27 22:34

provider versions only get created when a verification is published.

bethskurrie

2018-06-27 22:34

Is there another consumer involved?

kristine.jetzke

2018-06-27 22:38

it's a strange setup. maybe that's the problem. the provider has an old version 0.0.0 (i will use the real ones now, otherwise I get confused.). This was tagged with prod at some point. during our regular provider build job we add new provider versions and tag them with prod once they are deployed to prod. The current prod version is 95.0. We now added a new contract for the consumer and it was verified again against version 0.0.0. 0.0.0 is still tagged with prod, but it's no longer the latest (because 95.0 is the latest)

bethskurrie

2018-06-27 22:38

I think you're using an old version of pact jvm.

bethskurrie

2018-06-27 22:39

You shouldn't have verifications for 0.0.0.

bethskurrie

Also, you may have semantic version ordering turned on. Change this to date ordering https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Configuration#ordering-versions-by-date

kristine.jetzke

But even if I upgrade now, i still have them in the broker?

bethskurrie

Yes, we still have to work out the data issue.

kristine.jetzke

I'm already using date ordering

bethskurrie

Cool.

kristine.jetzke

2018-06-27 22:42

i'm using 3.5.17 i can try upgrading to 3.5.18

bethskurrie

2018-06-27 22:43

That's a side issue

bethskurrie

2018-06-27 22:43

``` CONSUMER | C.VERSION | PROVIDER | P.VERSION | SUCCESS? ---------|-----------|----------|-----------|--------- foo | 1 | baz | z | false ```

bethskurrie

2018-06-27 22:43

Is that what you get?

bethskurrie

2018-06-27 22:44

No, it isn't.

kristine.jetzke

2018-06-27 22:44

if i only have one provider, the check fails because it cannot find any pacts

kristine.jetzke

2018-06-27 22:44

but if there is another provider that passes, everything passes

bethskurrie

2018-06-27 22:45

I need to be able to recreate the issue, and I don't think I have yet.

kristine.jetzke

2018-06-27 22:47

i can try setting up some data and a script with the pact commands

kristine.jetzke

2018-06-27 22:47

and file a bug in github, i just wanted to know first if this is expected behavior before doing all that

bethskurrie

I'm not sure if your data is just dodgy, or if there is a problem.

kristine.jetzke

me neither...

bethskurrie

> and it was verified again against version 0.0.0. You definitely need to get rid of these.

bethskurrie

These are in there because you're verifying from your local dev machines.

kristine.jetzke

ok i can delete the tag and try to recreate the issue.

kristine.jetzke

yes

kristine.jetzke

and no

kristine.jetzke

also because the provider didn't set any version

bethskurrie

You should only be verifying from CI. The latest version of pact jvm requires that you explictly turn on verification publishing.

kristine.jetzke

in their build job

kristine.jetzke

yes i just saw

kristine.jetzke

i will change it as well

bethskurrie

So you can ensure you're only publishing verifications from "clean" code on your CI.

bethskurrie

Yes, delete the prod tag on 0.0.0.

bethskurrie

In fact, see if you can delete the version entirely.

kristine.jetzke

2018-06-27 22:50

Ok, I will do it and try to recreate the issue without it. Tomorrow though because it's after midnight where I live. Thanks for your help :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2018-06-27 22:51

No worries. I may not be able to help tomorrow, but if you decide it's a bug, raise an issue in the pact_broker project, with all the information needed to recreate the issue, and I'll have a look at it when I can.

bethskurrie

2018-06-27 22:51

Unfortunately, I'm the only person who knows this code.

kristine.jetzke

2018-06-27 22:52

oh no :disappointed:

santoshtrip

2018-06-28 01:40

@Beth do you know if we have a way to publish verification to the pact broker

santoshtrip

2018-06-28 01:40

As in Java command

matt.fellows

2018-06-28 01:41

do you mean https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Provider-verification-results?

santoshtrip

2018-06-28 01:41

Mostly from junit classes

matt.fellows

2018-06-28 01:41

JVM has this capability, have you looked at the JVM docs?

santoshtrip

2018-06-28 01:42

Nope

matt.fellows

2018-06-28 01:43

cool, please do and then let us know if you still have questions

kristine.jetzke

2018-06-28 07:50

Hi again, I can't delete the complete version. I get a foreign key violation because there are still verification results. I did delete the prod tag though but it didn't change anything. What is the best way to create an example? Is there a public pact broker somewhere where I can publish the results?

bethskurrie

2018-06-28 07:51

Ah, my bad with the FK.

bethskurrie

2018-06-28 07:51

I may have fixed that in the latest version.

bethskurrie

2018-06-28 07:51

Yes, there is a public broker, I'll get you the creds

bethskurrie

Broker user: dXfltyFMgNOFZAxr8io9wJ37iUpY42M Broker password: O5AIZWxelWbLvqMd8PkAVycBJh2Psyg1

bethskurrie

https://test.pact.dius.com.au

kristine.jetzke

I just upgraded the pact broker to 2.23.3

kristine.jetzke

thanks

bethskurrie

I'll raise an issue for deleting provider versions

kristine.jetzke

2018-06-28 08:00

thanks

kristine.jetzke

2018-06-28 13:07

I have created an example to reproduce the issue. The code is here https://github.com/tinexw/pact-broker-example. The matrix is here: https://test.pact.dius.com.au/matrix/provider/de.tine.bar/consumer/de.tine.foo and here: https://test.pact.dius.com.au/matrix/provider/de.tine.baz/consumer/de.tine.foo The output from the last can-i-deploy command is: ``` bin/pact-broker can-i-deploy -a de.tine.foo -e 3.0.0 --to prod Computer says yes \o/ CONSUMER | C.VERSION | PROVIDER | P.VERSION | SUCCESS? ------------|-----------|-------------|-----------|--------- de.tine.foo | 3.0.0 | de.tine.baz | 20.0.0 | true All verification results are published and successful ``` In the matrix the last version of de.tine.foo is 3.0.0 which was not verified against the latest prod version of de.tine.bar. I think the cause is that I published a new prod version with an already existing version which I probably shouldn't. But I still think that the can-i-deploy command should fail in this case. Maybe someone deploys an older version to prod because they need to do a rollback or they simply misconfigured something.

kristine.jetzke

2018-06-28 13:09

@bethskurrie This is the screenshot from the broker

daniel.kirmse

2018-06-28 16:46

has joined #general

daniel.kirmse

2018-06-28 16:50

Hi, don't where to put this. Can someone tell me a best practice to check multiple consumers against the same contract? Obviously I do have a provider that has to fulfill the contract and I do have several client implementations to comply to the same contract to. I'm done with the first client and got my pact file. How would I use this pact file to develop the other clients (different languages) against this w/o duplicating the interactions for them? Is pact supposed to be used in such a way anyway? Thanks

ssn899

2018-06-28 17:53

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-06-28 20:43

@daniel.kirmse each client has its own contract with the provider. It's possible for the clients to evolve over time differently such that they have different needs. Importantly, there are key periods in the application lifecycle where you'll want to make changes to one of them, which is where pact willl help you thru

mboudreau

2018-06-28 22:55

@daniel.kirmse to further matt's point, if you have 2 consumers with the same contract, there's no reason not to use the same code to create the contract between the two consumers :)

bethskurrie

2018-06-29 00:30

@daniel.kirmse here is a FAQ on why you don't use an already generated pact file for another consumer https://docs.pact.io/faq#can-i-generate-my-pact-file-from-something-like-swagger

daniel.kirmse

2018-06-29 06:54

Thanks! I was suspecting this :slightly_smiling_face: I?m fine with this and would support the argument for different contracts too. The code reuse is not possible as the clients are basically a client lib for a remote server (think of proxy pattern) and they are written in python and go and have to have the very same behavior for otherwise I would have introduced an inconsistency. On the other hand having two contracts would enable me to catch up major server changes (new API version) for one client after the other with the ?old? contract still in place for the one client that has to wait (? or never will catch up for it doesn?t need the new API capabilities). Okay, fine, thanks!

davidmichaelkarr

2018-06-29 23:47

has joined #general

davidmichaelkarr

2018-06-30 00:23

I'm pretty new to pacts, but I understand the basic concepts. I see that our organization is using version 3.3.9 of pact-jvm, which is over a year old. Is anyone aware of the version history well enough to say whether there are some particular strong arguments for upgrading to a more recent release?

bethskurrie

2018-06-30 02:36

Yes. The verification publishing has been changed to be off by default, so that verification results are not accidentally published from a dev machine.

bethskurrie

2018-06-30 02:37

This is an important upgrade if you wish to use the pact verification statuses for determining when it is safe to deploy the consumer.

uglyog

2018-06-30 02:37

Also refer to https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/releases and https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md

uglyog

2018-06-30 02:39

3.3.9 only supports V2 spec pacts, 3.5.x is full V3

uglyog

2018-06-30 02:40

3.5.x also has JUnit 5, Spring and Java 8 support

davidmichaelkarr

2018-06-30 13:57

can you tell me some important good diffs between v2 and v3 specs?

davidmichaelkarr

2018-06-30 13:59

what does not having java 8 support in 3.3.9 mean exactly? I assume that refers to java 8 features in the pact expression. can you give an example?

uglyog

2018-07-01 01:20

It uses Java 8 lambdas -> https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/pact-jvm-consumer-java8

slack1409

2018-07-01 08:46

has joined #general

slack1409

2018-07-01 08:53

I saw, that you did merge a Pull Request today https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/pull/721 which I am quite interested in. When do you plan on releasing versoin 3.5.19 which will probably contain the code in this Pull Request? Thx

uglyog

2018-07-01 08:54

Just kicked off the release script. 3.5.19 should be available in maven central in a few hours.

slack1409

2018-07-01 08:55

Great. Thx a lot :slightly_smiling_face:

deshdeepdivakar

2018-07-01 09:35

has joined #general

kristine.jetzke

2018-07-01 12:36

I have created an issue: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker-client/issues/33

matthew

2018-07-02 06:07

Need some guidance: I've got an API in Rails that our front end runs pacts against. That API also makes calls out to other APIs that are currently tested with VCR. Any best practices here? The problem we seem to be running into is having the APIs that the API hits be stubbed out when Pact verifies.

can

2018-07-02 09:28

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-07-02 10:07

This what you're looking for? https://docs.pact.io/best-practices/provider#only-stub-layers-beneath-where-contents-of-the-request-body-are-extracted there's a useful gist in there

matt.fellows

2018-07-02 10:08

FWIW I usually stub out deps during verify. I find it easier. What's the specific issue you're having?

cve-anton

2018-07-02 10:41

has joined #general

cve-anton

2018-07-02 10:43

Hello guys, I'm going to install (on AWS) Pact for the first time, could you please tell me what platform should I choose?

cfmack

2018-07-02 12:59

I use the docker container provided by Pact Foundation, PostGres PAAS, and EKS

gradzio

2018-07-02 20:53

has joined #general

gradzio

2018-07-02 20:55

hey guys, i am working with pact and i managed to upload my pact file to pact broker (http://pact.dius.com.au) but after that I am not able to upload a new file again. No matter what i get 401 - anyone can help please?

matt.fellows

2018-07-02 21:32

Hi @gradzio there are separate read and write users. Perhaps you're using the read only user account? How did the first contract get in?

elliot.chen7

2018-07-02 21:36

has joined #general

elliot.chen7

2018-07-02 21:56

Hi, I?ve been doing research and I?m struggling to decide how pact fits with grpc calls? I?m using Go in a very new micro service environment. I?m trying to find best practices for integration and/or contract testing. I really like Pacts approach to provider states and was wondering if it was good enough reason to use it. Does anyone have experience with this?

elliot.chen7

2018-07-02 21:56

@matt.fellows suggested I ask here :slightly_smiling_face:

elliot.chen7

2018-07-02 21:59

So far I have been following this approach: https://medium.com/namely-labs/how-we-build-grpc-services-at-namely-52a3ae9e7c35 Each microservice designs it?s .proto defs. They are automatically built and commited in a centralised repo that can been used as a client for other services that communicate with it.

elliot.chen7

2018-07-02 21:59

I?m afraid we?ll lose track of what service communicates with who, etc.

gaurav

2018-07-03 03:14

Hello.. Would `pact-jvm-model:3.5.16` work with both scala version 2.11 and 2.12? Thanks.

gradzio

2018-07-03 07:33

that is right Matt! how could I have missed that? thank you i was using dev account

gradzio

2018-07-03 07:34

it would be nice to get 403 instead of 401 that would lead people into solution

matt.fellows

2018-07-03 09:13

You Probably a good point there

rcheeniyil

2018-07-03 16:11

Hi, Is there support for multipart/form data in Pact Ruby and if so is there any example sitting around? What I've found so far is a post for JVM/JS versions of pact: https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/issues/123

matt.fellows

2018-07-03 21:39

@rcheeniyil same answer for Ruby basically

rcheeniyil

2018-07-03 21:39

do you know if it has to be formatted one line or something weird because I haven't had that working yet

matt.fellows

2018-07-03 21:43

I'm not sure sorry. But as noted in that issue it's possible between JS and JVM (JS uses Ruby under the hood, so that bit is definitely supported)

matt.fellows

2018-07-03 21:44

I would use that example as your starting point

rcheeniyil

2018-07-03 21:49

alrighty ty!

matt.fellows

2018-07-03 21:53

:+1:

ssn899

2018-07-03 22:53

To add onto @elliot.chen7's question, is grpc contract testing in Pact's timeline? If so, has there been any work/progess yet? I would love to contribute to or start the effort.

elliot.chen7

2018-07-03 22:58

Same, I would like to contribute. I'm fairly new to the concept so I just need a little guidance

bethskurrie

2018-07-03 23:01

Hi @rcheeniyil there isn't explicit support, however, it wouldn't be too hard to do it.

bethskurrie

2018-07-03 23:02

What exactly would you want to assert about the file?

bethskurrie

2018-07-03 23:04

As @matt.fellows says, if you can do it in js, you can do it in Ruby, because the js uses the ruby under the covers.

bethskurrie

2018-07-03 23:04

Have you tried doing it as per the example?

matt.fellows

2018-07-03 23:18

Thanks @ssn899 and @elliot.chen7. What language are you using (I know Go is in the mix).

matt.fellows

The reason I ask, is that we probably need to do some spikes before we know what it is that we can and more importantly, _should_ do.

ssn899

Currently, I am using Pact-JVM.

matt.fellows

The latest implementation in Pact JS/Go for message support is protocol/transport agnostic, so in theory could support gRPC. But there are still open questions about the value it provides.

matt.fellows

https://docs.pact.io/getting-started/versioning-in-the-pact-broker#guidelines

awesome

ssn899

2018-07-03 23:20

But I am pretty flexible

matt.fellows

2018-07-03 23:20

I would think a white paper (in the form of a gist like https://gist.github.com/bethesque/c858e5c15649ae525ef0cc5264b8477c) stating the problem space would be a starting point

matt.fellows

2018-07-03 23:20

we can then collaborate in the open on some technical spikes that might guide implementation

ssn899

2018-07-03 23:21

I can create that

matt.fellows

2018-07-03 23:21

that?d be great!

elliot.chen7

2018-07-03 23:22

@ssn899 let me know how I can help

elliot.chen7

2018-07-03 23:22

@matt.fellows only go for me at the moment

matt.fellows

2018-07-03 23:22

cool, thanks

rcheeniyil

2018-07-03 23:27

not exactly as per example but i've taken generated code from postman and I'm getting a null response for a post I'll take another look at it on thursday and reply here. I'll try to follow the example more thoroughly on my next attempt.

ssn899

2018-07-03 23:29

https://gist.github.com/SnewsButton/91901ac8a0ea63c474ac673457d05e45 here is just a stub for the gist. Feel free to post comments on what exactly needs to be done.

rcheeniyil

2018-07-03 23:30

my `will_respond_with` response assertion is just a json body that worked when I was doing requests with a json body instead of a multipart nothing else is being asserted at this time

rcheeniyil

2018-07-03 23:31

I'll do another round of attempts I just figured I'd ask about it here before throwing too much time at the problem since it doesn't seem to be a common use case

matt.fellows

2018-07-03 23:32

@matt.fellows pinned a message to this channel.

matt.fellows

2018-07-03 23:32

awesome, thanks

matt.fellows

2018-07-04 03:54

I?ve added a couple of thoughts of how we might go about doing it just now (gists don?t get notifications sadly).

liran.tal

2018-07-04 18:56

has joined #general

liran.tal

2018-07-04 18:57

hola amigos! :wink:

liran.tal

2018-07-04 18:57

congrats on your new home

bethskurrie

2018-07-04 22:12

Hi @liran.tal!

bethskurrie

2018-07-04 22:13

Welcome

bethskurrie

2018-07-04 22:13

Much better than gitter

paisrikanth

2018-07-05 02:13

has joined #general

paisrikanth

2018-07-05 02:16

Hey Guys I get this error "Gradle build daemon disappeared unexpectedly (it may have been killed or may have crashed)" When I try to do pactPublish from build gradle file

paisrikanth

2018-07-05 02:18

plz help

matt.fellows

2018-07-05 02:25

@paisrikanth hello, please try in #pact-jvm and also, you?re going to need to provide more detail (see https://coderanch.com/wiki/659862/Show-Effort)

liran.tal

2018-07-05 05:22

yep!

liran.tal

2018-07-05 05:22

thanks

liran.tal

2018-07-05 05:49

we are refactoring some of our devops and pact patterns flows and I wanted to run a draft plan by you and get some feedback: ``` Consumer ????? PR FLOW: -> Build step -> Run contract tests (we do this as integration tests, I know the docs suggest unit) -> Pact contracts are created -> Pact contracts are pushed to broker (can we push on an existing version? will it override the existing contract of the same version?) -> Identifying the contract with: - Consumer name - Provider name - Version: is the build number - Tag: build -> CI step -> Download the Pact contract from the previous step of the build based on: - Consumer name - Provider name - Version: the build number is passed from the build step to the CI step - Tag: build -> Use the pact contracts to spin up mocked providers using docker pact runner -> Perform Backend E2E tests -> Successful build THEN PR IS MERGED TO MASTER MASTER JOB FLOW BEGINS: -> Build Step ? same as for PR -> CI step ? same as for PR -> If CI succeeds - Increment version for app (tag container image, publish to docker hub, etc) - Publish to Pact Broker with: - Consumer name - Provider name - Version: the app incremented version number - Tag: development NOTES: * We tag the contract as 'development' because the contract may not yet be implemented and we don't want to break the build for the provider. * We accept that tagging it as 'production' (meaning its available on prod) is a manual process that requires clear communication to do so. Provider: -> Build step ? nothing relevant to the contract to be done here -> CI step -> Download the Pact contracts of all of my consumers - Consumer name - Provider name - Version: latest - Tag: production -> Run provider contract tests verification (ensure all contract integrations are not broken) -> Successful verification per contract updates the broker ```

bethskurrie

2018-07-05 05:52

Looks pretty sane. I've got a few questions. What is your version number format?

bethskurrie

2018-07-05 05:53

> can we push on an existing version? will it override the existing contract of the same version? Yes. Yes. Not recommended. Ideally, you should have a unique version number for each pact publication, ideally using or including the git sha if possible. I'll find you a link on this.

bethskurrie

2018-07-05 05:53

bethskurrie

2018-07-05 05:59

For your PRs, you say, the tag is the build - what does that mean?

bethskurrie

2018-07-05 06:00

Have you read the "pact nirvana" doc yet? https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRf1kSDccImNipOOm1G-bjcSs-ifbZjf1v54K-dIcq8BLKeFPAAm_bf_p71UKqkRMIx30QWWL-kN8TI/pub

fergusstrange764

2018-07-05 10:26

has joined #general

zwttgsmu

2018-07-05 14:32

Hello! I run the test on the provider side, the error is displayed: JSON::ParserError: A JSON text must at least contain two octets! as I understood, this is because the response is not in json format Does the pact compare non-json formats? or what is the way to solve this problem?

liran.tal

2018-07-05 20:25

1. we follow semver so our version number format is going to be that. But what I was thinking to use during the build step is that version will be set to the build number: i.e just a simple `159` if that?s the current build number because the published contract to the broker at that point is only used so it can be then downloaded for the CI step and used as a stub with pact runner for the E2E. At that point the contract also doesn?t mean anything. Only when we press the merge button to merge a PR to the master branch then we follow the same testing phase and at that point after CI we do increment version and publish it. so the version being the build number is also because you can have multiple PRs open at the same time. And also the app version doesn?t mean anything, like if I had `v1.1.1-build159` then v1.1.1 doesn?t convey anything because the PR can be open for a week and by that time the version in my `package.json` is obsolete since master is now at `v2.0.0`

liran.tal

2018-07-05 20:27

2. as for ``` can we push on an existing version? will it override the existing contract of the same version? ``` I asked this because it is possible that someone might re-run the PR by actually going to jenkins and restart the build it?s probably an edge case.

liran.tal

2018-07-05 20:31

3. when I publish a contract from the build step to the CI step I tag it as `build` just for semantics, as it doesn?t have any other meaning or purpose (the version number is also the build number so the contract is not really conveying anything important at that point). once `master` successfully finishes CI then we increment a version, set that version in the contract, and tag is as `development` which is semantic again but conveys more meaning at this point.

liran.tal

2018-07-05 20:33

4. will read that article, thanks for sharing! what I really miss is some recipes for devops integration for making CDC happen. there are many deployment and source code versioning strategies (github flow/tbd/etc) where that recipe will change to adapt different workflows.

matt.fellows

2018-07-05 20:53

It can compare non JSON but there are two caveats - the first is that catching rules don't work and it will be comparing by string equality. The second is that you'll need to set the correct content-type so that the framework knows it's media type

bethskurrie

2018-07-06 00:06

This might also help: https://dius.com.au/2018/05/04/pact-testing-git-workflow-and-continuous-integration/

bethskurrie

2018-07-06 05:18

@liran.tal I'm working on an idea that will allow "wip" (work in progress) pacts to be verified without actually breaking the provider's build. A "wip" pact would be one with content that has not yet been successfully verified. This means that a consumer could publish a changed pact and get feedback on whether or not it passes, without breaking the provider's build. Once it has successfully been verified, it would be up to the consumer team to promote it to one of the tags that is officially supported by the provider (eg "master", "prod") that _would_ break the providers build.

bethskurrie

2018-07-06 05:19

This also means that any merged branch from the consumer should never block at can-i-deploy, because the pact content should be pre-verified.

vinod.baradwaj

2018-07-06 06:16

@liran.tal we are trying out a similar pipeline in my organisation with pact. Also @dominic.jones has done that

kra

2018-07-06 13:02

Hello Pact community! I just had a lively discussion with a coworker. Since we are using Pact, do we still need another API documentation like Swagger or RESTDocs? The Pact Broker offers pretty good live-documentation of all APIs. Any thoughts/experiences/suggestions on this?

matt

2018-07-06 15:17

I think Pact and Swagger solve different problems, they can even be used together :slightly_smiling_face:

liran.tal

2018-07-06 20:19

@vinod.baradwaj that?s really cool. would be interesting to hear what kind of things you?ve been experimenting with and what challenges you found.

liran.tal

2018-07-06 20:19

@beth yeah, and that brings up another challenge - say I have a consumer and provider contract set in place (tagged production). but then there?s a new API integration between them (i.e: through an API Version header flag) or even a simple new field in the response to support. I can?t just add this interaction to the existing consumer-provider contract that is in production because again, that specific new API is still in development phase of the provider. so I can?t just tag the contract ?development? again to not break providers build because they could be breaking the previous API contract. seems the only way to get around it is via naming the provider differently to get a new contract made just for that.

nick

2018-07-06 22:53

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-07-07 01:48

It's a good discussion for this group. Our official position is that they solve different problems and can be used together.

matt.fellows

2018-07-07 01:49

But I'd love to see what other responses you get

gaurav

2018-07-07 03:13

I think Pact Broker is not suitable for documentation purposes at all. Reason is that it shows contract between provider and consumers.. which can be different for different consumers. consumers might need only few fields from provider as response and in that case Pact Broker will only show those few fields as a part of their Pact. Swagger is aimed at documentation and from my opinion, both should be used together. Using Pact with Swagger makes CI integration and pact verification super easy and fast (google swagger-request-validator-pact).

yamad

2018-07-07 09:45

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-07-07 11:23

> I think Pact Broker is not suitable for documentation purposes at all. What I'd add to that is that it documents the integration between a particular consumer and provider very well. It doesn't, however, provide _general_ documentation for a provider, which Swagger does very well.

polvara

2018-07-07 11:48

has joined #general

polvara

2018-07-07 11:58

Hello everyone, I'm joining this chat in response to my tweet https://twitter.com/Gpx/status/1015233318848262144?s=19 At my company we're trying to decide if Pact is the right tool for us. I hope someone with more experience than me can help. In a nutshell, we're testing our React application with Selenium using a Django server as a backed. We have huge latency issues due to network calls. We were thinking to replace the server with Pact to speed things up. Is this recommendable? Has someone done something similar before? Thank you

liran.tal

2018-07-07 12:06

Hi @polvara. that can definitely work, although if you are working through some CRUD flows and doing more than just smoke tests then it can be a little bit more work to get things to play together.

gaurav

2018-07-07 14:52

Hello all, I have a question about `ConsumerInfo` class in `pact-jvm-provider_2.12-3.5.19`: `consumerInfo.getPactSource()` gets an instance of `BrokerUrlSource`.. how do I retrieve consumer source from this instance. Sorry I am not really familiar with kotlin. For example: if `consumerInfo.getPactSource().toString()` gives: `BrokerUrlSource(url=http://localhost:52821/pacts/provider/Provider/consumer/Consumer1/version/123, pactBrokerUrl=http://localhost:52821, attributes={}, options={})`, I am interested in `consumerInfo.getSource().someMethod()` that gives `http://localhost:52821/pacts/provider/Provider/consumer/Consumer1/version/123` Thanks a lot.

liran.tal

2018-07-07 15:47

@bethskurrie in https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Pacticipant-version-numbers why is `2.0.0` regarded as a bad example for application version? it is following semver and should be unique for apps.

liran.tal

2018-07-07 17:49

hi all, I?m trying to decide on a good title for a talk I?ll be giving about CDC with Pact, it will mostly intro the subject, show an example, and provide a recipe for teams to adapt in their organisation through devops ci/cd pipelines. ``` 1. Testing Microservices and Staying Alive To Tell The Story 2. Testing Microservices and Staying Alive 3. Testing Microservices and avoiding Integration Hell 4. Contracts Testing for a Microservices Architecture 5. Consumer Driven Contracts testing for SOA 6. <your own suggestion> ``` which do you like most? I?m open to your own suggestions! thanks :wink:

david.j.smith

2018-07-07 18:12

"Life's too short for Dev VM's"? :stuck_out_tongue:

liran.tal

2018-07-07 18:14

:slightly_smiling_face:

ar7ai

2018-07-07 18:25

has joined #general

ar7ai

2018-07-07 18:28

Hello! I use ProviderStateMiddleware. Why is the "private void AddData ()" method executed before the test, is this the correct behavior? (I do according to your example https://github.com/tdshipley/pact-workshop-dotnet-core-v1/blob/master/CompletedSolution/Provider/tests/Middleware/ProviderStateMiddleware.cs)

david.j.smith

2018-07-07 18:32

I'm not familiar with that middleware, but it sounds correct. All provider state setup actions need to run before the tests because their job is to put the provider into a known state before the test executes. For example, if the tests relies on being able to use query params to find document with id 12, then document with id 12 will need to be there in advance!

ar7ai

2018-07-07 18:35

I also think so but so far in this example there is first testing, and only then setting a precondition (adding data)

ar7ai

2018-07-07 18:35

and I do not understand why :disappointed:

ar7ai

2018-07-07 18:37

"Why is the "private void AddData ()" method executed after the test, is this the correct behavior?" sorry, not exactly written

david.j.smith

2018-07-07 18:42

I'm not following you sorry, the code you've sent over isn't a test, and (ok my C# is rusty) I can't see it running a test either. Looks like a ProviderState management class to me?

uglyog

2018-07-07 23:44

try consumerInfo.getPactSource().getUrl()

gaurav

2018-07-08 01:53

hmm I was trying to do.. However just noticed that `getPactSource()` actually returns an object type so need to cast that to `BrokerUrlSource`. So `((BrokerUrlSource)(consumerInfo.getPactSource())).getUrl()` is working! Thanks a lot!

bethskurrie

2018-07-08 02:17

Hi @ar7ai please note the guidelines for raising issues that were sent to you by the greetbot, and ask your question in the relevant channel for your technology. It helps keeps the conversations focussed, and lowers the noise in the general channel.

greetbot

2018-07-08 02:18

has joined #general

paulswilliams

2018-07-08 09:00

Hey all, having run with Pact JVM for a month on our production project, I'm really enjoying it's coverage. As we're around half way through our development phase, we're soon going to need to start thinking about production, api versioning, releasing, branching etc. I've read the matrix page, and wondered if anyone can recommend other supporting documentation / videos etc to best prepare us for go live. If it helps, we're currently developing a single provider, that will be consumed by around 6 consumers, although at this moment, only 1 consumer will be in play. Looking forward to any responses.

bethskurrie

2018-07-08 09:49

bethskurrie

2018-07-08 09:52

Because it doesn't uniquely identify the exact version of your repository that made the contact. You ruin the ability of the matrix to safely allow you to deploy if you can't map your code version to your pact version 1 to 1.

bethskurrie

2018-07-08 09:54

You get some extra benefits by using the sha because you can send verification statuses back to github or gitlab (or equivalent) as commit statuses.

bethskurrie

2018-07-08 09:55

If you must use sem ver, then including the sha as metadata will ensure that your version numbers are unique and can be mapped back to the version of the code that created them.

bethskurrie

2018-07-08 10:06

I think you said you increment the patch version with each build, so you should at least have unique numbers. The reason being able to map back to the sha is if you need to do the last step of the "pact nirvana" document, and you have to check out the production version of the provider to verify it against the new consumer. If you're deploying the provider frequently though, you most likely won't have to do this.

bethskurrie

2018-07-08 10:08

Welcome @paulswilliams this document (though it's still in draft, and pretty ugly, sorry!) should help https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRf1kSDccImNipOOm1G-bjcSs-ifbZjf1v54K-dIcq8BLKeFPAAm_bf_p71UKqkRMIx30QWWL-kN8TI/pub

bethskurrie

2018-07-08 10:10

Let me know if you have any further queries after reading this. Because everyone's workflow is different, it's hard to describe exactly how to set things up.

paulswilliams

2018-07-08 10:10

Oh thank you. I will have a good read this afternoon. Thank you for you and everyone?s work on Pact. I had a shaky start, but it?s really starting to show value now.

bethskurrie

2018-07-08 10:11

Good to hear! We know that it's difficult to ramp up.

bethskurrie

2018-07-08 10:11

What did you find most difficult?

steve.cook

2018-07-08 10:15

has joined #general

2018-07-08 10:15

Welcome to the Pact #general channel @steve.cook! Please join the relevant channels for your Pact implementation as well, so you can discuss your issues with the audience who can best help you.

bethskurrie

2018-07-08 10:17

Hi @polvara paxt can definitely help you, but I would caution against writing too many contact tests that go through the full layer. Often you'll end up with an explosion of interactions that you've only added because you're trying to test some element of the UI. We'd generally recommend using Pact to unit test the interactions between the API client (a class in your consumer codebase that is responsible for making the calls to the provider) and the API. You can then use the pact *stub* server to stand up a stub for tests that involve the UI.

paulswilliams

2018-07-08 10:34

Concepts. Thinking I could use Pact to create mocks for acceptance tests, rather than focusing on integration components. Some of the JVM docs using Groovy over Java add unneeded cognitive load. Also, sceptical colleagues who are more confident with end to end tests, but unversioned stored procs in shared database have caused so many issues that they?ve seen the light in embracing decoupling.

bethskurrie

2018-07-08 10:35

Ouch!

bethskurrie

2018-07-08 10:35

Yes, it is a conceptual leap.

paulswilliams

2018-07-08 10:36

Once handling the matrix is understood and battle hardened, I?d hope that we?ll use this approach a lot.

bethskurrie

2018-07-08 10:36

That first one is a really good point. Should we make that clearer somewhere?

paulswilliams

2018-07-08 10:36

I work at a contracting company, the shared db is a customer thing :face_with_head_bandage:

bethskurrie

2018-07-08 10:37

I work for a consulting company - I've also seen things I'd rather forget!

paulswilliams

2018-07-08 10:37

Perhaps. If others feel same pain? I can?t recall a ?what Pact doesn?t do? section which might be useful.

bethskurrie

2018-07-08 10:38

There is a "what is pact not good for" section actually.

paulswilliams

2018-07-08 10:38

Yeah, although these anti-patterns are making us be creative.

bethskurrie

2018-07-08 10:38

In the docs, underneath the "what is it good for" section.

paulswilliams

2018-07-08 10:39

Yeah, i couldn?t recall it, but then I started a couple of months back.

bethskurrie

2018-07-08 10:39

Next time I'm looking at the main section, I'll have a think if there's any way to make that clearer.

bethskurrie

2018-07-08 10:40

I value the impressions of people who have recently read the docs, because those of us who know pact too well are bad at working out what needs improving.

paulswilliams

2018-07-08 10:41

Okay, cheers. I?ll try and add an issue or PR on docs if I get chance. Lots of juggling as you no doubt experience

bethskurrie

2018-07-08 10:42

Constantly!

paulswilliams

2018-07-08 14:41

That tagging / wip content is exactly what I was looking for. I will read it again in depth after pondering this evening. Cheers!

polvara

2018-07-08 19:10

Thanks for the reply. Yes, that?s what we wanted to do, use the stub server when we run our E2E tests. Most of our UI is tested with unit and integrations tests. We use E2E to check the main workflows, we don?t cover edge cases. I guess the main issue from my side is to understand how much can you push Pact before you have an explosion of interactions

polvara

2018-07-08 19:13

Hey, thanks for the reply and thanks for the tweet too :bow: Our slowness is due to the server. We tried to use a static server for one of our E2E tests and the increase in speed is noticeable?we?re talking minutes vs seconds. As I wrote also here https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1531077014000029?thread_ts=1530964717.000011&cid=C5F4KFKR8 the thing that confuses me the most is to understand when a smoke test becomes too specific and it will force us to work agains Pact

bethskurrie

2018-07-09 00:23

> We use E2E to check the main workflows, we don?t cover edge cases Yay!

obradford

2018-07-09 07:08

has joined #general

2018-07-09 07:08

Welcome @obradford!

greetbot

2018-07-09 07:12

@greetbot has left the channel

violeta.minkov

2018-07-09 07:28

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-07-09 11:14

@liran.tal no, this new interaction should be added by creating a feature branch of the consumer codebase, and publishing the pact with a tag that matches the name of the feature branch. You can then go to the provider team and say, hey, can you support this new pact (give them the name of the tag). Once that new pact is supported, and deployed to production, then you can merge in your feature branch in your consumer and deploy.

bethskurrie

2018-07-09 11:15

As the "pact nirvana" document outlines, you'll find it much easier if you use tag names that map to your branch names in development, and tag names that match your environments when you deploy.

bethskurrie

2018-07-09 11:16

Your provider should verify the "master" and "production" tags if you follow this scheme.

bethskurrie

2018-07-09 11:17

The approach I outline above for adding new features (using a branch and another tag) will allow you to add new interactions without breaking everything.

bethskurrie

2018-07-09 11:18

Does that make sense at all?

bethskurrie

2018-07-09 11:29

Hi `can-i-deploy` users. I've added a `--retry-while-unknown` option to allow your consumer pipeline to wait for the provider to finish running the pact verifications when it is triggered by a webhook (which is triggered by a changed pact). Remember, however, that pacts can be pre-verified on feature branches to avoid blocking your master build. You can read about how to do this in https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRf1kSDccImNipOOm1G-bjcSs-ifbZjf1v54K-dIcq8BLKeFPAAm_bf_p71UKqkRMIx30QWWL-kN8TI/pub

jannik.falkner

2018-07-09 13:10

has joined #general

jannik.falkner

2018-07-09 13:15

Hi, can someone explain why injection with `@Autowire` in this example does not work when verifying via the Gradle Pact plugin? https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/pact-jvm-provider-spring#using-a-spring-runner-version-357 I need to inject a bean of `RabbitMqBackend` but it says `kotlin.UninitializedPropertyAccessException: lateinit property rabbitMQBackend has not been initialized`

jannik.falkner

2018-07-09 13:21

@jannik.falkner uploaded a file: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/files/UBM2FA7C3/FBLEUESBS/-.kt

ssn899

2018-07-09 19:37

@matt.fellows there has been some discussion in the gist.

bethskurrie

2018-07-09 23:25

Hi @jannik.falkner. Welcome to the pact slack. You'll get the audience for your question by asking in the pact-jvm channel

bethskurrie

2018-07-10 02:59

Hi all! To help get the word out about new features in Pact, and to help Pact users share their experiences with each other, we're trying out a fancy new blog at http://blog.pact.io I've written the first couple of posts to get us started.

bethskurrie

2018-07-10 03:00

Here's a quick intro to the new retries feature in can-i-deploy http://blog.pact.io/2018/07/10/retries-for-can-i-deploy/

bethskurrie

2018-07-10 03:01

We'll be adding new posts as new features come out, so be sure to add it to your feed reader.

bethskurrie

2018-07-10 03:04

added an integration to this channel: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/services/BBM3NQTMF

bethskurrie

2018-07-10 06:44

@gaurav would you be interested in writing a blog post about your pact/swagger set up and experiences on the new http://blog.pact.io?

bethskurrie

2018-07-10 06:47

Hi @santoshtrip sorry, I'm not sure if you ever got an answer. The swagger validator is better in situations where there are more consumers than the provider team can realistically maintain provider state data for (maybe 10?)

bethskurrie

2018-07-10 06:47

The down side is that you lose a bit of confidence, because you're adding an extra layer of abstraction.

bethskurrie

2018-07-10 06:48

The up side is that you can get very fast feedback, and in some situations, fast feedback is more valuable that waiting for slightly more accurate feedback.

bethskurrie

2018-07-10 06:49

The broker doesn't current support the exchange of swagger documents, but it's something we're planning on adding in the future

bethskurrie

2018-07-10 06:49

@gaurav has had experience with the pact swagger workflow.

bethskurrie

2018-07-10 06:50

Keep in mind that you need to ensure that your swagger document is in sync with your code either by using dredd or by generating the swagger document from the code itself.

bethskurrie

2018-07-10 06:52

What you lose is the ability to verify what a particular resource looks like with various combinations of data - the "provider states" that pact gives you. This may or may not be particularly important for your api, however.

gaurav

2018-07-10 07:47

Thanks @bethskurrie. I would love to do that but my setup for pact/swagger is not complete yet. Swagger-validator was using quite old pact version so I was working on upgrading the version recently in my fork (there were many changes!). Also wanted to take this chance to understand the internals of swagger-validator. I am ready to create a PR but there is a delay because of organisational processes (they need some CLA for corporate contributors so need to involve legals). Anyways, point is that although my quick evaluation looks very promising.. it would take me some time.. may be a month to be at a stage where I can share experiences about both good and pain points in more practical sense. On side notes, I really think that Pact Foundation and Atlassian should work together to have a complete and easier contract testing solution (I don?t see many contributors in that repo).. Also asked the contributor there to request a slack channel here because of increasing interest in swagger-validator here.. and to be updated with latest pact discussions.

bethskurrie

2018-07-10 07:50

Having a channel here is a good idea. You're right, that we haven't collaborated on this. Some of the atlassian teams wrote it to solve their own problems (much like pact was originally written!) and then open sourced it afterwards.

bethskurrie

2018-07-10 07:51

We'd love to have better integration and support in the broker for this flow, but it just hasn't reached the top of the priority list yet.

bethskurrie

2018-07-10 07:53

I saw that one of the atlassian contributors is going to be at a conference I'm attending soon, so I'll try and catch him to talk about this.

gaurav

2018-07-10 07:57

Sounds like a good idea.. As they are already using swagger-validator for longer than anyone else, they will be good candidates to share experiences as well. :slightly_smiling_face: May be convince them to remove CLA thing.. :wink:

alex.bednarczyk

2018-07-10 13:18

has joined #general

rlamb

2018-07-10 16:51

Is anyone using a tool like RDoc or YARD to document provider states?

sjani

2018-07-10 23:30

has joined #general

bsayers

2018-07-11 07:35

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-07-11 07:48

I reckon the devs probably don't have much say over a CLA unfortunately.

raido.letterbox

2018-07-11 07:48

has joined #general

bsayers

2018-07-11 08:07

Hi all, are there many users of swagger-mock-validator in here? My team is considering adding OpenApi 3 support to it and am wondering if that is of interest to anyone here.

polvara

2018-07-11 08:27

Hello, all my API calls to Pact are returning status code `222`. Any idea why is that or how to debug the issue?

raido.letterbox

2018-07-11 08:30

Hi all. I am a bit confused about consumer tests concept. Are they meant just to generate PACT json file or to test the request which the consumer sends too?

abubics

2018-07-11 08:57

They just generate the pact file, and help assert that your API client deserialises the stubbed response properly.

abubics

2018-07-11 08:57

A separate process verifies the pact file against the producer :)

uglyog

2018-07-11 09:20

Is that the HTTP status code?

polvara

2018-07-11 09:39

Yes, which is weird because it?s a code that doesn?t exist

uglyog

2018-07-11 09:45

What language are you using? Is this during the consumer test?

raido.letterbox

2018-07-11 09:45

Thanks! I was writing a response to you and understood a few thing by myself :slightly_smiling_face: Just a small question left: if we are verifying that the consumer deserialises the response correctly, does this mean that the consumer tests should be written in the same language as the consumer itself?

polvara

2018-07-11 09:48

Yes, consumer test in node

polvara

2018-07-11 09:49

``` provider.addInteraction({ state: 'admin user exists', uponReceiving: 'a sign in request', withRequest: { method: 'POST', path: '/be-mock/api-login/', body: { username: '', password: 'welcome' }, }, willRespondWith: { status: 200, body: { token: 'eyJ, }, }, }) ```

polvara

2018-07-11 09:49

This is how I define the interaction

uglyog

2018-07-11 09:53

Wow, that is weird. Maybe the logs from the mock server will help

polvara

2018-07-11 09:56

``` I, [2018-07-11T11:54:38.132877 #1529] INFO -- : Received request POST /be-mock/api-login/ D, [2018-07-11T11:54:38.133058 #1529] DEBUG -- : { "path": "/be-mock/api-login/", "query": "", "method": "post", "body": { "username": "", "password": "welcome" }, "headers": { "Content-Length": "61", "Content-Type": "application/json", "Host": "localhost:1234", "Connection": "keep-alive", "Origin": "http://localhost:3000", "User-Agent": "Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36", "Accept": "*/*", "Referer": "http://localhost:3000/login", "Accept-Encoding": "gzip, deflate", "Accept-Language": "en-US,en;q=0.9", "Cookie": "_ga=GA1.1.419063753.1531302868; _gid=GA1.1.551748798.1531302868; _gat=1; mp_7c7a4eab3982d24cf551ff2e97f58b30_mixpanel=%7B%22distinct_id%22%3A%20%2216488c3732012d-01429e40c5e0a-163b6950-13c680-16488c37321858%22%2C%22%24initial_referrer%22%3A%20%22%24direct%22%2C%22%24initial_referring_domain%22%3A%20%22%24direct%22%7D; __stripe_mid=a13be528-1a35-4766-80f6-eda2e807ecf4; __stripe_sid=0d317bf2-c1a8-47b3-b4cb-9938c22928f7", "Version": "HTTP/1.1" } } I, [2018-07-11T11:54:38.135619 #1529] INFO -- : Found matching response for POST /be-mock/api-login/ D, [2018-07-11T11:54:38.135714 #1529] DEBUG -- : { "status": 200, "headers": { }, "body": { "token": "eyJ" } } ```

polvara

2018-07-11 09:56

They look fine

polvara

2018-07-11 09:57

Is it as if the server responds correctly but something changes the response

polvara

2018-07-11 10:04

It?s probably a problem with testcafe because if I query the server with curl it works

hstene

2018-07-11 10:10

I am writing a pact where i care about the content of a string, but not capitalization. So in my pact I want to see if the provider returns the string `'hello'`. The provider does in fact return `'HELLO'` but either way (`'hello'|`HELLO`) is fine by me- How do I represent that in a pact test? I am specifically using pact-jvm

polvara

2018-07-11 10:11

Ok, the problem seems to be this header `'x-hammerhead|fetch|request-credentials: include'`

polvara

2018-07-11 10:11

Any idea why?

can

2018-07-11 10:12

Hi, Henrik! Have you used regular expressions before?

hstene

2018-07-11 10:15

Yes, does pact support regex-types in individual fields? :smile:

can

2018-07-11 10:16

Yes indeed :smile: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby/wiki/Regular-expressions-and-type-matching-with-Pact

hstene

2018-07-11 10:18

Thanks!

bethskurrie

2018-07-11 10:52

Yes

bethskurrie

2018-07-11 10:52

You would use pact to write tests for the client class or classes that make the calls to the API.

bethskurrie

2018-07-11 10:53

Generally unit tests are recommended, to keep the contract focussed.

bethskurrie

2018-07-11 10:53

You are testing that the client class makes the expected http requests, and that it handles the expected responses correctly.

bethskurrie

2018-07-11 10:54

Generally this means deserialising the response into a class that represents the resource.

raido.letterbox

2018-07-11 10:59

Thanks a lot

bethskurrie

2018-07-11 11:02

There have been a few people asking about it recently, so if you do a search, you should find them.

polvara

2018-07-11 11:56

I think it?s a problem in the FE. I contacted testcafe https://github.com/DevExpress/testcafe/issues/1134#issuecomment-404123524 Thanks for the support

matt.fellows

2018-07-11 12:01

@bsayers :point_up:

bsayers

2018-07-11 12:13

@gaurav Our legal team is not negotiable on the CLA. It?s not unusual to need to sign one of these if you want to contribute to open source projects owned by bigger companies, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon are a few examples of other companies that also require this.

gaurav

2018-07-11 12:44

Sure @bsayers. That was more a light comment. :slightly_smiling_face: may be I am just unhappy with all these legal stuff in general.. but yes, I am sure they are there for reasons!

matt.fellows

2018-07-11 12:58

As per above Been, should we create a channel to discuss the swagger tools you guys have created?

gaurav

2018-07-11 14:08

There is a channel already #swagger-validator

matt

2018-07-11 15:50

I think OpenApi 3 support would be awesome.

santoshtrip

2018-07-11 16:50

@bethskurrie thanks for the detailed explanation. This is what I was looking for.:+1:

santoshtrip

2018-07-11 16:51

Awesome!

bsayers

2018-07-12 00:09

I won?t argue with you there @gaurav, I don?t think highly of the legal overhead either. Unfortunately the choice is open source the way we do today or don?t open source anything!

argos83

2018-07-12 00:46

has joined #general

mikey

2018-07-12 20:43

Hullo! First of all, Pact is *awesome*. Incredible work, ya?ll! We?re about to add Pact for a Javascript consumer. We use Karma to drive our javascript test suite. Which javascript Pact lib would you recommend? I?m thinking https://github.com/pact-foundation/karma-pact but I want to check with the experts who know more about the Pact ecosystem than I :simple_smile:

mikey

2018-07-12 20:46

We use Nodejs for our frontend and I saw pact-node and pact-js too, but I?m not sure how to determine which lib would best meet our needs.

mikey

2018-07-12 20:47

looks like karma-pact uses pact-node?

matt.fellows

2018-07-12 21:05

Hi @mikey! You might want to join us over in #pact-js

matt.fellows

2018-07-12 21:05

short answer is yes, longer answer is avoid Karma where possible

mikey

2018-07-12 21:06

oh right on, thank you! Joining now.

minhdoan

2018-07-13 03:12

Hi team, anyone has experience with request with space(s) in URL, when executing pactVerify the space should encoded to %20, unfortunately the '+'. I am stuck and don't know how to fix https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/issues/693 Could you please help on it? Many thanks in advance!

mboudreau

2018-07-13 03:19

is this for a query string or for the actual URL path?

minhdoan

2018-07-13 03:21

Hi Michel, The actual URL is: /odata/CHAIR?$filter=CREATED_BY/FIRST_NAME eq 'LIMS'&$orderby=Id asc It is the code i wrote in consumer side: .path("/odata/CHAIR") .query("$filter=CREATED_BY/FIRST_NAME eq 'LIMS'&$orderby=Id asc")

minhdoan

2018-07-13 03:21

And the result shown on Broker: { "method": "GET", "path": "/odata/CHAIR", "query": "$filter=CREATED_BY%2F_FIRST_NAME+eq+%27LIMS%27&$orderby=Id+asc" }

mboudreau

2018-07-13 03:25

yep, as it should be. HTTP specification says that all query strings should use `+` for spaces

mboudreau

2018-07-13 03:26

if you've use anything that uses HTTP, it should transform it for you when you add spaces

mboudreau

2018-07-13 03:26

and should still work with pact

minhdoan

2018-07-13 03:27

Do you mean if my provider scheme is HTTP, the pactVerify will encode space to + and sent out the URL

minhdoan

2018-07-13 03:27

If the scheme is HTTPS, it is Ok, right?

mboudreau

2018-07-13 03:28

https will do the same

minhdoan

2018-07-13 03:28

yes, i also try with HTTPS and it not works

minhdoan

2018-07-13 03:28

So please help to instruct me how to overcome it

mboudreau

2018-07-13 03:29

are you just trying to verify, or trying to use the mock?

minhdoan

2018-07-13 03:37

I faced the issue when executing pactVerify against actual provider

minhdoan

2018-07-13 03:38

the mock in consumer side is Okie

minhdoan

2018-07-13 03:38

So the pact records are sucessfully created and published to Broker

bethskurrie

2018-07-13 04:46

As Michel says, `+` is the correct character to use when encoding a space in a query parameter. `%20` is what to use when there is a space in the path.

minhdoan

2018-07-13 04:51

Hi @bethskurrie, Nice to meet you

minhdoan

2018-07-13 04:51

Do you mean the URL: /odata/CHAIR?$filter=CREATED_BY/FIRST_NAME eq 'LIMS'&$orderby=Id asc

minhdoan

2018-07-13 04:52

When executing pactVerify, It would be encoded to: %2Fodata%2FCHAIR%3F%24filter%3DCREATED_BY%2FFIRST_NAME+eq+%27LIMS%27%26%24orderby%3DId+asc

minhdoan

2018-07-13 04:52

and send to actual provider

minhdoan

2018-07-13 04:53

it is a correct behaviour of our pact-jvm, right?

minhdoan

2018-07-13 04:53

So the actual provider should handle the '+', right?

bethskurrie

2018-07-13 04:53

yes

minhdoan

2018-07-13 04:54

Do we have any option to encode space to %20 in the query path as well?

bethskurrie

2018-07-13 04:55

If your HTTP library cannot unencode a + symbol in a query parameter, there is a problem with it.

bethskurrie

2018-07-13 04:56

What library are you using?

minhdoan

2018-07-13 04:58

I think i am using pact-provider-gradle

minhdoan

2018-07-13 04:58

plugins { id 'au.com.dius.pact' version '3.5.9' } group 'ODataPactProvider' version = '1.0.0' // PACTs require SemVer task wrapper(type: Wrapper) { gradleVersion = '4.2' }

bethskurrie

2018-07-13 04:59

I mean, what http library

minhdoan

2018-07-13 05:01

I am unsure Beth, i only know when i execute pactVerify task then the pact library will create a request and send to configured provider service

minhdoan

2018-07-13 05:01

Do we know the info with stacktraceshow option?

bethskurrie

2018-07-13 05:03

Sorry, I have to go.

bethskurrie

2018-07-13 05:03

I could be wrong, but I think you need help with your http framework, rather than pact.

minhdoan

2018-07-13 05:04

Many thanks for your help @bethskurrie and @mboudreau !

mboudreau

2018-07-13 05:04

minhdoan

2018-07-13 05:07

Though I am still not clear, in consumer side i used Spring Boot RestTemplate for initialize and send request to mock service

minhdoan

2018-07-13 05:07

No issue in consumer side, pact records created without issue

minhdoan

But in provider test, pactVerify fails as demonstrated

mboudreau

again, pact isn't the issue, it's the thing that calls the pact specified URL that is

minhdoan

So i dont know the issue with http framework you mentioned here is the http framework used in Consumer, Spring Boot, right?

mboudreau

http://blog.pact.io/2018/07/16/publishing-pact-verification-statuses-to-github/

since the RFC specification for HTTP calls says that query strings needs to be using `+` and not `%20`

minhdoan

2018-07-13 05:09

Yes, i also see that pact record is Okie

minhdoan

2018-07-13 05:10

But i only need to clarify again that whether our actual provider service must handle the + in the query path?

minhdoan

2018-07-13 05:10

If yes, i must raise a change request to dev team

minhdoan

2018-07-13 05:11

The web serivce must support the + in query option

minhdoan

2018-07-13 05:13

Or the actual issue from the http framework which initialize the request sent to the web service, it should replace the + by %20 before sent???

minhdoan

2018-07-13 05:13

Again, i am really not clear so i must take too long

minhdoan

2018-07-13 05:14

And i thank you so much for your help, very very very much

bethskurrie

2018-07-13 06:08

Yes, your service should accept + as a space delimiter in a query.

bethskurrie

2018-07-13 06:10

> The web serivce must support the + in query option This.

bethskurrie

2018-07-13 06:13

Please see the URL encoding section on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Query_string

minhdoan

2018-07-13 06:54

@bethskurrie It is so cool. Only one more concern to fulfill the change request that whether pact-jvm, pactVerify support any configuration to configure the encoding by ourselves, e.g: replace + by %20 or anything else

bethskurrie

2018-07-13 06:57

There is no configuration option to do that. @uglyog can tell you more about it though.

minhdoan

2018-07-13 08:07

Hi team, i am executing pact provider test, the pact-jvm-provider-gradle library is used. My test suite contains 4 test cases (provider MULTI_USERS_PROVIDER has 4 consumers). My system requires login first so we must add an authorization header to each request as below: pact { // Configure the Pact verification log reports { defaultReports() // adds the standard console output json // report in json format } serviceProviders { MULTI_USERS_PROVIDER { requestFilter = { req -> // Add an authorization header to each request // because of our system needs login first with credential: user:password req.addHeader('Authorization', 'Basic dXNlcjpwYXNzd29yZA==') } protocol = providerScheme host = providerHost port = providerPort path = providerScheme + "://" + providerHost + ":" + providerPort + "/webservice" hasPactsFromPactBroker(pactBrokerScheme + "://" + pactBrokerHost + ":" + pactBrokerPort) } } } But in the test suite, there is one test case must use other user , instead of user:password. So i try to use the stateChange for this one: pact { serviceProviders { MULTI_USERS_PROVIDER { requestFilter = { req -> // Add an authorization header to each request // because of our system needs login first with credential: user:password req.addHeader('Authorization', 'Basic dXNlcjpwYXNzd29yZA==') } hasPactWith('AnotherUser_Consumer') { stateChangeUsesBody = false // defaults to true pactSource = url('http://pact-broker-local-repo.net/provider/MULTI_USERS_PROVIDER/consumer/AnotherUser_Consumer/latest') stateChangeRequestFilter = { req -> // Add an authorization header to each request // another:password req.addHeader('Authorization', 'Basic YW5vdGhlcjpwYXNzd29yZA==') } protocol = providerScheme host = providerHost port = providerPort path = providerScheme + "://" + providerHost + ":" + providerPort + "/webservice" hasPactsFromPactBroker(pactBrokerScheme + "://" + pactBrokerHost + ":" + pactBrokerPort) } } } But it seems the credential is not overwritten for specific test case. Anyone has experience on this stuff? Could you please help?

uglyog

2018-07-13 08:30

I don't think `stateChangeRequestFilter` can take any parameters. You'll have to do it in the `requestFilter`, but you might be able to provide a `requestFilter` for `AnotherUser_Consumer`

liran.tal

2018-07-13 08:31

Because we?re using a trunk based development workflow and we merge integrations even if they aren?t yet ready (we have feature flags and API versioning for this) then the whole process of relying on feature branches and specific branch names is not going to work well for us.

liran.tal

2018-07-13 08:32

:+1:

liran.tal

2018-07-13 08:35

my code version will always be the same as my contract version. when I publish a production contract it is tagged with 2.0.0 which is the consumer version that goes to production. when I tag a new production contract as 2.0.1 that is again the new consumer version as well that is deployed to prod. does that make sense ?

minhdoan

2018-07-13 09:13

@uglyog Thanks so much! But i have a concern that it seems new authentication credential used in AnotherUser_Consumer is also used for the test cases which be executed after it.

minhdoan

2018-07-13 09:13

Do you face that situation?

bethskurrie

2018-07-13 10:39

The version that you supply when you publish *is* the code version (it's the consumer application version). The *pact* version is managed for you by the broker (it's a sha based on the content).

bethskurrie

2018-07-13 10:40

Generally, you tag a version resource with the environment name, or the branch name, rather than a version number, because it generally already has a version number as its identifier.

bethskurrie

2018-07-13 10:41

It would be like tagging version "2.0.0" with a tag "2.0.0".

bethskurrie

2018-07-13 10:42

Are you doing this because you want to verify all your prod versions of a mobile api for backwards compatibility, and that's the easiest way to make the verification configuration do that for you?

bethskurrie

2018-07-13 10:45

Then, how about using the feature tag names?

bethskurrie

2018-07-13 10:46

I've been hoping to find someone with a feature toggle use case.

minhdoan

2018-07-13 12:00

Any solution for each case?

jiinliin

2018-07-15 22:33

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-07-15 22:59

@minhdoan if you believe you have found a bug, can you create a github repository with an executable example to demonstrate the issue. This will make any issue easy to identify, and allow us to show that it has been fixed.

2018-07-16 03:15

minhdoan

2018-07-16 11:30

@bethskurrie I am not sure, i need an option to printout the Authorization for each request to investigate further. Any option ?

minhdoan

2018-07-16 11:30

I have tried with --debug, -i, --info but not info about Authorization.

bethskurrie

2018-07-16 11:31

I'm afraid I don't know much about the JVM implementation. Try asking in the JVM channel. If I was having problems with a library, I'd hook up the debugger and step through the code. Have you tried that?

minhdoan

2018-07-16 11:35

Thanks, Beth! I will try but i am not a developer so i am lack of skill to debug deeply :smile:

bethskurrie

2018-07-16 11:44

Oh, I see. Pact is generally used by developers.

bethskurrie

2018-07-16 11:44

Are you a tester?

minhdoan

2018-07-16 11:53

Hi team, i have a provider with 10 consumers so there are 10 pact records on Broker. And 7 test cases use the default authorization credential, and remaining 3 cases use distinct ones. So i must add requestFilter for each as below code: `'PERMISSION_PROVIDER {` ` requestFilter = { req ->` ` // Add an authorization header to each request` ` // because of our system needs login first` ` //default credential is: superuser:123456` ` req.addHeader('Authorization', 'Basic c3VwZXJ1c2VyOjEyMzQ1Ng==')` ` }` ` protocol = schemeProperty` ` host = hostProperty` ` port = portProperty` ` hasPactsFromPactBroker(brokerScheme + "://" + brokerHost + ":" + brokerPort)` ` // Consumer 1 need the credential: test001:123456` ` hasPactWith('Consumer_1') {` ` pactSource = url('http://localhost/pacts/provider/PERMISSION_PROVIDER/consumer/Consumer_1/latest')` ` requestFilter = { req ->` ` // Add an authorization header to each request` ` // because of our system needs login first` ` // with cre: test001:123456` ` req.addHeader('Authorization', 'Basic dGVzdDAwMToxMjM0NTY=')` ` }` ` }` ` // Consumer 2 need the credential: test002:123456` ` hasPactWith('Consumer_2') {` ` pactSource = url('http://localhost/pacts/provider/PERMISSION_PROVIDER/consumer/Consumer_2/latest')` ` requestFilter = { req ->` ` // Add an authorization header to each request` ` // because of our system needs login first` ` // with cre: test002:123456` ` req.addHeader('Authorization', 'Basic dGVzdDAwMjoxMjM0NTY=')` ` }` ` }` ` ` ` // Consumer 3 need the credential: test003:123456` ` hasPactWith('Consumer_3') {` ` pactSource = url('http://localhost/pacts/provider/PERMISSION_PROVIDER/consumer/Consumer_3/latest')` ` requestFilter = { req ->` ` // Add an authorization header to each request` ` // because of our system needs login first` ` // with cre: test003:123456` ` req.addHeader('Authorization', 'Basic dGVzdDAwMzoxMjM0NTY=')` ` }` ` }` ` }` And i want to ensure that each request will have correct Authorization header info when pactVerify is executed, but i tried with: `gradle pactverify [--info | --debug | -i]` But no option show the Authorization information. Could you please help on it? Many thanks!

minhdoan

2018-07-16 13:04

Yes, i am a tester. We want to apply Pact to our project, replace Integration test

minhdoan

2018-07-16 13:06

And maybe create mock services with Pact

bethskurrie

2018-07-16 19:59

@minhdoan I actually suggested you ask in the #pact-jvm channel. We try to keep the general channel for non language specific discussion.

bethskurrie

2018-07-16 21:15

:+1:

bethskurrie

2018-07-16 21:17

Given that Pact is generally implemented by developers (pact tests on the consumer side are typically unit tests for the provider client classes) I'm interested to know why you've been doing it? Are the developers not interested? Do they think it's a tool for testers?

michael.follmann

2018-07-16 21:36

has joined #general

kaushalye

2018-07-17 01:23

has joined #general

mr.matt.r.long

2018-07-17 12:42

Hi, I've been POC the rollout of Pact within an enterprise organisation, and have had queries regarding how well Pact (specifically the Broker) can scale. I appreciate that the self hosted Broker is scaled according to it's deployment mechanism and infrastructure. However are there any case studies I could refer to? The numbers quoted are 8000 services using the Broker. My suggestion would be to deploy the broker and monitor it and scale as necessary, but I presume that it wouldn't require huge resources

david.j.smith

2018-07-17 16:13

Has anyone seen a problem where pactbroker retrieves the pacts in reverse order i.e. it treats the oldest as latest?

matt.fellows

2018-07-17 21:20

Have you got sort by date added or sort by a versioning scheme enabled?

bethskurrie

2018-07-18 00:42

If you don't have the "order by date" turned on, it will use semantic ordering. If you are using git shas, it currently will accept them, but give you a strange order.

bethskurrie

2018-07-18 00:42

I've changed it to sort by date by default now.

bethskurrie

2018-07-18 00:59

What version of the broker are you using, what are you using for your version numbers, and what version ordering setting are you using?

david.j.smith

2018-07-18 09:53

Now that I?ve been forced to dig into it, I think we?re on a really old version - will see if we can do an upgrade. The problem is on one particular part of the relationships it?s just picking a weird order. It?s ignoring both semantic version and date. But lemme push for an upgrade before we continue - thanks!

david.j.smith

2018-07-18 09:57

Two questions about the versions: 1. Is there somewhere in the UI that gives you the pact broker version? (we may not have it of course if, as I suspect, we have an older version) 2. What is the latest version of pact-broker? I couldn?t see the latest version number on the git readme?s or wiki? Might have just missed it.

bethskurrie

2018-07-18 10:29

It's in the response headers.

bethskurrie

2018-07-18 10:30

If it's not, it's ooooooold man.

bethskurrie

2018-07-18 10:30

You'll find the current version number in the releases page https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/releases

bethskurrie

2018-07-18 10:30

2.24.0

msc.consults

2018-07-18 13:39

has joined #general

msc.consults

2018-07-18 13:50

Hi everyone, Has anyone looked into creating a pact for non-HTTP protocols for Java? I have this scenario whereby my providers HTTP Endpoint is a Apache Knox Gateway, which is a passthrough API, thus I ideally need to create contracts with the underlying apps (which are not accessible via a HTTP protocol). I've come across this article: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby/wiki/Why-Pact-may-not-be-the-best-tool-for-testing-pass-through-APIs - which points to: https://gist.github.com/bethesque/0ee446a9f93db4dd0697, but this is written in Ruby

kra

2018-07-18 19:22

Hei guys I just saw a Tweet saying: "Oh WSDL is called CDC these days. D�j�-vue" What are your arguments against this?

matt.fellows

2018-07-18 20:12

Can you share the link? Seems like a good conversation starter :grinning:

kra

2018-07-18 20:25

sure, https://twitter.com/simas_ch/status/1019650288884600832

matt.fellows

2018-07-18 20:49

thanks

matt.fellows

2018-07-18 20:50

OK, here goes

matt.fellows

2018-07-18 20:50

1. Is the concept behind WSDL even a bad thing?

matt.fellows

2018-07-18 20:51

2. Maybe, but we learned, and moved forward to REST - where Swagger and OAS has picked things up

matt.fellows

2018-07-18 20:51

3. CDC is an _approach_ and a _concept_ for API design and evolution, WSDL/Swagger etc. is a definition language for implementing it. You can literally _do both_!

matt.fellows

2018-07-18 20:52

4. CDC actually started _during_ the WSDL days _using_ WSDL as the message exchange format (see https://martinfowler.com/articles/consumerDrivenContracts.html)

david.j.smith

2018-07-18 20:54

As it turns out, my plea to upgrade after your security announcement was heeded, and we were already running 2.20.0 :smile: The issue was the sorting config hadn?t been added. Thanks for the help as always :thumbsup:

matt.fellows

2018-07-18 20:55

So it?s a bit confused to equate the two.

matt.fellows

2018-07-18 21:05

@matt.fellows pinned a message to this channel.

bethskurrie

2018-07-19 02:42

My understanding of WSDLs (correct me if I'm wrong) is that all the consumers have to be working on the same version of the document and that if you make an update (add a field) you have to send out the new wsdl to all consumers, even if they don't care about that field. It may be cdc, but it seems to break postel's law in a very annoying way. (disclaimer, I haven't used WSDLs for maybe 10 years, so I may be mis remembering)

bethskurrie

2018-07-19 02:43

Pact JVM supports message pacts. Have a look at the docs.

bethskurrie

2018-07-19 02:45

Generally speaking, the protocol is irrelevant. You should separate your message handling code from your protocol specific code and then you can just test the contract between the message consumer and the message producer "business logic" classes.

bethskurrie

2018-07-19 02:45

No worries.

matt.fellows

2018-07-19 03:20

Yep, that was one of the main issues with it. You had to synchronise deployments or deploy multiple versions (which wasn't very common)

bethskurrie

2018-07-19 21:23

I love it when I open a pact stackover flow issue from my inbox and people have already answered it better than I could! Thanks pact community! https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51386591/how-and-if-test-syntactic-bad-request-validation-with-pact

matt.fellows

2018-07-19 21:24

yep!!

peeter.ulst

2018-07-20 10:48

has joined #general

peeter.ulst

2018-07-20 10:52

Hi, is there anywhere info on the `free` hosted beta service as in how it will fare in the future - for now it's free but when the beta ends then it's not free any more I assume?

bethskurrie

2018-07-20 10:53

Hi @peeter.ulst the free tear will continue to exist. The paid offering will simply add more features.

bethskurrie

2018-07-20 10:53

The free tear will basically be (as it is now) a hosted version of the open source codebase.

peeter.ulst

2018-07-20 10:54

so there will be no functionality loss compared to current beta?

bethskurrie

2018-07-20 10:54

bethskurrie

2018-07-20 10:54

The paid tear will have better auth and improved UI, amongst other things.

peeter.ulst

2018-07-20 10:55

and I can tell my company to keep using the beta as it will be seamlessly upgraded to production version and we can continue using it forever?

bethskurrie

2018-07-20 10:56

Indeed.

peeter.ulst

2018-07-20 10:56

:+1: thank you!

bethskurrie

2018-07-20 10:56

It will not lose any functionality while the hosted product exists.

brentbarker9

2018-07-20 18:23

Should a pact fail if there is additional data coming back from a provider test?

suliu

2018-07-20 21:00

has joined #general

uglyog

2018-07-21 00:11

If the data is important, it should be specified in the pact. Anything not in the pact should be ignored.

uglyog

2018-07-21 00:13

This is the general principal: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle

liran.tal

2018-07-21 00:21

no, it?s all basically app to app api calls, no mobile. but I think we?re aligned on this now. we do trunk based development so the pact version is indeed the consumer version. I don?t tag the contract with a version number, instead I tag it as either ?dev? or ?prod? depending if it should break the provider?s CI (due to the fact that this contract agreed to be on implemented & in prod)

liran.tal

2018-07-21 00:22

I?ll read about the feature tag names though not sure I want to couple to that

bethskurrie

2018-07-21 03:26

Can you outline the problems for me?

bethskurrie

2018-07-21 03:27

So, the provider verifies the "prod" ones in the build, but not the "dev" ones?

liran.tal

2018-07-21 07:47

it verifies both. ?dev? to check for the progress of its implementation and to check whether they can be really moved to ?prod? tags, and ?prod? for whats already in prod and then it will break the build if they fail.

bethskurrie

2018-07-21 08:27

Tell me about your process for introducing changes.

liran.tal

2018-07-21 08:31

my own team is following TBD. So every dev is creating a fork of the repo. Doing changes in their own branches. Opening a PR and when code review and checks are done it gets merged into the upstream repository?s master branch (there aren?t any other branches). once a merge happens to that master branch the server gets deployed.

liran.tal

2018-07-21 08:31

another team which is working on a legacy code base isn?t yet able to benefit from this workflow so even if they merge everything to a ?develop? branch, it doesn?t get deployed until end of iteration.

liran.tal

2018-07-21 08:32

while for them it?s easier to keep a feature branch on the side, for our fast-paced teams I prefer not to.

kaushalye

2018-07-23 04:58

~Hi folks, Im trying to get the pact provider side working with ``` &lt;verificationType&gt;ANNOTATED_METHOD&lt;/verificationType&gt; ``` ref: <https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/pact-jvm-provider-maven> Following the example in the above reference, I defined the .groovy file as follows (ignore the simple return type), which get compiled to .class in the test classpath ``` class VehicleTxnResourcePactTest { @PactVerifyProvider('a processed transaction') String verifyTransaction() { JsonOutput.toJson("some string") } } ``` However I am getting the following complaint ```Verifying a pact between MIRB and IPS - a processed transaction Given transactions are processed No signature of method: au.com.dius.pact.provider.ProviderVerifier.invokeProviderMethod() is applicable for argument types: (java.lang.reflect.Method) values: [public java.lang.String net.nxbos.ips.vehicletxn.resource.VehicleTxnResourcePactTest.verifyTransaction()] Possible solutions: invokeProviderMethod(java.lang.reflect.Method, java.lang.Object)```~

kaushalye

2018-07-23 04:58

Any help is highly appreciated.

kaushalye

2018-07-23 04:58

Side question: What do you expect in the classpath? .class file or a .groovy file ?

kaushalye

2018-07-23 04:59

@matt.fellows / @uglyog :wave: :slightly_smiling_face:

kaushalye

2018-07-23 05:03

and Following is the plugin configuration ``` <plugin> <groupId>au.com.dius</groupId> <artifactId>pact-jvm-provider-maven_2.12</artifactId> <version>3.5.18</version> <configuration> <serviceProviders>  <serviceProvider> <name>IPS</name> <verificationType>ANNOTATED_METHOD</verificationType> <consumers> <consumer> <name>MIRB</name> <pactFile>/Users/malinda/Code/ips-microservice-vehicle-txn/src/test/resources/pacts/MIRB-IPS.json</pactFile> </consumer> </consumers> </serviceProvider> </serviceProviders> <classpathElements> <classpathElement> target/test-classes </classpathElement> </classpathElements> <pactBrokerUrl/> <configuration> <pact.showStacktrace>true</pact.showStacktrace> </configuration> </configuration> </plugin> ```

uglyog

2018-07-23 05:05

@kaushalye let's move this to the #pact-jvm channel

kaushalye

2018-07-23 05:05

:thumbsup:

matt.fellows

2018-07-23 05:17

Ron is your man I?m afraid - what is _maven_ ? :smile:

matt.fellows

2018-07-23 05:17

j/k but I?ve never done any Pact JVM!

thirumal.net

2018-07-23 05:50

has joined #general

kaushalye

2018-07-23 05:59

I have to use pact JVM *Unfortunately* :smile:

minhdoan

2018-07-23 06:47

I want to build a response with Json format as below: {"value":[ { "attribute": "att1", "url": "/att1" }, { "attribute": "att2", "url": "/att2", "type": "Chemistry" }, { "attribute": "att3", "url": "/att3", "type": "Construction" } ] } I have tried with pact consumer code: .body(new PactDslJsonBody() .minArrayLike("value", 2,2) .object() .stringType("url", "/att1") .stringType("attribute", "att1") .closeObject() .object() .stringType("url", "/att2") .stringType("attribute", "/att2") .stringType("kind", "Chemistry") .closeObject()) But the object() method must have a name: `throw new UnsupportedOperationException("use the object(String name) form");` If using another approach as: .body(new PactDslJsonBody() .array("value") .object() .stringType("url", "/att1") .stringType("attribute", "att1") .closeObject() .object() .stringType("url", "/att2") .stringType("attribute", "/att2") .stringType("kind", "Chemistry") .closeObject()) The format is right, but the actual response body contains more than 3 elements (this is unknown number depends on the test system) in "value" array so verification fails. Could you please help to confirm that the format to build a response as example, whether it is supported in pact V3 or i must wait for the V4? Many thanks and nice day, team! (edited)

matt.fellows

2018-07-23 07:02

Can you please move this to #pact-jvm @minhdoan ?

minhdoan

2018-07-23 07:04

@matt.fellows Is Okie, Matt? But i also want to know that others pact libraries support this format? Please help to clarify!

matt.fellows

2018-07-23 07:08

To my eye it doesn?t look out of the ordinary, and it should be doable

minhdoan

2018-07-23 07:14

@matt.fellows Could you please help on it? Many thanks in advance!

matt.fellows

2018-07-23 07:17

Sorry @minhdoan I?m not across the JVM enough to give you specific advice here. Generally speaking, I would start by paring back your Pact test to just a few elements, and then gradually adding bit-by-bit

minhdoan

2018-07-23 07:18

:+1:

minhdoan

2018-07-23 07:18

Thank Matt for your help!

matt.fellows

2018-07-23 07:19

no worries!

psyrez

2018-07-23 07:26

has joined #general

brentbarker9

2018-07-23 16:36

Ok thank you

jim

2018-07-23 17:58

has joined #general

stan

2018-07-23 22:21

has joined #general

arne.zelasko

2018-07-24 07:00

has joined #general

2018-07-24 07:17

http://blog.pact.io/2018/07/24/contract-testing-a-graphql-api/

ng.viet.quynh

2018-07-24 07:38

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-07-24 09:30

Welcome to all the newcomers :relaxed:

djrimokbp

2018-07-24 10:23

anyone managed to run pact verifications using MockMvcTarget and a controller having Jersey annotations (Java)?

ng.viet.quynh

2018-07-24 10:32

Hi everyone! And thanks for the warm welcome @bethskurrie :relaxed: Not sure where to put this but I am actually writing my bachelor thesis about contract testing in microservices with Pact and would really really appreciate if someone can share their experience implementing Pact in their own team/project. Since I only have a simple prototype, I would love to hear from you guys who have more seriously and intensively work with Pact. - What have run smoothly and what have been difficult for you? - Did contract testing with Pact become a part of your software development lifecycle? Why or why not? - Do you implement Pact in already developed services or in designing new services? Any opinion would be much appreciated! Many thanks!

bethskurrie

2018-07-24 10:36

@djrimokbp try in the pact-jvm channel.

iain.olliver

2018-07-24 10:45

has joined #general

arunesh.rajak

2018-07-24 14:05

has joined #general

gerrymcgovern

2018-07-24 14:26

has joined #general

mohammed.a

2018-07-24 14:32

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-07-25 04:11

Pact users. I need some help with a new Pact feature I'm developing. In the languages you've used, are the terms "wip" or "pending" used? And if so, is there a preference for one or the other? Do they have different implications? The feature I'm trying to describe is "if these pacts fail verification, they won't fail the build". I've used "wip" in the code, but I'm tossing up about the term "pending" instead. I'm not sure which is the most cross-language compatible. Doing a quick google comes up with more results for "pending" than "wip". One reason I went for "wip" was that "pending" implies that it is a failing test, and in this case, it's more that we don't know if they'll pass or fail. Happy to take suggestions if you think you have a more descriptive term.

abubics

2018-07-25 04:17

all the other words that I?d associate with that concept are long :stuck_out_tongue: e.g. incomplete, unfinished, etc

abubics

2018-07-25 04:18

but the associated stigmas for wip are intuitively closer to the right concept than pending for me

timothy.clifford

2018-07-25 04:33

For me it comes down to this: `pending` implies that something is planned, but may not yet have been started/finished; `wip` is something that is currently being worked on, but not yet complete

liran.tal

2018-07-25 06:10

agree with timothy and boris

bethskurrie

2018-07-25 06:46

In ruby, if a test that is marked as `pending` passes, the suite actually fails, so that you are alerted that you need to update your test code. Does this behaviour exist in other languages? (This is _not_ the behaviour that we want for this feature, btw - we want the process to exit with a success code all the time, whether the pact verifications pass or fail.)

bethskurrie

2018-07-25 06:47

/poll "What should I call the 'if these pacts fail verification, they won't fail the build' feature?", "WIP pacts", "Pending pacts", "Other (please suggest below)"

sguisado

2018-07-25 10:54

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-07-25 11:57

One things I should add to the above description of the "wip/pending" pacts feature is that once the pact is verified successfully, it ceases to be a wip/pending pact.

can

2018-07-25 11:57

Automagically or by the dev that implements the change?

bethskurrie

2018-07-25 11:58

I'm leaning towards "pending" now, as I think "something that was pending that has now succeed" we kind of assume is now not pending. I'm not sure if the same assumption applies to "wip".

bethskurrie

2018-07-25 11:58

Automagically.

bethskurrie

2018-07-25 11:58

It's then up to the consumer team to decide what to do with that previously pending pact.

niedra91

2018-07-25 11:59

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-07-25 12:01

http://blog.pact.io/p/a0cea6a6-1a6e-40af-ae44-bcf1c27add3f/

can

2018-07-25 12:03

:pray: Thanks for the reading material!

bethskurrie

2018-07-25 12:04

The suggested process for introducing changes would go: * Provider is configured to verify `master` tagged pacts * Consumer creates git branch, modifies pact tests, publishes pact with tag = git branch * Webhook triggers build of provider * Provider runs verification with `master` and "wip/pending" pact but DOES NOT FAIL if the "wip/pending" pact does not pass * If pact passes, consumer merges in branch, and publishes new pact as `master` * If pact does not pass, people talk.

bethskurrie

2018-07-25 12:07

The "wip/pending" pact verification will be an automatic step in the verification process when retrieving pacts from a broker.

can

2018-07-25 12:11

So I guess on the `If pact passes, consumer merges in branch, and publishes new pact as master` is the step where a WIP pact is converted to a concrete one?

mats.lundkvist

2018-07-25 13:26

Hi, I have an issue with providers test in go with json pact generated in java. My go tests cannot find the state when the json looks like this ```"providerStates": [ { "name": "this is my state" } ]``` which is generated with pact-jvm but when I change to ```"providerState": "this is my state"``` it works. This is the metadata in the json ```"metadata": { "pactSpecification": { "version": "3.0.0" }, "pact-jvm": { "version": "3.5.19" } }``` Does anyone have an idea why it is like this?

antonello

2018-07-25 15:46

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-07-25 21:46

@mats.lundkvist because go doesn't support v2 pact specification yet.

bethskurrie

2018-07-25 21:47

The consumer will need to write a v2 pact for you.

bethskurrie

2018-07-25 21:47

Exactly @can

anthony.herman

2018-07-25 22:10

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-07-26 01:25

I think in the next release of Pact go, you may be able to use the v3 format, but it will ignore any v3 features it can't understand

niedra91

2018-07-26 07:43

Hi everybody! I?m trying to integrate Pact with a SCIM connector for the needs of a project. The development environment is Java + Maven. I checked out the Workshop project which helped me to understand the integration steps. Using this project and the pact-jvm project, I could successfully write a UT for the connector using Pact Mock Server. I described the Pact using Java 8 Lambda. At this point, I wanna go further and: 1/ Incorporate matchers for the Pact 2/ ?Build? the Pact as json data, as it?s done within the workshop project, but from the Java-8 DSL. I don?t need at the moment to automatically export the generated Pact to the provider through the pact broker. 3/ Test the generated pact against the real provider. I?m kind of stucked here. 1/ I looked in the matchers sub-project of pact-jvm, but could find only Scala or Kotlin classes. Are there any matchers for the Java DSL? Where could I find revelant documentation? 2/ I didn?t see any way to build the Pact in java. Is there a sample maven plugin available? Thanks in advance for your support :slightly_smiling_face: *edit*: copied to #general2

uglyog

2018-07-26 08:59

@niedra91 Are you asking how to define a matcher on an attribute in the Java-8 DSL?

niedra91

2018-07-26 09:00

Yes indeed :slightly_smiling_face:

uglyog

2018-07-26 09:01

There are methods in the DSL (like `stringValue` or `stringMatcher`) that will add the appropriate matcher

uglyog

2018-07-26 09:03

Not sure I understand what you mean by "?Build? the Pact as json data". Do you mean generate the pact file?

niedra91

2018-07-26 09:05

yes indeed

niedra91

2018-07-26 09:06

where could I find the documentation for these methods or the package name so that I could browse it directly into my IDE?

niedra91

2018-07-26 09:13

You mean the methods from PactDslRootValue and PactDslJsonRootValue in au.com.dius.pact.consumer.dsl I guess?

uglyog

2018-07-26 09:14

Documentation is https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/blob/master/pact-jvm-consumer-java8/README.md and https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/blob/master/pact-jvm-consumer-junit/README.md#building-json-bodies-with-pactdsljsonbody-dsl

uglyog

2018-07-26 09:15

`PactDslJsonBody` would be the one to look at

niedra91

2018-07-26 09:15

:thumbsup:

niedra91

2018-07-26 09:15

Thanks :slightly_smiling_face:

pikestar

2018-07-26 09:25

has joined #general

pikestar

2018-07-26 09:33

Hello, I'm introducing Pact where I work and am starting with creating unit tests on the front end app - a React app. I'm new to front end development and JS. I have followed the guide on install and setup and have a test written however on running 'npm run pactTest', I get the following error:

pikestar

2018-07-26 09:34

my pactSetup.js lives here: /Users/adampike/web-project/packages/app

pikestar

2018-07-26 09:36

my package.json lives in the same directory and the script is:

uglyog

2018-07-26 09:37

is there a `pactSetup.js` file in /Users/adampike/web-project/packages/app/src?

pikestar

2018-07-26 09:37

No. it seems lke the rootDir is wrong and should be up one level

uglyog

2018-07-26 09:38

oh, yeah, maybe try `--setupFiles ../pactSetup.js`

pikestar

2018-07-26 09:38

ok thanks

pikestar

2018-07-26 09:40

yep worked :+1:

pikestar

2018-07-26 09:40

thanks

nicolas.clertan

2018-07-26 15:58

has joined #general

dipjyotimetia

2018-07-27 04:10

has joined #general

kurst03

2018-07-27 04:31

has joined #general

ashish.dubey91

2018-07-27 07:50

Hi guys. I have a question - is there any way to generate an HTTP client out of a pact definition?

bethskurrie

2018-07-27 07:50

No. Can you explain your usecase?

ashish.dubey91

2018-07-27 07:52

so imagine a consumer defines a contract. as part of the contract it defines how it sends the request. This data is also used by pact-verifier I'm guessing when it builds the requests to the provider for verification. What I want is a method by which I can write an HTTP client that sends this request to the provider

bethskurrie

2018-07-27 07:54

Can you explain more about what you're trying to achieve?

ashish.dubey91

2018-07-27 07:56

sure. I have an Android app which defines a contract test for the backend API at a URL /v1/someapi, with some specific headers. Now I want to write some integration tests for this backend API for which I'd have to make the same request with the same headers. I wondered if I could re-use the contract definition to make this easier

bethskurrie

2018-07-27 07:58

You could easily write some code to parse the file and turn the request definitions into a live request, and then execute each request.

bethskurrie

2018-07-27 07:58

I wouldn't recommend it though.

bethskurrie

2018-07-27 07:59

Contract tests have different aims to functional tests.

bethskurrie

2018-07-27 07:59

And you'd be coupling your functional tests to the requests the consumer defines in the pact file.

bethskurrie

2018-07-27 08:00

https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/consumer/contract_tests_not_functional_tests

bethskurrie

2018-07-27 08:01

Please read the above explanation about the difference.

ashish.dubey91

2018-07-27 08:03

that's true I've read this one. This thought started when we were discussing the possibility to start using swagger for documenting APIs and then being able to easily generate clients for those APIs

ashish.dubey91

2018-07-27 08:05

but it also occurred that we've tried out pact and it seems useful for contract testing so we're definitely going to be using it a lot it seems. And since request definition is quite tight in a contract test (which is also what pact docs recommend) it's quite possible to re-use that metadata to generate these API clients

ashish.dubey91

2018-07-27 08:06

functional tests I agree ideally should be decoupled from these contract test definitions

ashish.dubey91

2018-07-27 08:08

but for folks in the team who might want to play with the API for some reason, I thought these could be useful

antonello

2018-07-27 10:39

Hi all! I have a question / some thoughts around verifying responses by type only, using matchers, and wanting to be more strict for particular fields. If I decorate the whole response body with a `like`, can I then override that and make sure a specific field is verified also by value?

bethskurrie

2018-07-27 12:04

You can override it with a regex, just make it match exactly.

antonello

2018-07-27 12:14

Thanks @bethskurrie. So a `term` matcher nested within a `like` matcher will win, is that correct?

niedra91

2018-07-27 17:32

For those who may have been wondering, the PACT was generated for the last UT to be runned inside the ?pacts? directory of my build directory. Although I had two pacts described, one different in each UT, there were not combined. I guess I need to set one unique PACT with various interactions for the whole Test class instead.

bethskurrie

2018-07-27 23:02

Yes

matt

2018-07-28 21:38

> if these pacts fail verification, they won't fail the build may be a bit late to the party, in JUnit this is called `Ignore`

bethskurrie

2018-07-29 21:32

Ta. I'm not sure if I can call the feature "ignore pacts" though!

bethskurrie

2018-07-29 21:32

"ignore failure pacts" is accurate, but a bit clunky.

antonello

2018-07-30 08:32

Thanks!

mark.bridgett

2018-07-30 12:11

Hey there. Anyone know how I can get my Java provider tests to output the full provider response? I'm trying to debug a failed test and would like to see what my service is sending back that is failing. All I have to go on at the moment is this output which doesn't help much : $.some_property -> [{mismatch=Expected List() to have minimum 1, diff=}]

can

2018-07-30 12:13

Hi Mark! I think the folks over at #pact-jvm might be better equipped to help you :slightly_smiling_face:

mark.bridgett

2018-07-30 12:19

Ahh, i'll try there thanks :slightly_smiling_face:

antonello

2018-07-30 14:17

I had the same issue the other day when I was playing with a failure when using an `eachLike` matcher.

oswald.quek

2018-07-30 16:06

hello. in a pact consumer test, is there a way to manually verify a call to a certain endpoint was called x number of times? use case: calling an endpoint on our consumer service (and passing it an auth token in the header) causes it to call another authentication service (the provider). however we're caching the valid tokens on the consumer service so i want to verify that making calling the endpoint multiple times only causes the authentication service to be called once.

can

2018-07-30 16:11

Hmmm. I'm not an expert at this but that doesn't strictly sound like a contract test. Looking forward to what others say!

oswald.quek

2018-07-30 16:19

well there's a contract between the consumer service and the authentication service for sure

matt

2018-07-30 16:21

maybe "Ignore failures"

matt.fellows

2018-07-30 21:34

Yeah, this is better served with traditional unit tests and not worth Pact.

bethskurrie

2018-07-30 22:22

@mats.lundkvist did you get this sorted?

bethskurrie

2018-07-30 22:22

Did you get a chance to read this @can? I'd love any feedback you have.

bethskurrie

2018-07-30 22:27

@liran.tal I came across a use case that demonstrates why you have to be very careful if you put a build number in the version. If you have a webhook that triggers a provider build when the pact changes, you'll end up building a particular SHA of the provider multiple times. If your provider is both a consumer and a provider, you need to make sure that this build publishes its own pacts when it does the verification, otherwise the "latest" version of the provider will have the verification results, but no pacts. This means that when you come to deploy that version `can-i-deploy` will say "NO!".

jarrodlilkendey

2018-07-31 01:53

has joined #general

richard.jones

2018-07-31 05:49

Hi folks, we?re seeing a very strange pact verification failure here in the Java verifer: https://gist.github.com/richard-reece/85d58d296aa8e4806bd59496a39780d1 - so even though our pact is specifying matching by type, I think the verifier is failing because the values don?t match.

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 05:51

That does not look like that Java verifier

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 05:51

It looks like the ruby one, and it only supports v2

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 05:51

If your pact is in v3 format, it won't work.

richard.jones

2018-07-31 05:52

Oh! Sorry, I?m passing on information second-hand from our Java dev here. I?ll clarify with him?

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 05:52

Hm. The matching rules look like v2.

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 05:54

And I take it back - the verifier output has a slight difference to the ruby.

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 05:54

I didn't realise it copied the output so closely.

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 05:55

There might be a bug in the Java type comparison for boolean

richard.jones

2018-07-31 05:55

Ah, righto.

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 05:56

It should be identifying the pact spec version from the file, but there might be a problem with that.

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 05:56

Also, lets move this to a thread.

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 05:57

Can you see any output that says which pact spec version is being used?

richard.jones

2018-07-31 05:58

I?m asking :slightly_smiling_face:

richard.jones

2018-07-31 06:06

I think the Java dev has gone for the day, thanks for trying to help tho.

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 06:15

Can you make sure they're running the latest version tomorrow (I'm not sure what that is)

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 06:15

@uglyog can probably help you more, but he's stuck in a basement with no reception at the moment!

richard.jones

2018-07-31 06:16

ouch for @uglyog :confused:

imran.khan2

2018-07-31 07:16

has joined #general

imran.khan2

2018-07-31 07:17

Hey folks

imran.khan2

2018-07-31 07:18

I was looking for some help with pact usage in the java ecosystem

imran.khan2

2018-07-31 07:19

Is this the right place for those types of questions?

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 07:22

Best place to ask is #pact-jvm @imran.khan2

imran.khan2

2018-07-31 07:23

Thanks @bethskurrie

can

2018-07-31 07:49

From my discussions internally with @antonello, we'd found it to fit the process quite nicely! His feedback would be most valuable, though.

oswald.quek

2018-07-31 08:49

yeah after sleeping on it last night i think so too. thanks.

uglyog

2018-07-31 09:30

Hmm, that doesn?t look right. You?ll need to enable debug logging to see what is going on

antonello

2018-07-31 10:55

Just to make sure I understand correctly: 1) a WIP pact is a pact tagged with a feature branch name that has not yet been successfully verified (ie. either there are no verification results, or the verification failed). 2) any pact that is tagged as `master` will not be considered a WIP pact and the provider pipeline will fail if the verification fails

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 10:55

`master` is just an example name

antonello

2018-07-31 10:56

ok, it will be configurable

antonello

2018-07-31 10:56

because my next question was going to be what if you want to force build failure for more than one branch (for example `master` and `release_candidate_v1.1.1`)

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 10:56

1 is almost correct - it's the "latest" of any tag that is not configured to be verified by the provider.

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 10:57

Usually, the provider has certain tags it chooses to verify - eg `master` and `prod`. WIP pacts are any that are the latest of their tags that aren't in the set of names the provider has chosen to verify.

antonello

2018-07-31 10:57

right, which answers my question above your last message.

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 10:58

Basically we take the list of all the head pacts that have no successful verifications, and remove the pacts that the provider is about to verify.

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 10:59

The one thing I haven't solved yet is what to do with pacts that never get successfully verified, and will never be verified because they are wrong, or the functionality has been decided not to be implemented.

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 11:00

We either need a clean up function, or the ability to remove them from the WIP set when running the verifications.

antonello

2018-07-31 13:08

I went to a meeting and just caught up with the messages now and I?m still a bit confused. I?ll try to give an example.

antonello

2018-07-31 14:08

In the processing of trying to write an example, I was wondering if it may be a useful feature to be able to specify an additional criterion for a webhook based on a list of tags. In other words, make it possible to only trigger a webhook if a pact with a specific tag (or list of tags) has changed.

antonello

2018-07-31 14:23

If that was possible, you could create a specific webhook so that, if a consumer publishes a changed pact from a feature branch (tagging it as `consumer_branch_1`), the pact can be verified by a specific provider branch, which will only verify pacts tagged as `consumer_branch_1`.

oswald.quek

2018-07-31 14:26

so my team ran into a problem recently, and I would like to check if there is a bug with the pact broker, or if our build pipeline is faulty... 1. we have a consumer service and a provider service, both of which have already been deployed to our test, staging and production environments. versions of both services are tagged with "test", "staging" and "production" respectively. 2. we changed the consumer pact to add more interactions and committed to master branch. (API wasn't changed on the provider service). our master build also automatically deploys to the test environment, but this failed because can-i-deploy said we couldn't deploy. makes sense because at this point there is no provider service deployed tagged with "test" that verifies the new consumer pact. 4. this was resolved by re-building the provider service (which A. pulls the new consumer pact from its master branch B. runs the provider tests and tells the pact broker the new pact is verified and C. sets a new version for the provider) and re-deploying (which tags the provider with "test"). the consumer service could then be deployed. 5. for the staging/production environment however, re-deploying the provider service first failed because can-i-deploy blocked the deploy of the provider service. i guess this is expected because for the new version of the provider, there is a new interaction from the consumer side, even though nothing has changed in the provider. note that do we not re-run provider contracts tests on the staging and production deployment builds. so we have a chicken-and-egg scenario - we can't deploy the consumer, because there's no corresponding provider tagged with "staging/production", but we can't deploy the provider, because there's no corresponding consumer tagged with "staging/production". what's the solution and/or what is wrong with my build pipeline? thanks.

nabrosimova

2018-07-31 17:58

has joined #general

nabrosimova

2018-07-31 18:05

Hi, I am trying to figure out how to do file_upload in ruby. Both provider and consumer are written in ruby. I did see pact-jvm examples with scala. But really need examples of how .i can set it up in ruby

nabrosimova

2018-07-31 20:39

@channel

clasalle

2018-07-31 21:24

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-07-31 21:49

@nabrosimova I can see you posting in a few channels here. The Ruby channel is probably the most appropriate place for this. That being said have you read through the FAQ, including https://docs.pact.io/faq#how-do-i-test-binary-files-in-responses-such-as-a-download?

matt.fellows

2018-07-31 21:50

In short, testing the actual body is not a recommended practice (but is possible). You can?t use matchers either.

nabrosimova

2018-07-31 21:55

@matt.fellows see I'm trying to upload file with post request which is a bit different problem than download

matt.fellows

2018-07-31 21:55

What?s the problem/difference?

matt.fellows

2018-07-31 21:56

If we take away the actual binary payload, the problems are quite similar. Our advice would be to set the correct path, mime types etc. and test those, ignoring the specific payload contents

nabrosimova

2018-07-31 21:58

well provider has to receive media, and send back it's id and status. the response part is just text but i need media to make the actual api call on the provider side

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 22:06

@antonello I've been expecting someone to ask for that eventually.

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 22:06

I'll put it on the backlog

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 22:08

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/issues/224

bethskurrie

2018-07-31 22:11

@oswald.quek I will sit down and work through your scenario as soon as I have a moment.

richard.jones

2018-07-31 22:23

@uglyog the spec version 2 pact should be compatible, yeah?

richard.jones

2018-07-31 22:24

sorry it?s not in that gist (I didn?t want to paste the entire pact, there?s a dozen interactions in it) but the version is declared at the end ?metadata?: { ?pactSpecification?: { ?version?: ?2.0.0" } }

zb582

2018-08-01 02:27

has joined #general

thirumal.net

2018-08-01 06:20

PACT Verifier Issue

thirumal.net

2018-08-01 06:21

i am able to mock using mock service but when i try to verify the mock against the provider, it is throwing error. instead of mocking total service response, i did mock only one item. can you please help me what might be the issue ? Mocking Code : def test_callAPI (self): url = 'http://localhost:1234' expected = {'class': 'HealthCheck'} pact.given ( 'sending a request to url' ). upon_receiving ( 'class name should match with HealthCheck' ). with_request ( 'get', '/' ). will_respond_with ( 200,body=expected) with pact: result = callAPI ( url ) self.assertEqual ( result,expected )' *Mock JSON* : '{ "consumer": { "name": "consumer" }, "provider": { "name": "provider" }, "interactions": [ { "description": "a request for the health check", "providerState": "the health of the system is OK", "request": { "method": "get", "path": "/" }, "response": { "status": 200, "headers": { }, "body": { "class": "HealthCheck" } } } ], "metadata": { "pactSpecification": { "version": "2.0.0" } } }' *Real Service Provider Response* : '{ "class": [ "HealthCheck" ], "properties": { "timestamp": "2018-08-01T00:10:00+0000", "systemName": "Test", "buildInfo": { "buildDate": "2018-07-27T07:38:19+0000", "appVersion": "1111", "revision": "2 ", "branch": "develop" }, "health": "OK", "checks": [] }, "links": [ { "rel": [ "self" ], "href": " check" } ] }' i am trying to check only one item from real service response .getting below Error when running against real provider : *Failure/Error: expect(response_body).to match_term expected_response_body, diff_options Encoding::UndefinedConversionError: "\xE2" from ASCII-8BIT to UTF-8***

timothy.clifford

2018-08-01 06:28

Um, is it because your real service provider is returning `{ class: [ "HealthCheck" ] ...}` instead of `{class: "HealthCheck"}`?

thirumal.net

2018-08-01 06:40

@timothy.clifford -Thanks, Yes , real service is giving class: [ "HealthCheck" ] so i have changed my mock url = 'http://localhost:1234' expected = {'class': ['HealthCheck']} but unfortunately same error is coming

thirumal.net

2018-08-01 06:44

@timothy.clifford - am i doing correct for just checking only item from real service response , even though it gives 3 items ? Thank you in Advance

timothy.clifford

2018-08-01 06:46

try it with both and see what happens? �\_(?)_/�

matt.fellows

2018-08-01 06:48

@thirumal.net you probably want to use Matchers to match array contents: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-python#eachlikematcher-minimum1

matt.fellows

2018-08-01 06:48

If you expect exactly 1 element, but get back 3 it will fail. This matcher says ?I want an array to contain _at least one_ of these types of elements?

matt.fellows

2018-08-01 06:49

that being said, almost certainly there is another problem going on. It seems to be related to encoding.

matt.fellows

2018-08-01 06:50

I suggest we move this to #pact-python where you can get python specific help

thirumal.net

2018-08-01 07:06

@matt.fellows -Thanks, i have changed mock code as you mentioned 'def test_callAPI (self): url = 'http://localhost:1234' expected = EachLike({'class': ["HealthCheck"]}, minimum=1) pact.given ( 'the health of the system is OK' ).upon_receiving ( 'a request for the health check' ).with_request ( 'get', '/' ).will_respond_with (200, body=expected ) with pact: result = callAPI ( url ) self.assertEqual ( result, expected )' after doing this code change two things happened 1) mock was generated 2) even though mock creation successfull, there is error showing in mock it self *AssertionError: [{'class': ['HealthCheck']}] != <pact.matchers.EachLike object at 0x07244E90>*

thirumal.net

2018-08-01 07:07

if i execute the pact verifier same below errors are coming

thirumal.net

2018-08-01 07:07

* 1) Verifying a pact between consumer and provider Given the health of the system is OK a request for the health check with GET / returns a response which has status co de 200 Failure/Error: expect(response_status).to eql expected_response_status expected: 200 got: 403 (compared using eql?) 2) Verifying a pact between consumer and provider Given the health of the system is OK a request for the health check with GET / returns a response which has a matchin g body Failure/Error: expect(response_body).to match_term expected_response_body, diff_options Encoding::UndefinedConversionError: "\xE2" from ASCII-8BIT to UTF-8 1 interaction, 1 failure *

matt.fellows

2018-08-01 07:14

Please avoid posting all of this to general, at the very least keep it contained to a thread. Let?s move it to Pact Python - it?s not something everyone can help with

thirumal.net

2018-08-01 07:20

Sorry @matt.fellows. sure, Lets move to pactpython .i have asked the same question over there .

oswald.quek

2018-08-01 08:44

@bethskurrie thanks. maybe the solution is to have an option to disable can-i-deploy on a deploy of the provider if we know nothing has changed.

bethskurrie

2018-08-01 09:07

@oswald.quek you say "C. sets a new version for the provider" What are you using for your version number? Do you have a build number in there?

bethskurrie

2018-08-01 09:12

Which tags does your provider verify?

bethskurrie

2018-08-01 09:12

Just so you don't have to wait another day for me to reply, I'll give you a couple of potential problems/fixes.

bethskurrie

2018-08-01 09:14

Your provider should be configured to verify `test`, `staging`, `production` (and `master` if that's what you call your main development branch). Also, your version number should not contain a build number. I'll see if I can work out how to explain this.

bethskurrie

2018-08-01 09:18

If you are changing the provider version with every build, but you aren't verifying the test/staging/production pacts with every build, you won't have a verification result that links those versions of the consumer with the latest provider.

bsayers

2018-08-01 09:27

Feel free to direct me to the right place to ask this if in here is wrong: We recently had an incident that spawned a debate on what is and is not the responsibility of Pact to detect. The incident was caused by a client who set the request content type header to ?application/json? (which by default has an encoding of utf-8) but it then encoded the request body using a different charset (ISO-8859-1). When the consumer side tests using pact were run they passed and recorded a pact file, but at this point the charset of the request body had been changed by pact as it saves the body within a utf-8 encoded json file, so we are not able to detect this issue via the pact file. So with green pact tests we deployed and the production provider rejected the requests with a http 400 response. So my question is should Pact be responsible for failing on the consumer side when the requests content encoding and the request body encoding do not match? Or should Pact be recording the requests more precisely (a much bigger deal as changing the pact format is hard)? What is the philosophy on what Pact should and should not be validating?

bethskurrie

2018-08-01 09:29

That's a tricky one. Ideally, I'd like to say Pact could catch that, but we often have issues with anything that's not UTF-8 encoded.

bethskurrie

2018-08-01 09:30

TBH, I thought application/json had to be UTF-8 encoded.

bethskurrie

2018-08-01 09:30

I'm quite willing to be corrected on that though.

bethskurrie

2018-08-01 09:31

I suspect the answer is, it would be great if it could, but it may be too technically difficult.

bethskurrie

2018-08-01 09:32

I don't think you can mix file encodings, so having a ISO-8859-1 encoded body inside a UTF-8 pact file would seem impossible to me.

bethskurrie

2018-08-01 09:33

Maybe we should detect and warn about that scenario.

bsayers

2018-08-01 09:39

I agree detecting it on the provider side via a pact file is difficult, you?d have to find a way of encoding the file without losing the information. I can imagine options where the encoding that was used is saved separately and the pact replay mechanism knows how to reproduce that encoding during verification. What are your thoughts on detecting this on the consumer side? Should pact attempt to detect bad requests based on basic knowledge of http?

bethskurrie

2018-08-01 09:39

If you can suggest some reasonable logic, I'd be ok with adding it.

bethskurrie

2018-08-01 09:40

Could your scenario have been detected on the consumer side though? If it was a default, rather than an explicit encoding?

bsayers

2018-08-01 09:41

In our case the logic that rejected the request came from a framework rather then provider specific code

bethskurrie

2018-08-01 09:42

We could warn "hey, you're using something that's not utf-8 and that's not normal", but there's nothing apart from convention to make that warning on.

bsayers

2018-08-01 09:42

So some generic sever code looked at the request and decided it was invalid

bsayers

2018-08-01 09:44

That might prevent some incidents, although our experience tells us warnings are ignored more often then not.

bethskurrie

2018-08-01 09:44

I agree.

bethskurrie

2018-08-01 09:45

I would never suggest that contract tests can or should be able to identify every integration issue - I think in this case, if you think it's worth trying to come up with a technical solution, we can raise a card for it, or we can say, the effort required for adding this is not proportional to the risk of not having it.

bsayers

2018-08-01 09:50

Ok so your main concerns are around cost and complexity of implementing such checks

bsayers

You are ok with the idea of Pact ensuring requests are valid in terms of http in principal

bsayers

Have I got that right?

bethskurrie

Yes, I think so. Others may disagree!

bethskurrie

https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1533720212000332

In principle, I'd like to see encoding faithfully represented, however, I'm unsure of the effort/reward ratio.

bsayers

2018-08-01 09:53

Hmm I see a difference between capturing the request faithfully vs detecting the request is no good up front and just refusing to record it

bsayers

2018-08-01 09:53

Do you have a preference?

bethskurrie

2018-08-01 09:54

Yes - the second one is much easier!

bethskurrie

2018-08-01 09:54

Seeing as you're the first team who has encountered this issue that we know of, I'd say the effort/number of people affected ratio is much better for the second option.

bethskurrie

2018-08-01 09:57

Gtg, but can chat more later.

matt.fellows

2018-08-01 11:08

hi all, I?d like to announce that I?ll be in the US later this year for re:Invent: - San Francisco: 19th-24th November - Las Vegas: 25th Nov - 1st Dec (re:Invent) The plan is to get to a few meetups in SF and also to run some hands-on workshops. If anybody would like to catch up, attend a workshop or digitally hangout in a local timezone, please DM me - I?d :heart: to chat! (P.S. I?m one of the core contributors and are in constant comms with other core contributors, in case you were thinking ?who the **** is that guy??)

hstene

2018-08-01 11:16

Very cool!

mats.lundkvist

2018-08-01 15:26

@bethskurrie right now we're doing it manually but I'll have a look after my vacation, thank you for the help :)

oswald.quek

2018-08-01 15:37

when I say "C. sets a new version for the provider", I lie! it's just the git commit sha of the latest commit. in this case, it happens there were new commits (non-API related) on the provider side.

oswald.quek

2018-08-01 15:41

actually, i'm not sure why step 4 worked for me. even though i rebuilt the provider here, i'm not sure how can-i-deploy gave it the green light for the provider to be deployed? (we're asking the pact broker whether we can deploy the provider where the tag is "test")

oswald.quek

2018-08-01 15:46

because when i rebuilt the provider (which runs the provider tests), it fetches the consumer pact where tag is "master" and presumably publishes verification where the tag is "master". so I don't know how it got deployed to the test environment, because we're asking can-i-deploy whether we can deploy the provider where the tag is "test"

oswald.quek

2018-08-01 15:47

when you say my provider should be configured to verify `test`, `staging`, `production` and `master` should that be happening in step 4 where I run the provider build?

balthasarbiedermann

2018-08-01 18:28

has joined #general

tushar.gavhane

2018-08-02 04:05

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-08-02 07:13

Yes.

bethskurrie

2018-08-02 07:13

That's your problem.

bethskurrie

2018-08-02 07:14

If you only verify master, then there is no verification result between the current test, staging or production consumer versions.

bethskurrie

2018-08-02 07:14

So can I deploy will return false.

bethskurrie

2018-08-02 07:17

Have you read this? https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRf1kSDccImNipOOm1G-bjcSs-ifbZjf1v54K-dIcq8BLKeFPAAm_bf_p71UKqkRMIx30QWWL-kN8TI/pub

oswald.quek

2018-08-02 08:36

yes that makes sense! thanks for all your help.

bethskurrie

2018-08-02 08:37

fatih.kuyucuoglu

2018-08-02 09:35

has joined #general

fatih.kuyucuoglu

2018-08-02 10:06

Hi all, I have a question about the @PactFilter annotation. I need to run a method after a specific state in provider test. In my case the only way to do this is separating the test states in different test classes and using @After annotation for that specific state. Anyway, to get this behaviour, I use the @PactFilter. Everything works fine, but the verification results are not published, I get this message "Skipping publishing of verification results as the interactions have been filtered". Is it possible to publish the verification results of filtered states? If I can not publish the verification results, what is the goal of @PactFilter annotation? Thanks in advance for your support :slightly_smiling_face:

shekharsp27

2018-08-02 10:37

@fatih.kuyucuoglu are you using latest version of pact?

fatih.kuyucuoglu

2018-08-02 10:47

Hi Shekhar i am using the version, which is https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm here given as latest. So: Version 3.5.19

uglyog

2018-08-02 10:47

The provider states support a teardown call, which will be invoked afterwards. But it is not implemented for JUnit. Maybe raise an issue for this.

uglyog

2018-08-02 10:58

If the test execution is filtered, the verification results will not be published. This is because the verification status is for the entire pact file.

fatih.kuyucuoglu

2018-08-02 11:05

Hi uglyog thanks for the quick answer. :slightly_smiling_face: Could you give me some clue, starting point, i would like to try to find a solution for that. I will create also an issue.

balthasarbiedermann

2018-08-02 12:30

I'm planning to implement a Kotlin DSL for Pact. My current proposal is in the #pact-jvm channel: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9UN99H24/p1533212507000007 *Feedback is very much appreciated*

mark.bridgett

2018-08-02 14:10

Anyone here use the pact-stub-server much?

matt.fellows

2018-08-02 21:10

I use it, what's up?

uglyog

2018-08-02 22:54

You can start looking at https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/blob/master/pact-jvm-provider-junit/src/main/kotlin/au/com/dius/pact/provider/junit/RunStateChanges.kt which executes the provider state callback

uglyog

2018-08-02 22:55

It will need to change to support a teardown call afterwards

sethimudit2002

2018-08-03 06:35

has joined #general

fatih.kuyucuoglu

2018-08-03 09:59

Thak you for the answer, i will look at this.

cparrish

2018-08-03 18:42

has joined #general

liran.tal

2018-08-05 18:03

I only put a build number in the version to transfer the pact contract from the unit/integration testing phase to the CI which needs to pull it again from the broker for E2E, when that?s done the contract with the build number as version becomes useless and I tag it as ?development? or ?production? and the consumer?s version which is semver (i.e: 2.1.0). any webhook triggers I will have will only work on the ?development? and ?production? contracts which use actual consumer version, never a build version.

liran.tal

2018-08-05 20:36

where-as the recommended pattern on the consumer side is to create the contracts during unit testing of the consumer?s http client implementation, I wonder what is the recommended approach on doing API testing on the consumer side (think `supertest` or `spring test mvc`) ? anything else beyond just mocking the http client call at that phase ?

dhanarajvallabhuni

2018-08-05 20:54

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-08-05 23:10

I think the answer is "whatever works for your situation". I've worked on MS where we didn't mock anything, and other services where we provided mock implementations of certain classes, and others where we used standard mocking frameworks.

david.dyke

2018-08-06 06:30

has joined #general

sgarvey

2018-08-06 11:22

has joined #general

tcanascimento

2018-08-07 14:28

has joined #general

emre.duendar

2018-08-07 14:35

has joined #general

joshua.haney

2018-08-07 15:39

has joined #general

liran.tal

2018-08-07 19:26

to clarify, when I said API testing I referred to integration tests (not e2e test for the server-side). - when you say one option was to not mock anything do you mean you used CDC to make a real request and return stubbed responses? I?m thinking that I can re-use the same mocks that will be used for the unit test in the integration tests.

conallbennett

2018-08-07 22:12

has joined #general

rabih

2018-08-08 09:16

has joined #general

rabih

2018-08-08 09:23

Hello, I am using pact for contract testing for our microservices built in golang. I have added some integration tests in a consumer and added build integration tests to CircleCI. I am using hosted pact broker http://pact.dius.com.au. The issue is that the tests are running without updating the contracts in the broker. Any help regarding this issue or any one have worked with integrating pact with CircleCI :question:

antonello

2018-08-08 09:25

I imagine your code is explicitly publishing your pacts?

rabih

2018-08-08 09:39

after adding the interactions, yes I am publishing pacts with the pact broker settings

antonios.klimis

2018-08-08 09:41

has joined #general

rabih

2018-08-08 10:53

ci config : service-integration: <<: *defaults environment: PACT_BROKER_HOST: ?https://.http://pact.dius.com.au/? PACT_BROKER_USERNAME: ?? PACT_BROKER_PASSWORD: ?? steps: - checkout - setup_remote_docker - run: name: Authenticate with GCR command: | docker login -u _json_key -p ?${}? https://eu.gcr.io - run: name: Create source volume command: | docker create -v ${CIRCLE_WORKING_DIRECTORY} --name source alpine:3.7 /bin/true docker cp ./ source:${CIRCLE_WORKING_DIRECTORY} - run: name: Running integration tests command: CONTAINER_NAME=service-integration make integration - run: name: Copying integration test results command: docker cp service-integration:${CIRCLE_WORKING_DIRECTORY}/test/. ./test - store_test_results: path: ./test destination: test - store_artifacts: path: ./test destination: test

antonello

2018-08-08 12:02

What do your logs say when the tests run?

rabih

2018-08-08 12:22

Consumer: ^@^@Running tests: === RUN TestGetTriggers --- PASS: TestGetTriggers (0.00s) === RUN TestGetTriggerByID --- PASS: TestGetTriggerByID (0.00s) === RUN TestGetTriggerByStatus --- PASS: TestGetTriggerByStatus (0.00s) === RUN Test_pactTriggerControlConsumer_CreateTriggerEvent --- PASS: Test_pactTriggerControlConsumer_CreateTriggerEvent (0.00s) === RUN Test_pactTriggerControlConsumer_TriggerCancelledEvent --- PASS: Test_pactTriggerControlConsumer_TriggerCancelledEvent (0.00s) === RUN Test_pactTriggerControlConsumer_TriggerDeletedEvent --- PASS: Test_pactTriggerControlConsumer_TriggerDeletedEvent (0.00s) === RUN Test_pactTriggerControlConsumer_TriggerErroredEvent --- PASS: Test_pactTriggerControlConsumer_TriggerErroredEvent (0.00s) === RUN Test_pactTriggerControlConsumer_TriggerFailedEvent --- PASS: Test_pactTriggerControlConsumer_TriggerFailedEvent (0.00s) === RUN Test_pactTriggerControlConsumer_TriggerCompletedEvent --- PASS: Test_pactTriggerControlConsumer_TriggerCompletedEvent (0.00s) === RUN TestPactProvider --- PASS: TestPactProvider (0.00s) PASS ok

rabih

2018-08-08 12:23

provider: ^@^@Running tests: === RUN Test_pactTriggerControlProvider_Verify --- PASS: Test_pactTriggerControlProvider_Verify (0.00s) PASS ok

matt.fellows

2018-08-08 12:28

Can you please share your test code? You need to explicitly set the verification to true

matt.fellows

2018-08-08 12:32

When you say "not updating in the broker" what do they mean. Contracts aren't being published from the consumer? Verification status not updating from the provider?

rabih

2018-08-08 12:43

both, contracts are not being updated or published and the verification status not updated

rabih

2018-08-08 12:59

req := types.PublishRequest{ PactURLs: []string{filepath.ToSlash(fmt.Sprintf(?%s/triggerconsumer-controlprovider.json?, pactDir))}, PactBroker: os.Getenv(?PACT_BROKER_HOST?), BrokerUsername: os.Getenv(?PACT_BROKER_USERNAME?), BrokerPassword: os.Getenv(?PACT_BROKER_PASSWORD?), ConsumerVersion: ?1.0.0?, Tags: []string{?latest?}, }

rabih

2018-08-08 12:59

pact.VerifyMessageConsumer(t, message, triggerCompletedHandlerWrapper) p := dsl.Publisher{} err := p.Publish(getRequest())

codypumper

2018-08-08 13:10

has joined #general

liran.tal

2018-08-08 13:10

@rabih on the consumer side, I advise to only do contract testing for unit testing the http client

rabih

2018-08-08 13:13

we are using it also for Message Queue integration testing

liran.tal

2018-08-08 13:17

MQ or HTTP, you probably want to unit test both. do you create the contracts through unit tests or integration tests ?

rabih

2018-08-08 13:20

through integration tests

liran.tal

2018-08-08 13:21

can you share more on how you do integration tests? are you actually hitting some endpoint to trigger the flow?

rabih

2018-08-08 13:22

when testing it without CI it is working, when the CircleCI build runs it is not

rabih

2018-08-08 13:23

liran.tal

2018-08-08 13:26

that doesn?t say much about how you are actually running and what you?re doing in integration tests. the problem is in the terminology - people mean different things when they say integration testing.

liran.tal

2018-08-08 13:27

regardless though, my input for you would be that you might be hitting 2 different providers in a single integration test flow and I noticed that this complicate and couples the flow

smuthaiah

2018-08-08 16:42

has joined #general

mbudde

2018-08-09 08:46

has joined #general

richard.hulm

2018-08-09 09:13

has joined #general

rabih

2018-08-09 15:24

the issue is resolved, by adding pact cli tools in the docker image

rabih

2018-08-09 15:24

however, I am getting this issue now unable to convert consumer test to a valid JSON representation: error creating message: exit status 127 STDERR: /go/lib/ruby/bin/ruby: line 6: /go/lib/ruby/bin.real/ruby: No such file or directory STDOUT:

rabih

2018-08-09 15:27

bethskurrie

2018-08-09 21:57

@rabih please ask questions about pact-go in the #pact-go channel.

bethskurrie

2018-08-09 21:59

Also, if you can provide a executable example, you will get better help.

such.su

2018-08-10 07:37

:wave:Does anyone know whether pact-python provides a matcher for matching or ignoring an object key?

bethskurrie

2018-08-10 08:26

In the consumer or provider?

bethskurrie

2018-08-10 08:27

You must specify all keys on the consumer side, and any key you don't specify will be ignored on the provider side.

such.su

2018-08-10 08:37

Consumer side. It seems pact-jvm supports this - https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/tree/version-4#ignoring-the-keys-in-a-map

such.su

2018-08-10 09:25

To be accurate, my question is exactly the same as this one - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/48317108/pact-python-matching-keys-in-response

bethskurrie

2018-08-10 11:49

This is not yet supported in python.

gergia

2018-08-10 17:06

has joined #general

davidmichaelkarr

2018-08-10 18:05

I haven't done much with pact-jvm yet, but I have a question about the json pact file. Our team has a different convention for the name of the pact file, and they've designed this somewhat messy AfterClass method that they want everyone to put in their tests, to rename the file. Is there a cleaner way to do this?

uglyog

2018-08-11 03:18

You can override it in code by extending the Pact model class. There is no configuration for the filename.

gaurav

2018-08-11 11:34

In defining mock for `BigDecimal`, I set type as decimal: `.decimalType("amount", new Decimal(100))`.. but on provider side (I am using mockMvc), it fails with `$.result.parent.0.child.0.amount -> Expected 100 to be a decimal number`. I am pretty sure that on provider side, `amount` in model is `BigDecimal` type. Should I set different type in mock definition? Anything I am doing wrong? Thanks.

gaurav

2018-08-11 13:11

Stacktrace for :point_up:

gaurav

2018-08-11 14:28

Changing to `numberType` worked!

simon.nizov

2018-08-12 09:00

has joined #general

liran.tal

2018-08-12 14:16

is it possible to define multiple responses (meaning they span across multiple requests made) for a single interaction? the purpose is to test API interactions like pagination or continuation tokens

liran.tal

2018-08-12 14:17

admittedly this is probably more of an internal test where I?d just mock the entire request entirely but having them on the same test suite (both mocking the request being made as well as not mocking it and doing an actual request to CDC) feels awkward a bit

liran.tal

2018-08-12 14:18

probably best practice is to mock this internally, let me know if you feel otherwise

antonello

2018-08-12 14:52

@liran.tal IMHO - even if you were able to specify multiple request/responses for one interaction with pact - it wouldn?t be a good idea. I?m not sure if this is what you mean when you say ?mock internally?, but I would simply have separate interaction and use the provider state for each one to make sure that you set up the state in the provider so that it returns what you need in each case.

liran.tal

2018-08-12 15:14

that?s what I?m saying too basically.. it?s more about testing internal handling (the consumer ms) of bulk requests. Not sure though what you meant about the provider state, because basically this is a single test case.

antonello

2018-08-12 15:19

Could you give an actual scenario of what the test is just to make sure I understand unambiguously?

antonello

2018-08-12 15:28

To me it sounds like you want to test a session in a single test.

liran.tal

2018-08-12 15:37

yeah of course. the use-case is where my provider has an API to get a list of items but I can?t request more than 10 in one request, so if I want to request 20 item ids I need to split that to sending 2 requests of 10.

antonello

2018-08-12 15:43

How different is the second request from the first one? I assume both responses will have the same contract.

liran.tal

2018-08-12 15:46

exactly. that?s why I?m saying it?s probably an internal logic test for the consuming microservice

antonello

2018-08-12 15:54

If the two requests are different though, there may be a case for some contract testing. It?s difficult to say without an actual example.

liran.tal

2018-08-12 16:52

while I see that query param arrays are supported through `query: { ids: ['1', '2'] }` which translates to `/someapi?ids=1&ids=2` is it possible to specify a query param array list with the [] notation? i.e: `/someapi?ids[]=1&ids[]=2` ?

bernardo.guerreiro

2018-08-12 19:43

has joined #general

wilkin4

2018-08-12 19:56

has joined #general

david.j.smith

2018-08-12 20:17

Scala-Pact versions `2.2.5` (SBT 0.13.x) and `2.3.2` (SBT 1.x) released. http://io.itv.com/scala-pact/change-log.html

bethskurrie

2018-08-13 00:03

Nice work @david.j.smith

bethskurrie

2018-08-13 00:05

Hm. With which implementation @liran.tal?

bethskurrie

2018-08-13 00:05

Anything that wraps the ruby expects array param names to have square brackets at the end.

lindblad.n

2018-08-13 07:26

has joined #general

liran.tal

2018-08-13 07:59

I?m referring to the javascript/node implementation. maybe @matt.fellows knows more about how to specify an array for the `ids[]=1` type of notation

such.su

2018-08-13 08:30

Got it. Thanks.

matt.fellows

2018-08-13 11:33

Ah, there was an issue with this. I?ll dig it up

liran.tal

2018-08-13 11:35

ahh thanks

liran.tal

2018-08-13 11:35

for now I just hardcoded `query: 'id[]=1'` but would like to find a fix for it which allows me to dynamically compose the query with use of matchers

matt.fellows

2018-08-13 11:35

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/190

matt.fellows

2018-08-13 11:36

It might not be obvious, but the `eachLike` matcher works here - it?s an array too!

matt.fellows

2018-08-13 11:36

so something like ``` describe.only("get /dogs using builder pattern", () => { before(() => { const interaction = new Interaction() .given("I have a list of dogs") .uponReceiving("a request for all dogs") .withRequest({ method: "GET", path: "/dogs", headers: { Accept: "application/json", }, query: { param: eachLike("1"), }, }) .willRespondWith({ status: 200, headers: { "Content-Type": "application/json", }, body: EXPECTED_BODY, }); return provider.addInteraction(interaction); }); ``` should work

liran.tal

2018-08-13 11:37

not quite. this will create an expected interaction of query being like `param=1&param=2` which will not be compatible with my request using square brackets: `param[]=1&param[]=2`

liran.tal

2018-08-13 11:37

unless I?m mis-reading that issue (it?s quite long so maybe I missed something)

matt.fellows

2018-08-13 11:41

Hmm, let me doubl check this

matt.fellows

2018-08-13 11:47

you?re right.

matt.fellows

2018-08-13 11:47

so if you want the array notation, you can do this: ``` query: { 'param[]': eachLike("1"), }, ```

liran.tal

2018-08-13 11:56

thanks! I?ll try and will add to my to do list to update the docs and code examples for it

nathanrobert.smith

2018-08-13 12:34

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-08-13 13:16

That?d be amazing, thanks!!

amitojduggal

2018-08-13 14:47

has joined #general

antonello

2018-08-13 15:58

Hi all! One of the ?buts? that it?s often brought up when I talk to people about pact is: ?_But how do you make sure that the responses that you expect are up to date? What if you forget to add a field that you?ve recently started consuming?_? My usual answer is ?_There is no guarantee that you won?t forget, but it?s like adding any other type of test. If you forget to write a test for a specific scenario, you won?t be covered for that. It?s a matter of discipline, mixed with code inspections such as code reviews_?. However, I can understand why it may be useful to have some kind of mechanism to help you catch cases in which you forget to update your expected responses. The only way that I can think of, if for example you are lucky/unlucky enough to have some functional tests that mock provider responses, is to use the same responses for those tests and for your consumer pact tests. I am playing in my mind with the above idea and it would be very simple to achieve if your expected pact responses were json objects (which will certainly be if you?re using `pact-js`). However, it gets a little more complicated if you?re using matchers, in which case you would have to perform some kind of _reification_, similarly to what?s done here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-support/blob/master/lib/pact/reification.rb What do people think? Any reason why it may be a bad idea? Finally, should we want to port the reification logic, would you have recommended approaches?

liran.tal

2018-08-13 16:31

I hear you but I think your response to that was well put. Pact doesn't protect you from forgetting and it's not its goal and I'm concerned you might be complicating it too much if you'll try to do it

harris.osserman

2018-08-13 16:54

has joined #general

david.j.smith

2018-08-13 17:04

@antonello To go to the original question: ```"But how do you make sure that the responses that you expect are up to date? What if you forget to add a field that you've recently started consuming?"``` If you?re testing your client code correctly in your consumer tests**, and verifying the pacts against the provider? this should not be possible? (** This might be easier in a statically typed language because you would typically deserialise into a real Type, which is a way of proving that all the fields you expect are indeed there? - perhaps that?s what you meant by reification?)

antonello

2018-08-13 18:35

@david.j.smith That makes complete sense, it?s what the documentation recommends, but, as you say, it?s not easy in JavaScript, if at al possible. You may need to go quite high up the stack to actually have a degree of certainty, which would be impractical and make the tests quite complicated.

can

2018-08-13 18:39

Hey @antonello - As you know, my mission here is to Kotlin everything. Though I haven't used Kt/JS interop, it might make testing JS a little easier?

antonello

2018-08-13 18:41

It is the language of the application code that matters. Unless the front-end teams decide to re-write them or parts of them in kt, it probably won?t help. Typescript has started to be used though, which will help in the long term.

antonello

2018-08-13 18:46

Talking about js consumers, in order to test them you probably end up repeating mocked responses a lot. So having a way of removing the repetition and the pain of having to update responses in multiple places when they change would be something positive, imho. For the same reasons you?d want to use builders in strongly typed languages.

codypumper

2018-08-13 20:31

Our team has been able to use Typescript to define a type, then create an "expected object" of that type (letting the linter check for properties/types). Then, before creating the interaction, we take that expected object, and loop through its properties to apply the matchers and create yet another object which then gets passed to the Pact interaction.

antonello

2018-08-13 21:01

Interesting! Would you be able to provide an example?

abubics

2018-08-14 02:05

The pattern I use (and recommend) is to have a connector that converts the api client model (on-the-wire data model) into a application domain model, and asserting that it has the right shape and types in the Pact test. This lets Pact focus on the transport verification (in `given` and `when`), and the unit test focus on domain verification (the `then` part).

abubics

2018-08-14 02:06

How strict you want to be about types, etc, is up to the application developers. You can use typescript of flowtypes or whatever if you want better safety :slightly_smiling_face: All these concerns should be decoupled

paul.davies

2018-08-14 03:31

has joined #general

paul.davies

2018-08-14 04:18

Hi all, I'm pretty new to Pact and have checked the Stack Overflow but no luck with my problem. I'm having an issue with a Date query parameter which is handled by a DateTime argument resolver at runtime. When debugging my application I can hit the endpoint with this command: GET http://localhost:9090/plan/master/active?from_start_date=2018-08-01T22:00:00.000Z and I can see the date has been correctly interpreted, however when I run my Pact Provider test, which has this in the Pact contract:

2018-08-14 04:18

This message was deleted.

paul.davies

2018-08-14 04:18

~The date comes through as null~

bethskurrie

2018-08-14 04:19

Hi @paul.davies You'll get more focussed help if you ask in the channel for your language.

paul.davies

2018-08-14 04:19

Ah right, thanks. It'll be Java - I'll post there. Cheers!

antonello

2018-08-14 06:04

@matt.fellows What are your thoughts on this?

antonello

2018-08-14 08:06

@david.j.smith By reification in this context, which is what the class in the link does, I mean taking a body with matchers and transform the matchers into a response body without matchers.

simon.nizov

2018-08-14 08:18

Hi! Newcomer here. This project looks incredible so far :smile: I noticed that there is a LOT of useful ?theoretical? information present in the pact-ruby github wiki that I feel should be in the general docs at http://pact.io. For example, took me a while before I found this: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby/wiki/Provider-states which was very helpful to understand how provider verification works. I realize this probably happened because the ruby project was the first to be developed. Is there a plan to move this into the general docs? I can help out with the dirty work if someone can guide me on where to put things.

bethskurrie

2018-08-14 08:42

Hi @simon.nizov you're right about the ruby project having the documentation first, but most of it should have been migrated. For example, here are the provider state docs https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/provider_states

bethskurrie

2018-08-14 08:42

If there are things missing, please do let us know so we can move them. Always happy to accept PRs for improving the docs.

simon.nizov

2018-08-14 08:48

Ahh.. weird that I missed that one. I?ll keep an eye out, thanks!

david.j.smith

2018-08-14 09:03

Interesting. I had a similar idea ages ago? thanks for the description!

antonello

2018-08-14 09:09

That is exactly what?s done when a pact file is written. The matchers are stripped out, replaced by an example and matchers sections added to the pact json.

amitojduggal

2018-08-14 11:38

Hello guys, want to know what scheme or workflows everyone is using for the service that is being consumed by the UI interfaces and not by another service. For example, Provider: P Consumer: UI Interface. So the provider tests will be kept in the codebase for "P" but what about the Consumer Test, which service repository should those be kept in? if its an app. Should those be kept as part of android/ios code base?

matt.fellows

2018-08-14 12:24

Tests belong with their code

matt.fellows

2018-08-14 12:26

That's a good starting point unless you have a good train not to

matt.fellows

2018-08-14 12:28

Help is always welcome though, and that website is fully managed in GitHub. If you see small things feel free to send a PR but for big things maybe have a chat in #documentation first

simon.nizov

2018-08-14 12:30

Already did a couple of days ago :wink: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact.io/pull/58

simon.nizov

2018-08-14 14:52

Is there a way to share matchers between services? Imagine you have domain-specific rules that you?d like to use as matchers across multiple services, written in different languages. For example, the ID of a quote must start with ?Q-?.

codypumper

2018-08-14 14:56

Sure! Our metadata call tests call that responds with our "MetadataRes" type: ```// Metadata for SS35538_35538_29885250, "If the Color Changes" const expectedMetadataObject: MetadataRes = { 'title': 'If the Color Changes', 'category_name': '', 'icc_profile_loc': null, ... } // We want to use Pact to verify the types of the properties on the response let matcherMetadataObject = {} Object.keys(expectedMetadataObject).forEach( (key) => { matcherMetadataObject[key] = Matchers.somethingLike(expectedMetadataObject[key]) })``` Where `expectedMetadataObject` is a sample object of that form. And in this case we're testing the form of the top level properties on the response, so we loop through the values, and add matchers for each one to `matcherMetadataObject`, which is then used in: ``` willRespondWith: { status: 200, headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json' }, body: matcherMetadataObject }```

codypumper

2018-08-14 14:58

The `MetadataRes` type is used for this response within our app, so expectations of properties are pretty solid and consistent

codypumper

2018-08-14 14:59

@simon.nizov Something like a shared Regex library could handle that pretty well?

simon.nizov

2018-08-14 15:00

What if the services are written in different languages?

antonello

2018-08-14 15:06

:thumbsup:

antonello

2018-08-14 15:13

@codypumper if you?re applying a `somethingLike` to all properties, why not just decorate the whole object with `like`?

sandeep.seshadri

2018-08-14 15:18

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-08-14 22:52

:ok_hand:

dagarwal

2018-08-15 06:42

Hi ,is it possible to create interactions in JS like this ?matchingRules?: { ?$.query.var1[0]?: { ?match?: ?regex?, ?regex?: ?.*? }, ?$.query.var2[0]?: { ?match?: ?regex?, ?regex?: ?.*? },

dagarwal

2018-08-15 06:42

what should i pass in var 2 that my two api calls are successful

dagarwal

2018-08-15 06:43

http://localhost:${PORT}/api/objects?var1=0&var2=25 and http://localhost:${PORT}/api/objects?var1

dagarwal

2018-08-15 06:43

Is it possible to do by provider states?

abubics

2018-08-15 06:44

If you?re trying to do it in JS, try in #pact-js :slightly_smiling_face: you?ll get better answers

dagarwal

2018-08-15 06:44

Thanks

abubics

2018-08-15 06:44

also, try and post code wrapped in back-ticks, e.g. ```

codypumper

2018-08-15 16:27

Is there a way to pass an object to like()? I see that I can give it a list of properties, and I could iterate through properties similarly, but based on the docs, I can't just `Matchers.like(expectedMetadataObject)` and expect type matching for properties

codypumper

2018-08-15 18:39

Using ".like()" on the object results in: ```"matchingRules": { "$.body": { "match": "type" } }``` in the Pact. I'm assuming this is top level only? As in this would only verify that the body is an _object_ type

codypumper

2018-08-15 19:14

Say you have two different object forms that come back from the same endpoint, but via different IDs. ID1 returns an object with audio metadata, and ID2 returns an object with message metadata. Would the Pact assumption be to match for the combination of all available properties on ID1 object and ID2 object?

codypumper

2018-08-15 19:15

:thinking_face:

codypumper

2018-08-15 19:19

It's ugly, but I was imagining a shared file of regex strings essentially

codypumper

2018-08-15 19:19

�\_(?)_/�

antonello

2018-08-15 20:30

That is my understanding. That if you do it on the whole object, all properties will be matched by type. I can?t check the docs now, but I remember @bethskurrie also confirming.

antonello

2018-08-15 21:12

> Note that you can wrap a like around a single value or an object. When wrapped around an object, all values and child object values will be matched according to types, unless overridden by something more specific like a term.

antonello

2018-08-15 21:12

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/master/README.md#match-based-on-type

david.dyke

2018-08-15 23:03

I've had a similar situation, the way I've gone about it is to write the unit tests of my consuming application to run through handling both of these scenarios, first it will make a call to ID1 and process that response, then make a call to ID2 and process that one. The Pact mock will provide these differing responses as my tests run. The validation at a provider level will require it to respond differently for ID1 and ID2 with the correct objects, for this you need to use providers states which will be along the lines of "ID1 is an object with audio data" and "ID2 is an object with message data"... the consumer sets these states in the Pact so that the provider knows how to setup its state before running the validation. Thus for validation of the provider, ID1 should return one kind of response and ID2 should return another

davidkgp

2018-08-16 14:37

has joined #general

codypumper

2018-08-16 18:38

Thanks @david.dyke! That makes sense, and I hadn't considered using states

codypumper

2018-08-16 18:42

Thanks for the reference Anto!

leomayleomay

2018-08-16 19:29

has joined #general

leomayleomay

2018-08-16 19:34

I am trying to setup Pact for test like ``` Pact.service_consumer 'Authentication Service Consumer' do has_pact_with 'Authentication Service Provider' do mock_service :authentication_service_provider do port 1234 end end end ``` and got an error saying ``` Failure/Error: mock_service :authentication_service_provider do port 1234 end RuntimeError: Port 1234 is already being used by Authentication Service Provider #<Pact::MockService::App:0x007f874ef487b0> ``` please help to advise what's going wrong here, cheers

matt.fellows

2018-08-16 22:02

Looks like you are starting multiple services on the same port

pburls

2018-08-17 08:33

has joined #general

pburls

2018-08-17 09:02

Hey, I was wondering if anyone has used Pact Contracts and Pact Broker to help capture a "to-be" architecture for a new project? I like the idea of teams using the Pact Broker as a reference to start and then slowly creating and validating contracts with the actual implementations.

rrosa

2018-08-17 09:24

has joined #general

david.j.smith

2018-08-17 09:47

I?ve thought about it. The relationship visualisations - currently amazing to most people - would need to be cleverer. Also the ?problem? with Pacts is that they only show the aspects on a API that a consumer cares about. If it?s a microservice architecture that?s likely fine because they probably care about all of it, but if there?s a monolith in there somewhere your documentation would have holes in it. We do write Pacts in advance of services being built for a) stubbing in leu of a real service and b) a TDD style validation point for the team doing the provider service build. This means we have the relationship in pact broker before it?s ?real?.

pburls

2018-08-17 10:19

True, there would be holes where there are monoliths, but generally there is one team maintaining those. So in terms of them understanding new interactions with other services, it would be fine.

pburls

2018-08-17 10:20

It's good to hear though that creating Pacts in advance isn't a crazy idea.

pburls

2018-08-17 10:22

How are you creating these new Pact Contracts though? Hand cranked or creating some kind of prototype unit test to generate it?

matt.fellows

2018-08-17 10:50

I?ve used it a few times to describe potential designs with other teams (green fields / new items only). Obviously it?s a shallow ?architecture? as it only shows which systems communicate with each other - it doesn?t show types of communication, queues, other systems in context

david.j.smith

2018-08-17 11:52

The scenario for us has typically been: A supplier up stream is going to build us a new API. We discuss the design and when we think we?ve got it, we put together a project that will become our consumer service and just write the Pact tests first. Once generated, the Pact contracts can be sent over to make sure both parties have the same expectations for the new API.

pact-box

2018-08-17 19:53

has joined #general

pact-box

2018-08-17 19:56

I need to spin up an HTTP server for every provider test in Golang (1.0.0-beta). I can do this easily enough using provider states but then how do I tear it down when each test is complete?

pact-box

2018-08-17 21:51

I no longer need an answer but Slack won't let me delete the above message.

matt.fellows

2018-08-17 22:23

All good, it can linger. I don't think you can delete after a certain time

richarddalziel

2018-08-18 21:22

has joined #general

richarddalziel

2018-08-18 21:25

Hey folks - Looking for some help. I'm using PactJS with Karma+Jasmine in my Angular project. I'm essentially following this sort of style - https://github.com/paucls/task_list_ui-angular/blob/feature/pact-consumer-contract-tests/src/app/tasks-list/tasks.client.pact.spec.ts It worked fine when i just had one spec file - but since i've got many services i've started spinning up several of these files. Ever since i've done this i seem to get a lot of incosistent failures on my CI Builds

richarddalziel

2018-08-18 21:26

It's hard to tell - but it seems like the issue relates to specifying "new PactWeb" more than once. But i can't figure out how to maintain it's lifecycle with Karma and Jasmine the correct way and can't find any examples online with more than one spec file

richarddalziel

2018-08-18 21:27

I get a consistent spam of 500s in my terminal for mocked interactions which is fairly annoying. That's possibly a symptom to the issue. I get these even if the tests are passing

uglyog

2018-08-19 02:44

moved to #pact-js

richarddalziel

2018-08-19 09:34

Ah apologies - didn't notice!

pau

2018-08-20 10:52

has joined #general

tonimellodic

2018-08-20 15:05

has joined #general

ted.chung

2018-08-20 20:52

has joined #general

richarddalziel

2018-08-21 07:26

What's the correct way to manage queries based of resource Id when Id is not known? Do you normally just setup seeded defaults with Ids for this or is there a smart way to chain tests together?

abubics

2018-08-21 07:51

"chaining tests" sounds like you're trying to test behaviour :slightly_smiling_face: that's not the intended usage

abubics

2018-08-21 07:52

Each test should encapsulate its own state (using the `given` keyword, usually), and not interact with other tests

richarddalziel

2018-08-21 07:55

It does in my head too (Lead to behaviour) - which is what brings me to the question. There are many "GetById" or children creation tests which base off Id where i care about the contracts too. How should these Ids be handled within the tests?

abubics

2018-08-21 08:39

could you elaborate on that? I'll try and give you a general example in the meantime . . .

abubics

2018-08-21 08:41

Say you have a test that expects an entity with some particular seed data in it, you might just specify a provider state as "a user with some foos and bars", which describes the situation abstractly, but then the consumer and provider know which specific data can be expected to exist

abubics

2018-08-21 08:42

so maybe given *a user with some foos and bars*, you can do a `GET /user/3` for a result of `{"id":"3","foo":["x","y"],"bar":["a","b","c"]}`, or whatever you need to be able to assert on

richarddalziel

2018-08-21 08:44

Here's a series of interactions i'm thinking of in RPC style GetAllClients - returns all clients with required schema. (_Links, _embedded etc) GetClientById (HTTPGET "/client/{Id}") - Returns Client with _Links/Other Props CreateChildForClient (HTTPPOST "client/{Id}") - Returns 201 Created and Whatever Body

abubics

2018-08-21 08:46

Someone else might be better at helping with that kind of scenario . . . I tend to stick to ReST APIs. What I can say, though, is while you stick to requests with no side-effects, you can chain as many as you want and still reason about the system :slightly_smiling_face:

abubics

2018-08-21 08:46

So you can chain many read-only requests before finishing on the thing you care about (which may have side-effects)

abubics

2018-08-21 08:48

But also, if you set your state up well, you don't need to do the first 2 GETs, because you can know which IDs they'll have ahead of time.

abubics

2018-08-21 08:48

and each test can just exercise one endpoint at a time

richarddalziel

2018-08-21 09:51

Apologies - i'm only using RPC terminology for convenience of writing here. I suspect the answer is more about setup my state. The detail that's tricky here is that i use Guids for my Ids. So i can't make any assumptions - i need to feed data returned from one call to the next. Which means the contracts are going to be test-run specific

richarddalziel

2018-08-21 09:59

How do you normally go about setting up your state @abubics?

abubics

2018-08-21 13:36

Maybe we need to step back a little... How much of your provider stack are you trying to verify? If you don't stub/replace at least the data layer, you'll have pretty complicated tests :)

abubics

2018-08-21 13:38

For the example you gave, I'd have at least 3 separate tests: 1. List clients (given some clients, given no clients, etc) 2. Get client details (given a client with known id, given no clients (e.g. returns a 404)) 3. Create a child for a client (given a client with known id, etc)

abubics

2018-08-21 13:39

And in the provider you need to facilitate the states by providing expected data somehow. How you do it depends on the provider platform.

abubics

2018-08-21 13:41

My example implies 3 endpoints, at least 2 provider states, and 5 separate tests (one interaction per test) ^_^

richarddalziel

2018-08-21 14:40

That's pretty much along the lines of the tests i'm thinking - i suspect the sticking point in my head is i'm creating restrictions by not having a representative data seed scenario. I think what i need to do is have a representative data seed scenario which can be used specifically for contract testing with known ids, that sounds like it'll be a cleaner solution than faffing with behaviour style tests.

richarddalziel

2018-08-21 14:41

The only counter in my head here is that this implies the consumers have some prior knowledge as to how the provider seeds data for testing scenarios. I do like the idea of the consumer not really caring how the provider goes about their business, just that they adhere to the specified contract.

richarddalziel

2018-08-21 14:55

Just to touch on your first point - i want to test as much of my provider as the consumer uses. If the consumer cares about hateos links, then i want it in the contract. If it cares about x, y, z properties - i want it in the contract. Same goes for any relevant headers etc

richarddalziel

2018-08-21 14:55

It just so happens in this case i have a consumer which uses the API fairly extensively

thirumal.net

2018-08-21 19:58

can we write pacts if project is written in C++ ? if yes can you please point me to the link for more info

matt.fellows

2018-08-21 21:30

Not to my knowledge sorry!

matt.fellows

2018-08-21 21:32

But you could run the mock service (consumer) and provider externally to your service. E.g. https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service/blob/master/script/example.sh

matt.fellows

2018-08-21 21:34

And https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/other_languages for verification

nmalinip

2018-08-21 23:23

has joined #general

abubics

2018-08-22 00:41

My question about "how much" was more about how far down your provider protocol stack are you trying to test. So, if you have a strongly layered stack, you might have web-framework endpoints at the entry point, a business layer with controllers, entities, gateways, etc, and connectors to talk to databases, etc.

abubics

2018-08-22 00:42

You certainly wouldn't want to test across another network boundary (e.g. database), and I'd suggest even going past the core entity layer isn't so valuable.

abubics

2018-08-22 00:43

You're right that the consumer shouldn't care *how* the provider does things (such as allocate IDs), but at some point, the consumer will cache an ID for a future request. That's the situation you want to represent with the "given" states.

abubics

2018-08-22 00:44

i.e. pretend you already did a request to list all Clients. Now you have some IDs, and you can do either of the other requests.

abubics

2018-08-22 00:46

Pact tests are more for verifying the shape of the data, not the concrete content. Things that are part of the request can be verified as literals in the response. Anything generated in the provider should be flexibly matched (by type and/or regex), so the tests aren't brittle.

abubics

2018-08-22 00:50

And yeah, we basically share fixture expectations across consumers and providers.

richarddalziel

2018-08-22 10:38

It's funny - in any of my diagrams for representing this i never include the full stack (To Database). But my current setup has this! I'll need to dig around a bit for how to setup the Given states/caches and see how i can leverage them! I'll be honest - this is a bit more of a faff than i'd hoped. There is a temptation just to mark my own homework here with unit tests on the API. The additional effort is feeling simpler than the state management for theses tests

bherrera

2018-08-22 17:05

has joined #general

bsolosy

2018-08-22 17:08

has joined #general

jkoropchak

2018-08-22 17:23

has joined #general

thirumal.net

2018-08-22 18:41

@matt.fellows - Thank you for the info, i think same applies to languages like SAP ABAP,SFDC APEX,BW . am i correct ? unable to find any documentation for above languages.just want to re confirm that we can't write native pacts for above programming languages.

tmok01842

2018-08-22 21:46

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-08-22 21:49

correct

tmok01

2018-08-22 22:02

hey all - does there exist an equivalent .net version of the can-i-deploy feature (which checks the matrix to determine whether things can be deployed)? (just left this query in the pact-net channel as well)

matt.fellows

2018-08-22 22:07

hmm not sure. It should be on the system somewhere (as the CLI tool will be there). If it?s in a predictable path, you could just invoke it directly (it?s what I do with node, for example)

tmok01

2018-08-22 22:18

'k, thanks Matt

bethskurrie

2018-08-22 22:29

You can use can-i-deploy from the command line in windows @tmok01

thirumal.net

2018-08-22 22:45

Thank you Matt

tmok01

2018-08-22 22:55

Ok - thanks @bethskurrie. I'm just starting out on this stuff.

bethskurrie

2018-08-22 22:56

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases

abubics

2018-08-23 00:58

The shallowest version of contract testing I've done just stubbed responses at the controller layer :slightly_smiling_face: Especially if your DB makes it hard to be deterministic, there are heaps of ways to avoid it. Otherwise you're just building integrated tests with the wrong tools :stuck_out_tongue:

abubics

2018-08-23 01:04

And the highest technical value of contract tests is literally unit tests for the network interface. Unit tests for your API won't keep consumers and providers in sync. That's the main thing Pact aims to solve?letting you know if it's safe (or not) to deploy changes.

richard.jones

2018-08-23 04:56

@bethskurrie I?m struggling to find that pact best practices document you wrote and shared a while back, please hit me with the clue bat? :slightly_smiling_face:

abubics

2018-08-23 05:03

is it the "The steps to reaching Pact Nirvana" doc?

richard.jones

2018-08-23 05:25

I think so!

richard.jones

2018-08-23 05:25

Yep, that got me to it, thanks!

richarddalziel

2018-08-23 06:37

I pretty much agree 100% with what you're saying. I think there still is an element of state that needs to be considered. But it doesn't need to be considered with the full stack behind it. Like what Ids generate not found, which generate bad request and all the other variations (if they matter to the consumer).

abubics

2018-08-23 07:09

Yep, totally. The states are test fixtures that are shared (to some extent).

dev

2018-08-23 07:19

has joined #general

komalahluwalia06

2018-08-23 07:21

has joined #general

scott.jungers

2018-08-23 14:30

has joined #general

dniles

2018-08-23 16:23

Hello - I'm trying to find a way to hook into the rest call during a pact provider verification task in order to get a response body, is this possible? My scenario is that the provider verification creates a resource when it makes a call, and the provider responds with the ID of the newly created resource. I want to be able to get the ID from that response to do clean up in the tear down step of the provider state, but as-is I'm unable to access the response from the verification task's rest call at that point. I'm using the Ruby pact-provider-proxy gem to run the provider verification. Thanks in advance for any insight anyone might have.

thirumal.net

2018-08-23 19:10

@matt.fellows - by chance do you know any future plans to support for C++ ?

matt.fellows

2018-08-23 20:50

No plans that I'm aware of, although we do have a set of static libraries that can be linked in from c, so it's entirely possible without having to write it from scratch

matt.fellows

2018-08-23 20:51

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference

nmalinip

2018-08-23 20:53

versions used in my project are 'au.com.dius:pact-jvm-consumer-java8_2.12:3.5.16' 'au.com.dius:pact-jvm-consumer-junit_2.12:3.5.16'

tmok01

2018-08-23 22:41

Um - did Pact Broker just go down?

bethskurrie

2018-08-23 22:41

Let me check

tmok01

2018-08-23 22:42

seems up again now - but was getting 'service unavailable' on a couple of requests

bethskurrie

2018-08-23 22:42

Test one is up, pm me your broker domain

bethskurrie

2018-08-23 22:45

We're currently working on a new multi tenant architecture, which we should be moving customers to over the next few weeks. It will be much more stable than the existing infrastructure.

amitojduggal

2018-08-24 09:22

Guys, what strategy you use for formatting the PactDslJsonBody code blocks in IntelliJ?

richarddalziel

2018-08-24 11:02

For whatever reason i can't seem to find anything in the docs. Is there much documentation around the usage of states aside from just specifying them in Given/Object based setups? I've only ever seen the text referenced but never what the underlying components that represent the state? Perhaps i'm over complicating the capability - but if i'm not then i don't really understand the purpose of state.

bethskurrie

2018-08-24 11:29

It's up to the provider team to set up the right data so that the actual response matches the expected response.

bethskurrie

2018-08-24 11:29

The simplest example is to set up an object so that you get a 200 instead of a 404.

matt.fellows

2018-08-24 11:47

Have you seen any of the following? - https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/provider_states - https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/ruby/provider_states - https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/provider/using_provider_states_effectively

richarddalziel

2018-08-24 13:34

Ah!!! The first post is what i've been looking for. That makes sense ! So in terms of team culture - the correct behaviours here will to be name states fairly explicitly such that the provider team can react to the failing test by reading the provider State and providing the necessary information

richarddalziel

2018-08-24 13:35

So for example State('the object with the id Guid.Default()' exists)

chaitralikulkarni84

2018-08-24 14:38

has joined #general

krosenbaum

2018-08-24 16:00

has joined #general

ayodaiken

2018-08-24 19:08

has joined #general

thirumal.net

2018-08-24 20:16

@matt.fellows - Thank you very much!

nmalinip

2018-08-24 23:17

Hey guys, is there a way to delete the pacts from pack broker? How do u handle the pacts that will be published with every PR?

matt.fellows

2018-08-24 23:18

Yes there is. Go and check out the pact broker wiki, your answers await..

nmalinip

2018-08-25 00:06

Thanks Matt. But I wanted to know if we delete the individual pacts? The delete api in the doc says that the all the pacts related to that participant will be deleted

matt.fellows

2018-08-25 00:12

You can, everything is a resource so just fire off a delete at it

bethskurrie

2018-08-25 02:42

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Deleting-resources

bethskurrie

2018-08-25 02:42

I've updated to make it super clear.

nmalinip

2018-08-25 05:01

Thanks Beth

abubics

2018-08-27 01:41

This is totally a #pact-jvm question, but here you go :slightly_smiling_face:

abubics

2018-08-27 01:41

``` .willRespondWith().run { headers(contentTypeHeaders) status(200) body(newJsonBody { container -> with(container) { minArrayLike("accounts", 1) { with(it) { stringType("id", "S01-01") stringType("name", "Access Account TestOne") stringMatcher("type", "savings|investment|loan", "savings") numberType("availableBalance", BigDecimal("5.00")) numberType("currentBalance", BigDecimal("5.67")) } } } }.build()) } ```

abubics

2018-08-27 01:41

that's in Kotlin, I don't have a strategy for Java :stuck_out_tongue:

abubics

2018-08-27 01:42

You can go more abstract or more concrete for different levels of brittleness :stuck_out_tongue:

abubics

2018-08-27 01:43

But I try to keep mine pretty vague, and just describe the situation, so things can be added without changing expectations

jarpit

2018-08-27 06:53

has joined #general

minhdoan

2018-08-27 07:07

Hi @bethskurrie and team,

minhdoan

2018-08-27 07:12

I downloaded the Pact standalone executables 1.54.3 and extracted it on my local Windows 10 laptop

minhdoan

2018-08-27 07:14

And i put an directory of pact json files here as well

minhdoan

2018-08-27 07:17

Then i run the command to bring up the server and load the pact files to server

minhdoan

2018-08-27 07:17

```pact-stub-service.bat "D:\pact\bin\pacts"```

minhdoan

2018-08-27 07:17

But the error happens and am not familiar with Ruby to debug it

minhdoan

2018-08-27 07:19

Could you please help on it?

minhdoan

2018-08-27 07:19

Many thanks in advance!

minhdoan

2018-08-27 08:12

As i change the command line to: ```pact-stub-service.bat "D:\pact\pacts\*"```

minhdoan

2018-08-27 08:12

No error but i can not confirm that the Server is up

minhdoan

2018-08-27 08:25

And please help to provide some examples for pact-stub-service usage

matt.fellows

2018-08-27 10:00

It?s like it?s not reading the files from a directory, and is expecting a single file

matt.fellows

2018-08-27 10:01

OK so the stub service doesn?t expect a dir, it expects one or more files as space separated values

matt.fellows

2018-08-27 10:02

`pact-stub-service ~/development/public/pact-js/examples/e2e/pacts/*` works on linux shells, because `*` is automatically expanded into the right shape

matt.fellows

2018-08-27 10:02

so looks like you need to do something more like `pact-stub-service.bat "D:\pact\pacts\PACT_FILE1_HERE" D:\pact\pacts\PACT_FILE2_HERE" ...`

minhdoan

2018-08-27 10:16

@matt.fellows Many thanks! When i add each file's path the server is up

minhdoan

2018-08-27 10:17

But anyway to import all of files on Windows because that way quite weird and quite to handle

matt.fellows

2018-08-27 10:22

It?s probably quite easy in Powershell, I can?t recall the syntax off the top of my head though

matt.fellows

2018-08-27 10:23

If you like, raise a feature request at https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service

minhdoan

2018-08-27 10:28

Highly appreciate @matt.fellows I will work on it

matt.fellows

2018-08-27 10:31

:thumbsup:

kimmig.alex

2018-08-27 13:23

has joined #general

rsaccoll

2018-08-27 13:26

has joined #general

richarddalziel

2018-08-27 15:31

It's just where things go round to accessing specific resources by their Id. Vagueness becomes a problem there although i'd very much appreciate it!

richarddalziel

2018-08-27 15:31

Managed to get up and running better with it - cheers for the help folks!

ashish.dubey91

2018-08-27 21:17

getting `/app/pact-stub-server: error while loading shared libraries: libssl.so.1.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory` on running pact stub server docker container https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-stub-server

matt.fellows

2018-08-27 21:18

Are you running in an Alpine Docker container?

matt.fellows

2018-08-27 21:19

Have you looked at the existing published Docker container

ashish.dubey91

2018-08-27 21:20

I just pulled the latest as mentioned in the README

ashish.dubey91

2018-08-27 21:20

I didn't build my own container

matt.fellows

2018-08-27 21:21

Hmmm

matt.fellows

2018-08-27 21:22

Can you please raise a bug report? I should be able to look later today

ashish.dubey91

2018-08-27 21:22

sure @mr.matt.r.long

ashish.dubey91

2018-08-27 21:23

actually someone already did it https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-stub-server/issues/4

matt.fellows

2018-08-27 21:27

Are you also on a Mac? I wonder if something in the host runtime as changed.

matt.fellows

2018-08-27 21:40

Cc @uglyog looks like latest stub server missing static or runtime dep

uglyog

2018-08-27 22:36

@ashish.dubey91 I added TLS support in that release. Use the previous version until I fix the docker image.

uglyog

2018-08-27 22:36

Or you can create your own docker image and add openssl libraries

matt.fellows

2018-08-27 22:39

I can take a look today if you like @uglyog?

matt.fellows

2018-08-27 22:40

Assuming it just needs some ssl libs in the image itself? Or does it need to be compiled into the Rust code?

uglyog

2018-08-27 22:47

No, just add openssl to the image

pavan.tallapragada

2018-08-27 23:10

has joined #general

thirumal.net

2018-08-27 23:42

@thirumal.net - i have spring mvc rest application and it doesn't have any test cases. could you please help us how to write pact unit test cases for provider ? please point us to sample example

mpasumarthy

2018-08-28 00:24

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-08-28 01:21

OK just pushed the fix, let me know how you go @ashish.dubey91

bethskurrie

2018-08-28 02:13

What documentation have you looked at already? Where have you searched? What have you googled? Please demonstrate that you have tried to solve the problem yourself.

abubics

2018-08-28 04:27

Pretty sure `cmd` globs files with `*` too :thinking_face:

matt.fellows

2018-08-28 04:28

probably, but I?m not willing to stake my reputation on it :slightly_smiling_face: (or to admit i?ve used CMD before)

shreekanth.6

2018-08-28 09:09

has joined #general

chitl

2018-08-28 12:30

has joined #general

ashish.dubey91

2018-08-28 14:58

thanks man! I'll check

ashish.dubey91

2018-08-28 15:00

I'm noticing an issue in my CI setup with pact involving the hosted pact broker. here is how it is - with pact-jvm and gradle plugin I'm pushing my pacts with the branch name as the tag

ashish.dubey91

2018-08-28 15:00

when I fetch the pacts from this url `/pacts/provider/API/consumer/android/latest/dev` I get the latest pact published from *any* branch rather than specifically `dev` branch always

ashish.dubey91

2018-08-28 15:01

because of this my provider build fails because of unstable contracts pushed in feature branches of the consumer

matt.fellows

2018-08-28 21:05

:+1:

mpasumarthy

2018-08-28 22:17

Hi, I am looking for sample pact project built on spring mvc from provider side. could someone please provide link here

matt.fellows

2018-08-28 22:20

What have you tried so far? A cursory google turns up a bunch of links

mpasumarthy

2018-08-28 22:26

I am actually developing using the steps provided in the below link. https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/pact-jvm-provider-spring

tjones

2018-08-29 04:14

So I'm writing some consumer code for an API that I don't control (GitHub's OAuth2.0, for those playing at home). Is there value in writing pact tests for the consumer?

tjones

2018-08-29 04:15

My gut feel is yes - even if there's no provider verification, the tests provide some documentation and some regression protection

bethskurrie

2018-08-29 04:15

:shrug::skin-tone-3:

tjones

2018-08-29 04:15

And, possibly it's possible to use something like the pact/swagger thing to do some pretend verification?

tjones

2018-08-29 04:16

I don't remember seeing this question in the documentation, but it seems worth including

tjones

2018-08-29 04:16

I think there was a stackoverflow question on it a while back

bethskurrie

2018-08-29 04:16

sure, if there's a swagger

matt.fellows

2018-08-29 04:17

I still write pact tests as a consumer for the same reasons. I?ve also previously done some ~nasty~ not-so-nice things to validate them also

tjones

2018-08-29 04:19

I found the stackoverflow question. I didn't mention the swagger thing. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/48043523/pact-provider-verification-against-public-apis/48178463#48178463

tjones

2018-08-29 04:19

What were your not-so-nice things? Validate responses against the live API?

bethskurrie

2018-08-29 04:46

Yeah. I don't like to do that.

bethskurrie

2018-08-29 04:46

Swagger would be better.

matt.fellows

2018-08-29 04:49

Pretty much, except when you start thinking about ?provider states? this gets very hard when you can?t control the endpoint. I?ll say ?proxy? and let your imagination do the rest :slightly_smiling_face:

mpasumarthy

2018-08-29 05:03

~Following the below steps and created a provider for validation. <https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/pact-jvm-provider-spring> when I try to test pact with state something like {id} does not scenario i.e. 404 error against get end point which accepts integer path variable like this somepath/{id}, seeing the below exception {"@timestamp":"2018-08-28T21:52:48.114-07:00","app_env":"no","app_name":"no","app_version":"no","thread_name":"main","level":"ERROR","logger_name":"com.aligntech.ids.services.patients.error.ApiResponseExceptionHandler","message":"Exception was handled for web request: ServletWebRequest: uri=/api/somepath/9643628244167;client=127.0.0.1","stack_trace":"org.springframework.web.method.annotation.MethodArgumentTypeMismatchException: Failed to convert value of type 'java.lang.String' to required type 'java.lang.Integer'; nested exception is java.lang.NumberFormatException: For input string: \"9643628244167\"\n\tat org.springframework.web.method.annotation.AbstractNamedValueMethodArgumentResolver.resolveArgument(AbstractNamedValueMethodArgumentResolver.java:131)\n\tat org.springframework.web.method.support.HandlerMethodArgumentResolverComposite.resolveArgument(HandlerMethodArgumentResolverComposite.java:124)~

mpasumarthy

2018-08-29 05:04

~not sure this is a valid question or not, but how this mock data id generated "9643628244167"~

mpasumarthy

2018-08-29 05:10

please never mind about my question..

abubics

2018-08-29 05:28

If you're only doing JVM stuff, I'd recommend starting in #pact-jvm, rather than adding noise in #general :slightly_smiling_face:

oliver.levett

2018-08-29 08:36

has joined #general

amit.koparkar

2018-08-29 13:23

has joined #general

shekharsp27

2018-08-29 14:22

Hi, is there any graphical representation for 'The steps to reaching Pact Nirvana' document which will help to understand ideal way to implement pact test in CI/CD

raido.letterbox

2018-08-29 14:45

Hi, I am trying to write consumer tests with pact for dotnet core. After enabling SSL for MockProviderService the test fails with "System.Security.Authentication.AuthenticationException: The remote certificate is invalid according to the validation procedure". I've seen in the documentation that it is recommended to ignore certification validation errors globally due to a selfsigned certificate by adding ServicePointManager.ServerCertificateValidationCallback += (sender, cert, chain, sslPolicyErrors) => true; But unfortunately this didn't help. Can anyone please suggest what else can be done?

mpasumarthy

2018-08-29 16:08

@abubics thanks..I did not know about it..will join in that group. thanks..:)

ypeng1

2018-08-29 16:53

has joined #general

ypeng1

2018-08-29 16:56

Consumer test worked on windows but not on linux, can anyone help with this issue?

matt.fellows

2018-08-29 21:15

Might want to ask this in #pact-jvm

tjones

2018-08-30 01:43

Hi Shekhar - I thought there was one in the documentation at http://pact.io, but I can't see it. I'll look into making one.

shekharsp27

2018-08-30 04:53

Thanks, Tim :+1:

madhukar.mishra

2018-08-30 06:04

Hi, is it possible to represent non-heterogenous arrays in pacts ?

bethskurrie

2018-08-30 06:10

Currently, only if you have a set order

madhukar.mishra

2018-08-30 06:32

Thanks, any docs I could look up to understand what my options are ?

madhukar.mishra

2018-08-30 06:32

here's my problem in more detail if you have time to take a quick look

madhukar.mishra

2018-08-30 06:32

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52089816/how-to-represent-responses-with-heterogenous-arrays-in-pact-jvm&amp

david.dyke

2018-08-30 06:44

This is a recent document I put together to explain interaction between consumer, provider, swagger hub and a pact broker, work in progress but it's helping people to understand

abubics

2018-08-30 08:22

Try in #pact-net :slightly_smiling_face:

uglyog

2018-08-30 08:32

`call site initialization exception` is probably a result of a serious mismatch with your setup. Can you provide the OS version, Java version, Pact-JVM version etc.

dev

2018-08-30 09:07

Hi, we are currently using pact a little bit to test contracts between services of different teams. The documentation notes that the tests should never break the build of other teams. How do you integrate the execution of the tests in the CI process? Running the consumer tests and publishing the contracts shouldn't be an issue to do it on every master build. But then should the provider test be run? And against which version of the contracts? We had the idea to run the provider tests every night against the current master contracts. If a test is failing the team of the provider should look into the issues and try to figure out how they can work together with the consumer team to fix the issue. What do you think, is this a good way, or do you have better ideas?

raido.letterbox

2018-08-30 09:58

Thank you :slightly_smiling_face:

richard.jones

2018-08-30 23:32

@dev I can?t speak for everyone but we have a separate test plan that just runs the verifier for each provider. The plan is maintained by the team owning the provider. It is triggered automatically by any pact being registered against the provider in the pact broker. The latest plan result is then listed against any PR for the provider (since it?s not the build for the PR it doesn?t prevent any specific PR from being merged, it?s just in your face when you review the PR). All the results are also visible in the pact broker per consumer/provider version pair. The latest verification result is also reflected in our grafana dashboard, which gives us a nice heads up that something needs attention.

abubics

2018-08-31 01:47

This is a good place to start (especially the checklist at the top): https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRf1kSDccImNipOOm1G-bjcSs-ifbZjf1v54K-dIcq8BLKeFPAAm_bf_p71UKqkRMIx30QWWL-kN8TI/pub

abubics

2018-08-31 01:48

Ideally, you should make the provider verify every time a Pact changes

abubics

2018-08-31 01:48

but there are some strategies for how exactly you do that, depending on your architecture, app layout, and component lifecycles

abubics

2018-08-31 01:49

For example, one way is to have matching feature branch names on the consumer and provider, and only verify results for pacts tagged with the branch name.

bethskurrie

2018-08-31 01:55

@uglyog is there anything in v3 that can help with this?

uglyog

2018-08-31 01:55

bethskurrie

2018-08-31 02:00

@madhukar.mishra Pact really works best when you are able to control the data on the provider so that the responses look like you expect. If you're having trouble with this, Pact might not be the best tool for you.

l.vetter

2018-08-31 09:16

has joined #general

shekharsp27

2018-08-31 10:02

Thanks David for sharing the image will go through it

romuald.quantin

2018-08-31 10:33

has joined #general

shekharsp27

2018-08-31 14:07

@tjones I have a question, in case if Provider is changing the interface and before deployment observes there are breaking consumers, in this case ideally provider should do versioning for interface(and convey consumer about the interface version for backward compatibility and ask to update consumer as per new interface ) and move ahead with the deployment how this workflow should work could please help me to understand

brice.jaglin

2018-08-31 14:18

has joined #general

abhijitkane

2018-08-31 18:25

has joined #general

ashish.dubey91

2018-09-02 12:56

this is happening when I try to run pact-provider-verifier with `--publish-verification-results=1` ``` Error making request - Errno::EPIPE Broken pipe , attempt 3 of 3 /pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-1.33.1/lib/pact/provider/verification_results/publish.rb:99:in `rescue in publish_verification_results': Failed to publish verification results due to: Errno::EPIPE Broken pipe /pact/lib/ruby/lib/ruby/2.2.0/openssl/buffering.rb:326:in `syswrite' (Pact::Provider::VerificationResults::PublicationError) ```

ashish.dubey91

2018-09-02 16:02

I think this was because my provider return a massive response and it was too much for the CLI to post the results to the broker..didn't know it actually sends the entire verification log

oswald.quek

2018-09-03 08:43

The way my project does it is by running the pact against a checked out provider master branch during the consumer CI build

pact-slack

2018-09-03 12:29

has joined #general

pact-slack

2018-09-03 12:43

Hi :wave: My elixir pact library (http://github.com/elitau/pact_elixir), which is wrapping the pact-reference Rust implementation works for simple cases. Now I want to extend it towards the generation of matchers like regexp, type, query params, etc. What is the best way to achieve this? I assume I have to "copy" the DSL of the Ruby implementation in Elixir?!

dev

2018-09-03 15:15

@abubics Thank you, that document really helped a bit.

andyharkinsqa

2018-09-03 15:34

has joined #general

dev

2018-09-03 16:24

We had lately a discussion going on belonging how much of the service should be tested when running pact tests. What do you mock on consumer/provider side? As much as possible or as few as possible?

tom.hombergs

2018-09-03 16:33

has joined #general

richard.jones

2018-09-03 21:55

@dev pact isn?t testing the provider or the consumer, it?s enforcing a contract between them. On the consumer side pact mocking *aids* testing of the consumer code at that interface. Pact verification tests exactly enough of the provider that is needed to verify all pacts are correct. Does that help?

mboudreau

2018-09-03 23:49

@dev As however many contracts makes your team happy and confident in the deployment. It could be only a few (more like a health check) or all of them if you're super keen on 100% coverage :slightly_smiling_face:

richard.jones

2018-09-04 00:20

We have 100% coverage in our consumer unit test suites, and use pact mocking for all external API points (as opposed to more generic mocking for other parts of the code). Using flexible pact mocks (having Like and Term in the requests) makes that a lot easier.

abubics

2018-09-04 00:29

It sounds to me like @dev's question is more about depth (of app layers) rather than breadth (of endpoint, features, error cases, etc) . . . I would argue that Pact tests should go only as deep as the minimum required to get to logic that provides enough branching for errors. It depends on your app architecture. On the *provider* side if you had a clean architecture, with a framework-based endpoint layer, and a domain interface beyond that, that should be deep enough to provide thorough value. On the *consumer* side, with a similar architecture, I'd expect a framework-based API client, and a domain interface before it. Definitely don't need to go higher up the protocol stack to test the contract :slightly_smiling_face:

abubics

2018-09-04 00:30

I've done shallower and deeper, and they felt like suboptimal trade-offs

uglyog

2018-09-04 00:31

That's awesome. I would start by creating a DSL that works best for the language, and then work out how to implement it.

uglyog

2018-09-04 00:32

If we need to change the Rust implementation, I can do that for you.

stephen.muss

2018-09-04 04:57

has joined #general

dev

2018-09-04 06:55

Thanks a lot!

dev

2018-09-04 07:00

And one more question. Does anyone have a reference or experience how I can implement a "many providers and one consumer" scenario? We have a single service that consumes an analytics message which can be send by every other service, how does that work?

ibenardetelevis

2018-09-04 07:05

has joined #general

mboudreau

2018-09-04 07:08

1 consumer can have multiple contracts with each provider, and 1 provider can have multiple contracts with each consumer :slightly_smiling_face:

pact-slack

2018-09-04 07:37

Ok. I'll come back here for feedback once I have something useable.

rhys

2018-09-04 10:30

has joined #general

pact-slack

2018-09-04 21:15

@uglyog Is there a Rust library that I can call to generate all the different matching rules? Or a codebase which I can use as a starting/learning point for generating pact files with matching rules?

joguespermana

2018-09-05 02:55

has joined #general

ashish.dubey91

2018-09-05 07:54

can pact-provider-verifier verify multiple consumer pacts for a given provider? If I supply a URL like - `/pacts/provider/authservice/tag/dev` to the verifier, the verifier doesn't traverse through the list of pacts and verifier

bethskurrie

2018-09-05 08:15

It should

bethskurrie

2018-09-05 08:16

Oh, do you mean, does it use the broker?

bethskurrie

2018-09-05 08:16

Yes, the latest version should

bethskurrie

2018-09-05 08:17

You can give it a broker address and a list of tags.

bethskurrie

2018-09-05 08:17

And the provider name.

ashish.dubey91

2018-09-05 09:14

@beth where can I find the docs for this? I can't see it here https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases

bethskurrie

2018-09-05 09:20

Hm. Perhaps I haven't released it yet. I'll check for you tomorrow.

bethskurrie

2018-09-05 09:21

Ping me if I don't get back to you in 24 hours.

ashish.dubey91

2018-09-05 09:23

sure!

bethskurrie

2018-09-05 10:31

Ok, I've released it https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases#pact-provider-verifier

ashish.dubey91

2018-09-05 11:22

great. I just tried it got an error: `/Users/ashish/pact157/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-provider-verifier-1.16.1/lib/pact/provider_verifier/aggregate_pact_configs.rb:42:in `wip_pact_uris': undefined method `fetch_wip_pact_uris' for Pact::PactBroker:Module (NoMethodError)`

bethskurrie

2018-09-05 11:23

Oh, bother. That's why I hadn't released it. I was in the middle of a refactor.

bethskurrie

2018-09-05 11:23

I renamed wip to pending.

bethskurrie

2018-09-05 11:23

I'll fix it in the morning for you.

bethskurrie

2018-09-05 11:24

Sorry about that

ashish.dubey91

2018-09-05 11:25

it's fine. fun to use this at the bleeding edge! :smile:

bethskurrie

2018-09-05 11:25

Walking on the wild side

ashish.dubey91

2018-09-05 13:42

I need some discussion around this. I'm guessing this might have happened already sometime - https://gist.github.com/bethesque/0ee446a9f93db4dd0697, but I need some help in this. I have a bunch of services (like API gateway and aggregation layer) which basically get responses from upstream services, and then either send the responses through to the front-end client or simply nest them under different keys I've written some contracts in the front-end client against the gateway, but I'd also like to verify the actual provider (upstream service) against these contracts

perrypercy

2018-09-05 14:15

has joined #general

uglyog

2018-09-05 22:10

Do you mean generate a pact file with all the matching rules, or are you asking about a Rust consumer test DSL?

uglyog

2018-09-05 22:11

Or do you need a function that just generates the JSON format for a particular matching rule?

matt.fellows

2018-09-05 22:27

Hi all, Are you interested in talking with the Pact maintainers at your place of work or getting involved in training events? I will be traveling to San Francisco the week of 19th - 23rd November 2018 to run a series of Pact workshops, brown bags and presentations at local meetup events. We are seeking early expressions of interest to help with planning and designing the most appropriate content, as well as for identifying future workshops in other locations. If this is of interest to you, please complete this short survey https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeHEq52irOfEr5W3sqMRcpIk9ZvybMqtDfEE3y11WYndcsnwA/viewform?usp=sf_link or DM directly. Thanks!

jake.shelley

2018-09-06 01:13

has joined #general

ashish.dubey91

2018-09-06 04:56

@mr.matt.r.long are you guys open for remote workshops/brown bags too?

matt.fellows

2018-09-06 04:56

yep!

matt.fellows

It?s under ?online? in the survey if you were wondering

ashish.dubey91

that's great! I'm interested in having one for my team

matt.fellows

:thumbsup:

matt.fellows

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Webhooks

Thanks, I?ll chat with you offline about potential options - thanks for reaching out

ashish.dubey91

2018-09-06 05:06

thanks @mr.matt.r.long let me know when you want to do it. I also filled in the survey

matt.fellows

2018-09-06 05:21

fantastic, thanks!!

pact-slack

2018-09-06 08:02

I want to generate a pact file with all the matching rules. Until now the elixir library generates a really basic JSON which is then used to start the Rust mock server. To be able to use the existing Rust code is a great time and code saver. Now I was wondering if there is a Rust library which I can use to implement the missing functionalities like matching rules JSON generation?

pact-slack

2018-09-06 08:04

I need some kind of guideline which functionalities can be reused from the Rust reference implementation and which I need to implement myself.

dipakpawar231

2018-09-06 11:52

has joined #general

culbluswan123

2018-09-06 15:05

has joined #general

uglyog

2018-09-06 22:48

Ok, I'll put something together for you. Might only happen this weekend :wink:

uglyog

2018-09-06 22:53

You can look at the JVM code as well, the Rust one was based on that. The set of rules are in https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/blob/master/pact-jvm-model/src/main/kotlin/au/com/dius/pact/model/matchingrules/MatchingRules.kt and the equivalent rust one is https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/blob/master/rust/pact_matching/src/models/matchingrules.rs#L63

potsawee

2018-09-07 06:16

has joined #general

pact-slack

2018-09-07 14:12

Super, thx. I'll have a look into it.

bethskurrie

2018-09-09 21:35

I've released the fix for this @ashish.dubey91

bethskurrie

2018-09-09 21:36

Sorry I forgot to mention it earlier

mattgilbert90

2018-09-10 12:45

has joined #general

mattgilbert90

2018-09-10 13:09

I am struggling to understand the basics of Pact and implementing my first test against a service. Our team has 20+ services and we'd like to use Pact to help with our contract testing. The tests all run locally? How does the Provider reach out to a specific environment where a service lives? How does the Consumer know what service to mock?

tom.hombergs

2018-09-10 20:08

@mattgilbert90 I struggled quite a bit, too. The tests run locally, that's the main advantage of contract tests. The consumer does not need access to a service and the service does not need to be called by the real consumer in order to be tested.

tom.hombergs

2018-09-10 20:10

I wrote down my thoughts on consumer driven contract tests in a blog post, maybe it helps :slightly_smiling_face: https://reflectoring.io/7-reasons-for-consumer-driven-contracts/

tom.hombergs

2018-09-10 20:11

there are some tutorials on pact with Java there, too.

mattgilbert90

2018-09-10 20:14

@tom.hombergs funny, i was reading your posts this morning. Does starting out with your first contract test require there to be a good bit of API documentation? We are switching to microservices from Monolith and there is not much documented, and what is documented cannot be trusted. Can I just use my knowledge of the system to get started or is there more?

mattgilbert90

2018-09-10 20:16

The main need for switching is the microservice tests that were developed previously used no framework and are super hard to maintain. Our UI tests also take 13 hours to run :face_vomiting:

matt.fellows

2018-09-10 22:16

I love your work @tom.hombergs, especially the summary table

bethskurrie

2018-09-11 01:29

@tom.hombergs what a stellar post. Recommend everyone read it!

tom.hombergs

2018-09-11 03:03

I'd say you can start with contract tests without an API documentation, because you're creating a contract and that IS a bit of documentation by itself.

glvargas

2018-09-11 14:03

has joined #general

tom.hombergs

2018-09-11 18:58

@bethskurrie thanks :slightly_smiling_face:

tom.hombergs

2018-09-11 19:01

Is it possible to test a consumer against an existing contract with pact-jvm? i.e. load the pact from a pact broker, start up a mock provider using that pact and then verify the consumer against the mock?

ypeng1

2018-09-11 20:22

Anyone know how to set provider version using pact-jvm-provider?

ypeng1

2018-09-11 20:22

Or how to publish test results back to pact broker when tests failed?

ypeng1

2018-09-11 20:29

I think I found the answer at here https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/pact-jvm-provider-junit#publishing-verification-results-to-a-pact-broker-version-354

gaurav

2018-09-11 23:10

@tom.hombergs My opinion: if I understand correctly, what you want seems certainly doable.. however I personally would recommend against doing that.. A pact is only valid for the consumer that created the pact and that pact should not be used for any other consumer. Reason is that pact might reflect only a subset of response data from provider. If a provider P provides {a,b,c,d}, and a consumer C1 needs only {a,b} then pact(P-C1) will only have {a,b}.. and that pact can?t be used to create a mock server for a consumer C2 that needs {c,d} for example.

uglyog

2018-09-11 23:44

It is possible, you'll just have to use the pact-jvm libraries to do it

ypeng1

2018-09-12 04:57

anyone know how to detect pact contract change or not manually ?

matt.fellows

2018-09-12 04:58

bethskurrie

2018-09-12 07:09

The ruby impl does this too.

bethskurrie

2018-09-12 07:10

@tom.hombergs https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service/blob/master/README.md#stub-service-usage

bethskurrie

2018-09-12 07:10

If you're using Pact JVM with version 3 rules, you'll need the JVM one though

daniel.kirmse

2018-09-12 09:17

~Das Repo git clone <ssh://d027470@git.wdf.sap.corp:29418/d027470/ase_sudoku_java>~

vishesh92

2018-09-12 09:49

has joined #general

vishesh92

2018-09-12 10:05

Hi I have a python project which uses https://github.com/getsentry/responses for mocking requests in unit tests. There are some parts where the requests are made to multiple providers. I wanted to know what is the best way to do this using pact.

matt.fellows

2018-09-13 00:14

I?m not quite sure what you?re asking @vishesh92. Are you asking if you should replace the responses library with Pact, or how they could be used together?

matt.fellows

2018-09-13 00:16

Looking at that library, if I understand correctly, I would be using them for separate purposes. Pact?s job is to capture the expectations of the request/response between the consumer and all of its providers. Responses would be better placed to do all of the standard unit tests you need to run, mocking out the interface so that you can test with all sorts of conditions - e.g. different data types and all of the local validation scenarios etc. you want to test. That?s not an ideal use case for Pact.

tom.hombergs

2018-09-13 18:19

thanks, I'll look into that!

tom.hombergs

2018-09-13 18:23

@gaurav yeah, you're right of course. But I have a special use case where I explicitly want to piggy-back onto an existing pact (while being concious of all the things you said)

matt.fellows

2018-09-13 22:21

Another gem from Tom on testing message consumer and producers with spring: https://reflectoring.io/cdc-pact-messages/

matt.fellows

2018-09-13 22:21

Relevent for all languages

micheal.ieti

2018-09-13 23:02

has joined #general

kanohen

2018-09-14 11:22

has joined #general

kanohen

2018-09-14 11:23

Hello world!

kanohen

2018-09-14 11:31

So, I have a response that looks like this: Books { "JD HUM": 20�, "ZAC ATEKS": 40� }, ...... Other fields..e.t.c This book structure could have 1,2, more or no contents. At the moment, I am simply adding those two books e.g.book.object ("Books", book-> book.numberType ("JD HUM", "ZAC ATEKS")); How do I handle a generic case where I just define the structure e.g I need a map that has a key string and value number and I don't care if it has 1, 2 or no entry using pact?

matt.fellows

2018-09-14 11:34

I don't believe you can do this in the current version of pact with dynamic keys across languages (it might be available in pact jvm). it's slated for the next specification. If it was an array, it would be possible

matt.fellows

2018-09-14 11:35

It's hard to tell without context, but any reason it's not an array of books instead of a map?

kanohen

2018-09-14 12:32

Sorry, I was at lunch. An array won't work as we needed to get them by unique keys for quick referencing.

kanohen

2018-09-14 12:47

How would this be possible with an array if I may ask?

matt.fellows

2018-09-14 13:34

At the moment, Pact matches maps on exact keys only (see v4 for proposal to enhance this)

matt.fellows

2018-09-14 13:36

Array matching supports your use case: 1 or more objects with a generic shape. How big is this array, I can't imagine lookups being computationally slow (i.e. no worse than `O(n)`)

matt.fellows

2018-09-14 13:38

Eg in js https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/master/README.md#match-based-on-arrays

shekharsp27

2018-09-14 13:49

Hi, are there any guidelines to determine complexity associated with contract testing with respect to the implementation or which points needs to consider to derive complexity involved in implementing contract testing in general

kanohen

2018-09-14 15:09

The reason I ask is because if there isn't a generic way to define types, am afraid, it becomes complex working with complex request/response json structures on pact

daniel.straus

2018-09-14 19:28

has joined #general

daniel.straus

2018-09-14 19:36

Hi there.

daniel.straus

2018-09-14 19:39

Question about publishing pacts with SBT for Scala. We have our pact broker using basic auth as we have it in our ci build which uses a 3rd party service. But sbt seems to have an issue authing to the pact broken. Is anyone familiar with the pacts and sbt and had experience with this?

daniel.straus

2018-09-14 19:39

Thanks in advance

thirumal.net

2018-09-14 21:38

@matt.fellows can you please help me on below scenario? do we need to call real webservice call code in order to create pact files? if yes, how to create pact files for existing API code ? please let me know if you see any sample code with service call

thirumal.net

2018-09-14 21:40

def test_HappyPath (self): mockurl = 'http://localhost:1234' expected = {body:true} pact.given ( 'Given there is a valid form' ).upon_receiving ( 'fetch all the info ' ).with_request ( 'get', '/',headers={Authorization:'Bearer 58771381-333e-334f-9604-784'} ).will_respond_with(200, body=expected) with pact: result = callAPI ( mockurl ) self.assertEqual(result, expected )

thirumal.net

2018-09-14 21:42

'def callAPI (url): return requests.get ( url ).json()'

thirumal.net

2018-09-14 21:46

my understanding is callAPI is real production web service call ? am i correct ? if yes, do you have any sample code to return requested response from real service. i am kind of stuck in this specific part to complete my POC on pact

matthew.balvanz

2018-09-14 22:14

That side of the Python library shown there is the consumer (aka client) side of the contract. `callAPI` should be replaced with the code that would be making an HTTP request to the web service. Using the `mockurl` then connects with the Pact mock service that can record the interaction as a JSON file. After you have the JSON contract, then you can use the pact-verifier to verify the contract, potentially against a production/staging service.

abubics

2018-09-17 04:34

I would suggest that you could use different data structures for transport vs in-app.

abubics

2018-09-17 04:34

(Your sample payload uses business values for primary keys, which seems risky/brittle, but that's beside my point . . .)

abubics

2018-09-17 04:35

transporting them (over the wire) as an array is a good generic approach, with easy-to-implement data integrity

abubics

2018-09-17 04:36

If you want to translate that into a map for performance reasons, that feels more like an app responsibility (and you can do so after it's received)

abubics

2018-09-17 04:39

Also, can you keep platform-specific questions in their own channels? :innocent: :point_right: #pact-python

shekharsp27

2018-09-17 08:03

assaf.katz

2018-09-17 10:50

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-09-17 10:51

That's a very broad question @shekharsp27. What do you mean by complexity? Are do you mean in the context of story points?

malheur

2018-09-17 13:12

has joined #general

malheur

2018-09-17 13:17

Hi all, I'm running CDC test on provider's side and facing the problem: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52359563/pact-provider-tests-broken-pactverificationtesttemplate-preconditionviolation. I wonder whether it's the same issue as here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/issues/209 and what should I do to make the consumer-broker-provider bundle work together. Thanks in advance!

thirumal.net

2018-09-17 20:50

@abubics -Sure, Thanks

matt

2018-09-18 01:18

https://github.com/DiUS/pact-consumer-swift/pulse/monthly

matt

2018-09-18 01:19

it looks like the swift bindings are inactive?

matt.fellows

2018-09-18 01:28

No changes doesn't necessarily mean bad things - it might mean they just work really well :ok_hand:

matt.fellows

2018-09-18 01:28

Do you have an issue?

abubics

2018-09-18 01:53

(relative to the complexities of other options is probably an important aspect, too)

bethskurrie

2018-09-18 01:57

Please ask in the #pact-jvm channel @malheur

bethskurrie

2018-09-18 01:59

Compared to standard integration tests, contract testing is more complex to get started, but maintains a similar level of complexity as time goes on and more features are added. Traditional integration tests start with a low level of complexity but become exponentially more complex as time/features increase.

shekharsp27

2018-09-18 08:07

@bethskurrie I mean to say for example in API functional testing to derive complexity, one can consider how many parameters does api need or the API composition, on the similar lines can we decide complexity for contract testing

malheur

2018-09-18 08:08

Thanks!

bethskurrie

2018-09-18 08:13

I'm sorry @shekharsp27, I still don't understand. Can you give me a concrete example?

janneck.wullschleger

2018-09-18 09:35

has joined #general

janneck.wullschleger

2018-09-18 09:41

Hey there! I've got a serious problem with the can-i-deploy command and need some explanation. If I do a can-i-deploy --pacticipant --version, I get the results of all pacts associated with that pacticipant-version. I want to use the stricter can-i-deploy --pacticipant --version --to TAG but this one is not looking for pacts associated with that pacticipant-version and other tagged pacticipants its also failing if there are pacts missing between my pacticipant and other pacticipnat versions with that tag if there are pacts between those services on other tags. If there are pacts on some branch/tag between two services why are they considered to must be existing on other branches/tags? I think I get something wrong here and would appreciate any hints.

bethskurrie

2018-09-18 10:35

Hey @janneck.wullschleger can you make a gist and show each command and its output, and list your questions about each scenario, and I will do my best to answer you.

janneck.wullschleger

2018-09-18 10:49

Thank you: https://gist.github.com/jawu/efd788804a006183b385b102d10c1efc

shekharsp27

2018-09-18 10:53

@bethskurrie I am sorry for being unclear, I'll look for an example and will get back

bethskurrie

2018-09-18 11:15

Hi @janneck.wullschleger thanks for the example.

janneck.wullschleger

2018-09-18 11:17

If you need any further information, please send me a message.

bethskurrie

2018-09-18 11:17

The logic in the command is to make sure that you have a valid contract between all the services.

bethskurrie

2018-09-18 11:18

It knows that you have pacts between the services that are missing a contract, and it is saying that if you want to deploy safely, you need to have one.

bethskurrie

2018-09-18 11:18

That's just the way it works.

bethskurrie

2018-09-18 11:19

It wouldn't be very helpful if it didn't check that.

bethskurrie

2018-09-18 11:23

If you are adding pacts into an existing environment, and you have versions of services deployed that never used pact, you can explicitly list the ones you want to deploy.

bethskurrie

2018-09-18 11:24

I've been meaning to add an --ignore-missing but haven't yet gotten around to it

janneck.wullschleger

2018-09-18 11:24

I do not agree with this. If I introduce a pact between service-a and service-b on a feature-branch. Why shouldn't I be able to deploy a new version of service-b to prod when there is a version of service-a deployed that has no pact(dependency) with service-b?

janneck.wullschleger

2018-09-18 11:27

What would be the normal way to introduce such new pacts?

bethskurrie

2018-09-18 11:34

That is a use case I hadn't considered.

bethskurrie

2018-09-18 11:35

Until your pact is on the main branch, you'll need to explicitly list the pacticipants that you care about in your command.

bethskurrie

2018-09-18 11:36

When you only specifying the one pacticipant, the broker autodiscovers all the other dependences.

bethskurrie

2018-09-18 11:37

In this case, it has autodiscoverd a dependency you wish to ignore for now.

bethskurrie

2018-09-18 11:37

As I haven't implemted the ignore feature, you'll need to explicitly list the dependencies you wish it to consider.

bethskurrie

2018-09-18 11:42

It's late here, so I'm not ignoring you if I don't respond, I'm just sleeping! We can chat more tomorrow if you need to.

janneck.wullschleger

2018-09-18 12:21

Thank your for your explanation. While the ignore-flag isn't implemented I have to work around this. Which api endpoint is the pact-broker-client using to query the table?

janneck.wullschleger

2018-09-18 13:15

I think I've found the correct endpoint and my needed query params to query the pact broker myself. I am a bit confused about the thought process because I am into pact since the end of last year and was sure that I understood the functionality. I'd like to chat with you to check if my understanding is correct or not.

schalkt

2018-09-18 13:23

has joined #general

abubics

2018-09-19 01:48

@shekharsp27 I don't think combinatorial/cyclomatic complexity changes at the level you're describing. The interesting complexity that differs is in test implementation and maintainability.

slack1977

2018-09-19 10:57

has joined #general

svams

2018-09-19 11:26

has joined #general

liran.tal

2018-09-19 12:18

new PR for that: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/pull/211

adam

2018-09-19 12:32

has joined #general

adam

2018-09-19 12:38

Has anyone any secret knowledge on how can I configure both gradle and npm to publish contracts to s3?

adam

2018-09-19 12:39

The general workflow that I understand should be possible, is as follows: the microservices backends define their expectations, that get converted to contracts in a build pipeline, and published to s3. At the same time they too retrieve contracts that they have to fulfill from s3 and run pact verification against them. And any frontend compoments that we have, in JS, they too define their contracts and publish them to s3.

adam

2018-09-19 12:40

Did I get it right?

leon.gaban

2018-09-19 15:12

has joined #general

leon.gaban

2018-09-19 15:13

Hi guys, I?m having a problem with the Javascript implementation of Pact, can anyone help?

leon.gaban

2018-09-19 15:14

My error ``` ? Test suite failed to run /Users/leongaban/projects/trade.io/tradeio-front/src/services/api/liquidityPool/TotalPayout.test.pact.js:2 import { Pact } from '@pact-foundation/pact'; ^ SyntaxError: Unexpected token { ```

leon.gaban

2018-09-19 15:14

This is my pactSetup file: ``` // @ts-ignore import path from 'path'; import { Pact } from '@pact-foundation/pact'; // @ts-ignore global.provider = new Pact({ port: 1234, log: path.resolve(process.cwd(), 'logs', 'mockserver-integration.log'), dir: path.resolve(process.cwd(), 'pacts'), spec: 2, cors: true, pactfileWriteMode: 'update', consumer: 'Exchange', provider: 'LP Service' }); ```

christophe

2018-09-19 16:05

has joined #general

christophe

2018-09-19 16:17

Hello all

christophe

2018-09-19 16:17

Is there specific channel for each Pact implementation?

leon.gaban

2018-09-19 16:20

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52410277/error-with-typescript-pact-io-test-popsicleerror-unable-to-connect-to

leon.gaban

2018-09-19 16:20

Yeah that would be a great channel :slightly_smiling_face:

christophe

2018-09-19 17:20

I am using Pact JS mais my question more generic, is it the right place ?

mattgilbert90

2018-09-19 17:25

@christophe use #pact-js

liran.tal

2018-09-19 17:35

@adam I think you got the basics right. what do you mean about npm to publish contracts to s3?

liran.tal

2018-09-19 17:36

@leon.gaban looks like your error is related to transpiling. better take it at #pact-js channel

matt.fellows

2018-09-19 21:31

You'd have to do your own work to publish and fetch from s3. Have you considered using a pact broker? E.g. http://pact.dius.com.au or running your own open source one?

ehughes

2018-09-20 01:43

has joined #general

shekharsp27

2018-09-20 07:19

Ok. makes sense, however still I am struggling to put across my point properly and still working on the example which helps to describe the scenario. :disappointed:

wilson.mahann

2018-09-20 13:53

has joined #general

michael.francoeur

2018-09-20 15:32

has joined #general

jacob.hebert

2018-09-20 16:24

has joined #general

zackary.mccolgan

2018-09-20 17:09

has joined #general

suparna.bhattacharjee

2018-09-21 04:26

has joined #general

esf101

2018-09-21 15:15

has joined #general

drsiino

2018-09-21 17:06

has joined #general

yudinagata

2018-09-24 23:08

has joined #general

tom397

2018-09-25 18:30

has joined #general

tom397

2018-09-25 18:38

Hello! Pact is super cool! Thanks for all the great work. I came here to see if I might be able to get some general opinions on the challenges & worth of trying to integrate pact with a legacy system. Specifically I can see how auth will be challenging (as discussed here https://docs.pact.io/faq#how-do-i-test-oauth-or-other-security-headers). Any general thoughts on the subject of legacy system integration? Or any open source examples of rails projects using a mock auth service?

leon.gaban

2018-09-25 21:38

Hi guys, I?m getting the following errors with Pact JS version ``` console.error node_modules/@pact-foundation/pact/pact.js:110 Pact verification failed! console.error node_modules/@pact-foundation/pact/pact.js:111 Actual interactions do not match expected interactions for mock MockService. Missing requests: GET /frontoffice/api/liquidity-pool/get-total-payout ```

leon.gaban

2018-09-25 21:39

On the missing requests, that API isn?t built yet, does PACT require that endpoint to be hit?

leon.gaban

2018-09-25 21:40

~My test.pact.ts file~

leon.gaban

2018-09-25 21:41

Posting my question in pact-js

uglyog

2018-09-25 22:42

A legacy system is just a system where the original authors are no longer around. If you can write tests for it, you can use Pact. I have used pact to test things like where we replace some function in the legacy system with a call out to a new microservice.

tom397

2018-09-26 03:31

Tremendous. Thanks @uglyog!

christophe

2018-09-26 06:45

Hello all Thanks for the great work. Pact is really cool. I have a question about to manage multiple consumers with one provider. Imagine we already have a pact, published on Pact Broker, betwee a consumer � and a provider. Here comes a new consumer, Consumer B. At the starting point the contract between Consumer B and the Provider is the same as between Consumer A and the Provider. What is the best way to manage this case? Consumers B publish the contract but on the server side we have to implement twice the test? Consumer B download the latest version of the contract between A and the Provider and generate the mock from the Pact file ? Is there a such functionality on the consumer ? I mean replaying the contract from another consumer?

abubics

2018-09-26 06:51

This kinda depends on what pact libraries you're using on the consumer, which is dictated by what language/platform it's written on

abubics

2018-09-26 06:52

For example, there's a unit test style of provider verification that I've never tried, but it seems like it might work how you've described (which sounds horrible).

abubics

2018-09-26 06:52

I usually just manage fixture data through states, and don't do any verification through explicit test code (on the provider side).

eduardo.iriarte-mende

2018-09-26 15:38

has joined #general

viktor.nyblom

2018-09-27 07:46

has joined #general

madu.alikor

2018-09-27 09:14

has joined #general

vikassd2012

2018-09-27 17:43

@bethskurrie I needed help with the seek.automation.stub library, I posted my issue on the git but didn't receive any responses https://github.com/seek-oss/seek.automation.stub/issues/11 so I was hoping you can direct me to the right person?

bethskurrie

2018-09-28 09:12

@vikassd2012 tag Neil Campbell in the #pact-net channel.

testmoodbit

2018-09-28 19:51

has joined #general

moodbit

2018-09-28 19:52

has joined #general

vikassd2012

2018-09-29 05:30

Thanks @bethskurrie for your prompt response

liran.tal

2018-09-30 12:15

I thought of using `http://pact.dius.com.au/register/` for a workshop on pact but due to the non-automatic sign-up and registration process I guess I?ll have to revert to a docker-based solution? ? would be happy to get input

matt.fellows

2018-09-30 21:33

@liran.tal did you register? Haven't seen anything in the past few days, I'm happy to create one for your workshop

shekharsp27

2018-10-01 07:49

Hi, In case of a scenario where there is a dependency in microservice as ( A-> B- > C ), so in case if A sends a request to B to get some data, in that case, B has to request C to fulfill data required by A. So in this scenario to check the contract between A->B I can use the following options 1) I can virtualize service 'C' which can be used while validating the contract 2) Can use contract generated by B -> C to create mock service (service C) 3) Can use Swagger mock Validator tool which will leverage the Swagger file of providers (B and C), so providers can validate consumers' expectations without spinning up themselves. So in addition to the above approach will it be advisable to have one of the following options as well 1) Write a contract test between A->B such that, B doesn't have to get any data from C (write the contract which will cover only response which B can provider on its own without depending on C) and have separate contract between B->C which will make sure C responding in a proper way. 2) Use of provider state, for example, if service B knows what data needs to get from service C which required to send to service A. In that case service B can insert that data directly in its own database or can provide endpoint which service A will use to setup data. Please let me know your thoughts

matt.fellows

2018-10-01 07:51

I would go for option 2, using provider states and stubbing out service C when contract testing A->B

matt.fellows

2018-10-01 07:52

Depending on language, tool etc that might be a stub server, an in memory fake dependency (e.g. spring ) or any number of things

matt.fellows

2018-10-01 07:54

See https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/provider#stub-calls-to-downstream-systems and https://gist.github.com/bethesque/43eef1bf47afea4445c8b8bdebf28df0

liran.tal

2018-10-01 10:12

oh I didn't, I just noticed that it's not an instant thing from the website. I think for the workshop I'd plan to have many accounts open for each team that joins in. Its not a problem though, I'll just run the broker from the docker image. Thanks!

matt.fellows

2018-10-01 11:32

No worries. If you want a bunch created for the workshop, let me know and I?ll get them created in bulk (I can send you a template).

matt.fellows

2018-10-01 11:32

Also I think there was a conversation _somewhere_ - what?s the workshop details and do you want any help getting it together?

liran.tal

2018-10-01 11:39

I would love to, thanks! I'm still working on the details, story and plan but once I have something more coherent to share I definitely will.

liran.tal

2018-10-01 11:39

That's awesome of you to offer, thanks! :heart:

matt.fellows

2018-10-01 11:40

:thumbsup:

shekharsp27

2018-10-01 12:44

Thanks @matt.fellows

matt.fellows

2018-10-01 12:52

suvendu.panja1

2018-10-02 01:43

has joined #general

keynan21

2018-10-02 01:47

has joined #general

keynan21

2018-10-02 01:51

You rang?

nnoble

2018-10-02 02:21

has joined #general

keynan21

2018-10-02 04:47

@tjones you rang?

tjones

2018-10-02 05:27

@keynan21 - following on from this? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-node/issues/119

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:28

affermative

tjones

2018-10-02 05:28

I guess the first question is - is there a reason you're spinning up the mock server in the build script rather than letting the js library do it for you?

tjones

2018-10-02 05:28

that lifecycle is supposed to be abstracted a bit (and I'm hoping we can eventually abstract it more)

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:29

Yes, if I let the lib do it, it explodes looking for ruby

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:29

I strongly believe what you want is a session lifecycle, not a process lifecycle

tjones

2018-10-02 05:30

Could you elaborate a bit?

bethskurrie

2018-10-02 05:31

Huh? @keynan21 something is not right.

bethskurrie

2018-10-02 05:31

The fact that it is ruby under the hood shouldn't matter.

bethskurrie

2018-10-02 05:31

What is the error stack?

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:32

The service simply exists, somewhere, accessible at http://localhost:5236 , now how do you implement the library / service to behave the way you want

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:32

Dear service please give me a session cookie

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:32

.... do many test things

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:33

Thx service, close my session

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:33

whatever is happening on process start / stop is moved to the session create / close

tjones

2018-10-02 05:33

Perhaps. I think ideally all of that should be abstracted to the user

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:34

same lifecycle, with no dependence on where / when / how the process is created

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:34

ideally I don't need to know the internals of tcp to write an http server

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:34

however that is never and will be never the case

tjones

2018-10-02 05:35

Anyway, to fix your issue, this is happening because alpine has `uglibc`instead of `glibc`

tjones

2018-10-02 05:35

Context here :https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/154#issuecomment-368817693

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:35

What's important is that new users can get something working quickly and advanced users can customize their usage to their usecase

tjones

2018-10-02 05:36

You can either add the relevant parts to your dockerfile, or use a different base image

tjones

2018-10-02 05:37

This might help if you want to use a different base image: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/wiki/Using-the-pact-ruby-standalone-with-Alpine-Linux-Docker

tjones

2018-10-02 05:38

So, that will get you able to get the tests working

tjones

2018-10-02 05:38

Beyond that, the suggestion of having a separate service for the mock server is interesting

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:39

Thank you, but I always knew installing the missing dependency would solve the immediate problem. I filed the ticket because I don't want a dependency on ruby or anything else creeping in.

tjones

You don't have to depend on Ruby - `pact-node` contains everything it needs.

bethskurrie

Eventually you'll have to depend on something @keynan21 - the service isn't built on air :stuck_out_tongue:

tjones

It does expect `glibc` though

keynan21

okay, I don't want to depend on glibc

bethskurrie

What would you prefer to depend on?

keynan21

I'm perfectly happy to depend on docker

tjones

2018-10-02 05:41

Why not run the test within docker, then?

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:42

I do

tjones

2018-10-02 05:42

The dockerfile can contain the dependencies

tjones

2018-10-02 05:43

glibc doesn't seem like an unreasonable dependency. Is there some reason you are unable to include it?

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:43

which means I'm now mixing in things to my test environment I'm not necessarily expecting in production

tjones

2018-10-02 05:44

That's standard practice with npm, though - `devDependencies` are available at test time and not available in production.

tjones

2018-10-02 05:46

An alternative if you don't want to have a different container definition in prod would be to have two containers - one for your Pact tests, and one for your other tests

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:46

Best practice is to replicate your prod environment as close as possible.

tjones

2018-10-02 05:46

(Or leave glibc there in production)

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:48

An per the link you gave, adding glibc adds 86MB to a container that currently weighs only 22MB

tjones

2018-10-02 05:48

So, your issue could be resolved by removing the dependency on glibc?

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:50

The specific problem of today? maybe.

bethskurrie

2018-10-02 05:50

@keynan21 I'm afraid that the current method of packaging is the only alternative we have at the moment. We know that it is not ideal, and we have a long term plan to fix it, however, this is an open source project that gets completed in people's free time, and the amount of work to change the current implementation to the new fancy version is significant, and has not yet been picked up.

bethskurrie

2018-10-02 05:50

If you are interested in contributing, we would be very happy to accept your assistance.

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:51

The general problem remains. I want control over what and how process get run, and there seems to be no reason why the library MUST start the process other than it's the status quo

bethskurrie

2018-10-02 05:51

There is a docker image of the mock service

bethskurrie

There should be the ability to use an existing mock service in the js library.

keynan21

@bethskurrie Yes, those are what I'm trying to use

bethskurrie

If there isn't, we can add it.

bethskurrie

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/234

Please go to the #pact-js channel, and discuss it with @matt.fellows and @mboudreau. Please keep your comments in a thread to avoid spamming people as we have currently been doing.

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:53

@bethskurrie And I appreciate that yall have limited bandwidth. I've no objection to doing the leg work once people are onboard.

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:53

soz, slack noob

bethskurrie

2018-10-02 05:57

In the Ruby implementation, there is a flag called `standalone` when you are setting up the mock service configuration, which tells the code "don't start a mock service, I've already got one running". This needs to be added to pact-js if it doesn't already exist @keynan21

keynan21

2018-10-02 05:59

Thx

matt.fellows

2018-10-02 07:27

As a related aside, multi stage builds https://docs.docker.com/develop/develop-images/multistage-build/#before-multi-stage-builds) and other similar patterns can assist with keeping runtime dependencies to a minimum, whilst allowing for flexibility during build stages

christophe

2018-10-03 14:22

Sorry. I did not see that you answered me.

christophe

2018-10-03 14:22

I am not sure to get you

christophe

2018-10-03 14:36

So imagine, that we have client A in Angular and client B in Java with a server in Java. So the 2 contracts are published on Pact Broker. The server should implement tests to validate the 2 contracts. So my question is how to manage the case where the 2 client contract have common part. Should the server side test every contracts, which could implies to duplicate tests or could we image some common contracts and the client download this part of this contracts to generate the mock ?

holden.mcginnis

2018-10-03 15:43

has joined #general

igalkop

2018-10-04 04:31

has joined #general

contactsai123

2018-10-04 05:33

has joined #general

kashikar.harsh

2018-10-04 07:56

has joined #general

daniel.oades

2018-10-04 13:31

has joined #general

joe.campedelli

2018-10-04 19:22

has joined #general

shawn

2018-10-04 20:15

has joined #general

fraser.crichton.devel

2018-10-04 22:56

has joined #general

chandas.pathre

2018-10-05 07:10

has joined #general

ashish.dubey91

2018-10-05 12:26

hey guys I have some questions around managing provider states across different services - are there best practices around making provider states discoverable in a setting which has multiple teams managing a dozen of micro-services? I have some ideas, I would like to know how others do it

jose.neto

2018-10-05 14:57

has joined #general

rakshit.shukla

2018-10-05 16:06

has joined #general

abubics

2018-10-08 00:56

I think that's definitely a "teams should talk to each other" kinda thing, but I haven't had a particularly complex use case yet.

abubics

2018-10-08 00:57

I'd be interested to see if anyone feels that it's a problem that needs a technical solution :thinking_face:

matt.fellows

2018-10-08 10:58

It?s something we?re looking to add to the broker roadmap - making those states more easily discoverable. If nothing else to avoid simple mistakes where two states exist and differ by spelling or something.

matt.fellows

2018-10-08 10:58

But yes, it?s always a ?talk to the provider? before adding a state they don?t know about

kashikar.harsh

2018-10-08 11:26

hi all

kashikar.harsh

2018-10-08 11:26

Facing an issue with pact verification, getting below error

kashikar.harsh

2018-10-08 11:26

Pact verification failed! Actual interactions do not match expected interactions for mock MockService.

kashikar.harsh

2018-10-08 11:27

I understand this is because the request is executed before the interactions were added

kashikar.harsh

2018-10-08 11:27

however I have added done to my interactions, still getting this error

mboudreau

2018-10-08 11:32

please keep it in the appropriate language channel :slightly_smiling_face:

jesus.medinilla

2018-10-08 12:29

has joined #general

robcossin

2018-10-08 16:14

has joined #general

abubics

2018-10-08 23:17

The "provider states" docs page gives a nice high-level description of how states work, but I think this could also be expanded to some descriptions of approaches to state structure/strategy :thinking_face: and that would lead nicely into state discoverability (or vice versa)

matt.fellows

2018-10-08 23:47

good point

ashish.dubey91

2018-10-09 03:31

yeah something like that would definitely be helpful. conversation between the consumer and provider would def be there for using a provider state while defining a contract but once a provider state has been negotiated it should also be easy for consumers to reference them (to make re-use easy) and also same for teams managing the provider

ashish.dubey91

2018-10-09 03:32

what we're thinking in our team is to have a way to document the provider states that the provider has fixtures for in the code repo of the provider. that's the most basic one. something on the pact-broker would have been great too

abubics

2018-10-09 03:59

Generally, the first pact tests I write are GETs that mostly show the bare state anyway . . . and without an abstract data visualisation, I don't see an easy, consistent way to display the state across multiple tables, or the many kinds of stores (including relational and nosql)

abubics

2018-10-09 04:00

I guess what I'd like to know is: what kinds of issues do you have already? Do your GETs not give enough info, and/or not show relationships between different levels of relational hierarchy? etc

abubics

2018-10-09 04:22

(and do you have any ideas for how to represent the state, since the structures may be very arbitrary?)

ashish.dubey91

2018-10-09 04:27

The GETs in my case give out information, mostly. but it could be contained in headers, query string, or url. There's no standard at the moment. I think there is scope for making provider state inference easier than looking at request specs of the consumers

brian.smith.keith

2018-10-09 18:56

has joined #general

marco.dellolio

2018-10-09 18:56

has joined #general

avi.pardu.nash3

2018-10-10 00:05

has joined #general

arne.zelasko

2018-10-10 08:58

Hi everyone, short question; Is it possible to use spring cloud contract on one service and on the other pact-jvm ?

bethskurrie

2018-10-10 08:59

Which end is which?

bethskurrie

2018-10-10 09:00

Ask in #pact-jvm, or better yet, on the SCC gitter channel. The maintainer is very responsive.

matt.fellows

2018-10-10 11:18

My understanding that yes, you can. On the consumer side, it can generate Pact files that can be sent to the broker, and on the provider side it can fetch from the broker. So if it can do those things, then in theory either side is possible

inbox

2018-10-10 15:40

has joined #general

colin.but

2018-10-10 21:13

has joined #general

liran.tal

2018-10-11 12:37

@matt.fellows follow-ing up on our thread here about query params in brackets support in a matching rule. short reminder: the API endpoint on the provider follows this signature: ``` GET /reviews?movieId[]=1 ``` on the consumer, I?ve set the interaction as follows: ``` withRequest: { method: 'GET', path: `/reviews`, query: { 'movieId[]': Matchers.like('1') } }, ``` when I run the provider testing I get this warning as part of the results of the verifier: ``` WARN: Ignoring unsupported matching rules {"match"=>"type"} for path $['query']['movieId'][][0] ``` My provider?s project dependencies are `"@pact-foundation/pact": "^6.0.1"`

liran.tal

2018-10-11 12:41

I updated the interaction on the consumer to be: ``` query: { 'movieId[]': Matchers.like('1') ``` just as in my PR for array brackets example and now the provider verification results shows these warnings: ``` WARN: Ignoring unsupported matching rules {"min"=>1} for path $['query']['movieId'][] WARN: Ignoring unsupported matching rules {"match"=>"type"} for path $['query']['movieId'][][*]* ```

louiseavelar

2018-10-11 13:30

has joined #general

louiseavelar

2018-10-11 16:48

Hello Everyone, I am new to pact and the whole concept of contract testing. I was wandering if contract testing replaces completly e2e tests or is just a complementary test. That wasn't clear for me! thanks in advance!

liran.tal

2018-10-11 21:45

@louiseavelar welcome! :wave: I would think of it as not replacing e2e tests but instead of enabling robust and short feedback loop of e2e tests in a rich SOA.

bethskurrie

2018-10-11 21:46

There's a FAQ dedicated to this on http://docs.pact.io @louiseavelar

mboudreau

2018-10-11 23:25

@louiseavelar they do different things. e2e tests is to test your front-end code and routes through your application, while contract testing is to make sure your consumer (front-end app) can consistently call your producer (API) without the contract breaking in production. My personal opinion is that they work really well in unison since in one run, you can do both your e2e and contract testing :slightly_smiling_face:

pact-slack

2018-10-12 12:23

I'm thinking about using Pact for a message/event driven architecture. Now the Pact tool is an implementation of consumer driven contracts (CDC). But in our event driven architecture every application/service (a Bounded Context in DDD) publishes its own events in its own language. Other applications consume these events and translate them into their own language (ACL in DDD) and then act upon them. So there is not really a _consumer driven_ style of development, but more kind of "let's have a look of what happens out there and try to make some sense out of it." I'm not sure on how to use the CDC methodology in this context (and if it is applicable at all) and which Pact based workflow you would suggest? Nonetheless Pact as a tool for decoupled, fast contract testing seems still very useful for event based architectures.

abubics

2018-10-12 13:02

These are a few orthogonal concerns. Contracts are important. If they're brokered messages instead of synchronous calls, that's one point. Both of those are separate from the concern of: which end drives the contract.

ibenardetelevis

2018-10-12 13:07

I?m a bit new to pact and contract testing might be a dummy question but; while writing a contract test for getting an entity `/resource/ID` when I use a random ID in my consumer and generate the pact file, now I need to make sure provider uses the same id to create this entity or is there a way to implement this without an actual value ?

kashikar.harsh

2018-10-12 13:27

@ibenardetelevis have a look at matcher https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js#matching

ibenardetelevis

2018-10-12 13:31

@kashikar.harsh thank you for the example, The only part I could not figure is ` path: "/animals/1" ` where I need to match that 1 in the provider side as well right ? because when the Pact File is generated 1 will be embedded in there ?

brian.smith.keith

2018-10-12 14:03

You can use a regex I believe

liran.tal

2018-10-12 15:20

Right. I?d further add that while there definitely is a contract there - there?s a DTO that one service publishes and another service catches - that?s essentially the contract. A provider in your case is definitely clear. A consumer on the other hand could be a bit more odd situation since sometimes the EDA is also about decoupling the ?know? of who your consumers are. I?d say that?s the interesting part of the problem and will also be happy to learn more on this.

pbanka

2018-10-12 17:26

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-10-12 21:24

Matchers are for the consumer to convey to the provider that the specific response value isn't important, just the type or structure. The request value has to be able to work on the provider (e.g. resource 1) which is where provider states are useful

liran.tal

2018-10-13 00:07

I take that back. Actually since the consumer is creating the contract then its the consumer that is creating the relationship so the provider doesn?t know of this to begin with, only after-the-fact. To summarize I don?t think working with a message bus adds anything new.

kashikar.harsh

2018-10-13 16:56

@ibenardetelevis I used matcher in expect lik this

kashikar.harsh

2018-10-13 16:56

expect(response).to.eventually.have.property('service_id') .and.match(contractTestConfig.regex.guid)

kashikar.harsh

2018-10-13 16:57

you can define regex and use it to match expected value

matt.fellows

2018-10-14 03:33

This is redundant - pact does this exact test for you anyway.

kashikar.harsh

2018-10-14 03:38

@matt.fellows, thanks can you please share a code snippet on how to do this?

kashikar.harsh

2018-10-14 03:39

somehow the code examples in the link are not enough for new beginners like me

matt.fellows

2018-10-14 21:44

Hi Harsh. What have you read on the subject so I know what level your education is at?

matt.fellows

2018-10-14 21:45

Start with the FAQs and best practices at http://docs.pact.io

abubics

2018-10-14 23:05

The important thing for contract testing is the expectations (i.e. the contract), not the transport (i.e. http, events, messages, function calls, whatever). Message protocols & transports (such as SQS, *MQ, etc) got some Pact implementation support in the last few years :slightly_smiling_face:

abubics

2018-10-14 23:09

One of the intents of consumer-driven (rather than provider-driven) contracts is waste reduction. - There's little value in building endpoints that no one uses. - DDD is obviously important, but that helps shape the data structures, and to a lesser extent their APIs. - To this point, just because it makes sense to CRUD everything, doesn't mean all the endpoint+verbs will be used :slightly_smiling_face: - (And the simple CRUD endpoints probably aren't the interesting ones for regression testing anyway, but I digress)

liran.tal

2018-10-14 23:36

I like the point about waste reduction, will add that to my article!

matt.fellows

2018-10-15 03:29

Sorry Liran, I missed this. Will follow up tonight !

liran.tal

2018-10-15 03:59

Thanks!

bethskurrie

2018-10-15 04:00

You can ignore that @liran.tal

bethskurrie

2018-10-15 04:01

It has no side effects, it's just annoying.

bethskurrie

2018-10-15 04:01

I've been trying to work out how to get rid of it, but it's a bit tricky.

liran.tal

2018-10-15 04:02

Gotcha. No worries. I thought I was landing on some wrong version or doing something wrong on my side. Maybe we should add it on the FAQ or somewhere as a known issue? Possibly even an open issue on GitHub so that if someone searches they no it?s a no-issue thing.

bethskurrie

2018-10-15 04:03

There were a few that were known issues, and I've fixed them like I was playing whack-a-mole, but the error for the query string specifically can be ignored.

bethskurrie

2018-10-15 04:03

I think there is an issue somewhere.

bethskurrie

2018-10-15 04:03

In fact, there are many

liran.tal

2018-10-15 04:05

:slightly_smiling_face:

kashikar.harsh

2018-10-15 06:02

Hi @matt.fellows, I have gone through the entire document and some blogs as well, but couldn't find any e2e example of matchers... Not sure if I have missed anything... Also it may be obvious for many to tweak the given examples to use matcher, but not for me

marco.dellolio

2018-10-15 20:16

hello everybody. I?m implementing `pact-node`. basic on the documentation look like after I spin up the server ``` const provider = pact.createServer({ ...opts }) ``` I can just proceed regularly with ``` return provider.start().then(() => { provider.addInteraction(interaction).then(() => done()) ``` but `Unhandled Promise Rejection: TypeError: provider.addInteraction is not a function` Am I missing something?

matt.fellows

2018-10-15 21:55

I think you want to be using pact js, not pact node directly.

matt.fellows

2018-10-15 21:56

addInteraction is not available on the object of pact node. It just is a library under the hood

matt.fellows

2018-10-15 21:56

Look at the examples in pact js repo

marco.dellolio

2018-10-15 23:07

Ok I wanted to confirm that, at the moment there isn?t a way to use pact is without installing Ruby on the service

matt.fellows

2018-10-15 23:11

You shouldn't have to install it manually or anything.

matt.fellows

2018-10-15 23:11

It should u install it all for you

matt.fellows

2018-10-15 23:12

But yes, Ruby under the hood

mboudreau

2018-10-15 23:12

portable ruby

mboudreau

2018-10-15 23:12

which we have plans to change to a OS specific binary written in rust eventually

matt.fellows

2018-10-15 23:14

As a consumer it is something you shouldn't even know exists. No need for installing Ruby runtime or anything

marco.dellolio

2018-10-15 23:51

Thank you guys! To be more specific, when I start a provider it?s still spawn a Ruby process, that?s what I wanted to avoid

abubics

2018-10-15 23:53

it will always have to spawn at least one process during consumer testing or provider verifying . . . which bit of "ruby process" are you trying to avoid?

marco.dellolio

2018-10-16 00:16

My goal on using pact-node was to spawn a node process for provider. Otherwise in `Pact.js` provider.setup() would start a ruby process

abubics

2018-10-16 01:01

I mean, why do you want to avoid that?

abubics

2018-10-16 01:02

(no judgement, I'm just trying to understand the problem before offering solutions)

heymega

2018-10-16 08:59

Do you think the design choice to use ruby under the hood or indeed rust binary is going to be a hinderance in the long run? It seems every language implementation is using it. I like the idea that the community can help create language specific implementations but it can be quite difficult, or in some cases off putting, if the library isn't 100% native. For instance, in the .NET repo they moved over to the ruby core for v2 and this meant we can no longer use an in-memory server and requires spawning a ruby process. Something that isn't always possible to do given that these might run on build agents in the cloud. I'm guessing there are other restrictions that people have seen in their implementations.

neil

2018-10-16 09:07

Speaking from my experience with moving from v1 to v2, trying to rally some support to build version 2 natively in the community was a real uphill battle. There were people who wanted to help, however nothing eventuated after quite some time of discussions.

neil

2018-10-16 09:11

In the end I made the decision to move to using the ruby core, as the .NET version was trailing so far behind and having matchers was a really nice feature. I also didn?t want to be trailing that far behind next time. The idea is that building some language specific facades is a lot easier, than building the feature multiple times in each supported language.

neil

2018-10-16 09:12

And hopefully it?s a more palatable chunk of work for someone in the community to break off as well

heymega

2018-10-16 09:15

Makes sense when you put it that way Neil. I guess its one of the downsides of OSS. I'm surprised more people aren't prepared to help out given how awesome and useful the library is.

neil

2018-10-16 09:15

Our goal is to keep using this model, however hopefully we can make it feel more native with less trade offs

neil

2018-10-16 09:19

There have been some really awesome contributions, don?t get me wrong. From what I have seen though, I?d guess that a lot of the OSS contributions come from peoples free time (including most of mine now days) and as a society we are just getting busier and busier.

neil

2018-10-16 09:22

Over in #pact-net it may be worth chatting about the issues you are running into with running the pact tests on cloud agents. There may be a solution, that someone knows?

heymega

2018-10-16 09:52

That's a great idea Neil. I'll drop a question on the issues section.

matt.fellows

2018-10-16 10:20

The more languages that we want to have Pact work with exponentially increases time to market for new features and ongoing maintenance. We identified a few years ago that a) more languages were in demand and b) that we couldn't scale to implement new features (and thus compatibility across languages)

matt.fellows

2018-10-16 10:21

We all use pact on our own projects and so dogfood them regularly. There are likely going to be some restrictions as you note, but outsourcing the core logic means we can start to focus efforts elsewhere (e.g. docs, better DX etc)

matt.fellows

2018-10-16 10:22

If there are issues though, we want to know!

pact-slack

2018-10-16 10:54

Thanks for making things clear. You're right, transport mechanism is of lesser importance. So, at the concept level, you still would start to write the contract on the consumer side even though the producer is upstream and technically (because of decoupling) not interested which consumers exist. To bring a DDD based example (assuming team A is upstream): Team A would define their Ubiquotous Language, then team B (which wants to use events from team A) would define a contract (event content) in that language and give it to team A. Thus there would be no waste on team A side and the team would still be able to use its own language for the events.

marco.dellolio

2018-10-16 23:04

~moved to pact.js channel~

abubics

2018-10-17 00:16

From an analysis perspective, you should probably work on your domain language well before starting development :stuck_out_tongue:

abubics

2018-10-17 00:17

but, more seriously, one of the early points highlighted in the docs is that Pact isn't intended to replace conversation

abubics

2018-10-17 00:18

So, it shouldn't matter who is upstream . . . usually the initial consumer/provider pair should work out a domain model that works for their intended use cases, and extension considerations

abubics

2018-10-17 00:18

You can design a model, and an API, and then only implement the bits as you need them :ok_hand:

mboudreau

2018-10-17 00:36

yeah, it all comes down to a single library to rule them all. Currently it's ruby, but we've been making efforts towards a Rust c library implementation that should work in process in most languages. Consistency is key for this because if the implementation is different for each language, it could break contracts making the product useless

alejandro.exequiel.ca

2018-10-17 19:44

has joined #general

pact-slack

2018-10-18 22:24

:grinning::+1:

igit.soeriasaputra

2018-10-19 04:44

has joined #general

privat.sebastian.muel

2018-10-21 09:56

has joined #general

rr.1.riou

2018-10-22 11:02

has joined #general

rr.1.riou

2018-10-22 11:04

Hey guys, nice to meet you! I am looking for an exemple of pact on top of native jest on a create-react-app? If there is some best practice, how is the best way to set it up! thanks in advance! Erwan

abubics

2018-10-22 11:38

Try in #pact-js, but this seems like a thing that's covered in the ToC on http://docs.pact.io :thinking_face:

rr.1.riou

2018-10-22 12:42

Yes i already found exemple, acutally a lot of differents ones. I apply this one (https://github.com/arkency/react-example-pact/blob/master/src/App.test.js) but its seems it creating errors. Probably due to the new architecture version of react release recently. So i was looking for a 'recommanded reference'

abubics

2018-10-22 23:00

Yeah, I wouldn't go with Enzyme for Pact testing. These network interface unit tests should avoid DOM & browser dependencies :slightly_smiling_face:

abubics

2018-10-22 23:23

have a look at https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/tree/master/examples/jest

abubics

2018-10-22 23:24

Some bits of this example are outdated (e.g. `publish.js` is no longer required)

yunxing.wang

2018-10-23 07:44

has joined #general

rr.1.riou

2018-10-23 08:58

Yes i actually clone this test but i can't manage launch it, its very weird : ``` PS C:\Users\eadrien\Desktop\pact-js\examples\jest> cd __tests__ PS C:\Users\eadrien\Desktop\pact-js\examples\jest\__tests__> npm test > jest@1.0.0 test C:\Users\eadrien\Desktop\pact-js\examples\jest > jest __tests__/ --runInBand --setupFiles ./pactSetup.js --setupTestFrameworkScriptFile ./pactTestWrapper.js No tests found In C:\Users\eadrien\Desktop\pact-js\examples\jest 9 files checked. testMatch: **/__tests__/**/*.js?(x),**/?(*.)(spec|test).js?(x) - 3 matches testPathIgnorePatterns: \\node_modules\\ - 9 matches Pattern: __tests__/ - 0 matches PS C:\Users\eadrien\Desktop\pact-js\examples\jest\__tests__> ```

rr.1.riou

2018-10-23 09:32

i also created an issue on the pact-js since its really doesn't work to install properly

rr.1.riou

2018-10-23 09:33

kanohen

2018-10-23 15:19

Hello guys, Please, I have a pact test on my producer. The producer is a Gradle spring project. I have added the pact test to a pact directory in my test folder. When I run ./gradlew test --info, every test in the test folder runs except the pact test. For some reason Gradle isn't aware of that test. However , when I run it locally, without using Gradle, it works fine. Is there some configuration I need to add to my build file to notify Gradle of the pact folder?

gopinathlangote11

2018-10-23 16:31

It depends upon how you gradle test script works.

gopinathlangote11

2018-10-23 16:32

Could you please share the `build.gradle` file along with you test package structure

tom.hombergs

2018-10-23 19:47

I have exactly the same issue

tom.hombergs

2018-10-23 19:48

and no clue how to debug it...any help is appreciated :slightly_smiling_face:

abubics

2018-10-23 21:45

Also, take this to #pact-jvm for more targeted help :)

tarcio.saraiva

2018-10-23 23:09

has joined #general

tarcio.saraiva

2018-10-23 23:10

hello :wave:

tarcio.saraiva

2018-10-23 23:11

unfortunately I come with a problem: seems like pact broker is down?

tarcio.saraiva

2018-10-23 23:11

we are getting a 404 here

bethskurrie

2018-10-23 23:12

@matt.fellows

bethskurrie

2018-10-23 23:13

@kong are you able to check? I'm afk.

tarcio.saraiva

2018-10-23 23:43

sorry disregard my message earlier guys

tarcio.saraiva

2018-10-23 23:49

false alarm - I was given the wrong information; it turns out a pact file was missing - all is well :tada:

kong

2018-10-23 23:50

thanks @tarcio.saraiva .. sorry , just saw this.

kanohen

2018-10-24 08:27

Sorry guys,I didn't get a notification that my message was replied. Hence, my late response. @gopinathlangote11 could you elaborate more on how the Gradle test script could have affected this?

kanohen

2018-10-24 08:28

My test package has the test folder with sun folders. Say sub folders A and B. In A is another subfolder C which contains my pact test. Every tests in folder A and B are hit but folder C is never hit.

kanohen

2018-10-24 08:29

Here is my test class ``` @RunWith(RestPactRunner.class) @Provider("hombrew") @PactBroker(host="pact-broker.europe-west6.prod.cloud", port="80") public class ProviderTest { @TestTarget // has to be public public final MockMvcTarget target = new MockMvcTarget(); private Controller controller = new Controller(someContainer); @Before public void setup() { target.setControllers(modelController); } } ```

nishantv12

2018-10-24 08:47

has joined #general

kanohen

2018-10-24 09:55

My Gradle build: ``` group = '{UNNECESSARY}' buildscript { ext.springVersion = '5.0.6.RELEASE' ext.springBootVersion = '2.0.2.RELEASE' ext.micrometerVersion = '1.0.4' ext.jUnitVersion = '5.1.0' ext.versionpath = 'src/main/resources/version' ext.restAssuredVersion = '3.1.0' repositories { mavenLocal() maven {url = "URL_TO_ARTIFACTORY"} } dependencies { classpath("io.franzbecker:gradle-lombok:1.11") classpath("org.springframework:spring-core:${springVersion}") classpath("org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-gradle-plugin:${springBootVersion}") classpath("org.unbroken-dome.gradle-plugins:gradle-testsets-plugin:1.0.2") } } def getGitHash = { -> def stdout = new ByteArrayOutputStream() exec { commandLine 'git', 'rev-parse', '--short', 'HEAD' standardOutput = stdout } return stdout.toString().trim() } def getGitBranch = { -> def stdout = new ByteArrayOutputStream() exec { commandLine 'git', 'rev-parse', '--abbrev-ref', 'HEAD' standardOutput = stdout } return stdout.toString().trim() } def versionString = "0.1.0" apply plugin: 'java' apply plugin: 'org.springframework.boot' apply plugin: "io.franzbecker.gradle-lombok" apply plugin: "application" sourceSets { main.java.srcDir "src/main/java" main.resources.srcDir "src/main/resources" test.java.srcDir "src/test/java" test.resources.srcDir "src/test/resources" integrationTest { java.srcDir file('src/integration-test/java') resources.srcDir file('src/integration-test/resources') } } repositories { mavenLocal() maven {url = "URL_TO_REPO"} } //ignore the class name.. mainClassName = '{application_className}' sourceCompatibility = 1.8 targetCompatibility = 1.8 gradle.projectsEvaluated { tasks.withType(JavaCompile) { options.compilerArgs << "-Xlint:unchecked" << "-Xlint:deprecation" } } dependencies { // H2O compile files("libs/h2o-genmodel.jar") // Spring compile("org.springframework:spring-core:${springVersion}") compile("org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-starter-web:${springBootVersion}") // uncomment the following to switch from tomcat to jetty as the server // { exclude(module: 'spring-boot-starter-tomcat') } // compile('org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-starter-jetty') compile("org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-starter-actuator:${springBootVersion}") testCompile("org.springframework.boot:spring-boot-starter-test:${springBootVersion}") // Metric instrumentation compile("io.micrometer:micrometer-core:${micrometerVersion}") compile("io.micrometer:micrometer-registry-prometheus:${micrometerVersion}") // Logging compile("org.slf4j:slf4j-log4j12:1.8.0-beta2") compile("org.slf4j:jcl-over-slf4j:1.7.12") //Annotation Processor annotationProcessor("org.projectlombok:lombok:1.18.0") // File IO compile("org.yaml:snakeyaml:1.21") // Testing testCompile("com.jayway.jsonpath:json-path:2.2.0") testImplementation("org.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-api:${jUnitVersion}") testRuntimeOnly("org.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-engine:${jUnitVersion}") // Contract testing testCompile("au.com.dius:pact-jvm-provider-spring_2.11:3.5.2") testCompile("au.com.dius:pact-jvm-model:3.5.2") integrationTestCompile("commons-collections:commons-collections:3.2.2") integrationTestCompile("io.rest-assured:rest-assured:${restAssuredVersion}") integrationTestCompile("io.rest-assured:json-schema-validator:${restAssuredVersion}") integrationTestCompile sourceSets.main.output integrationTestCompile configurations.testCompile integrationTestCompile sourceSets.test.output integrationTestRuntime configurations.testRuntime } configurations.all { exclude group: "commons-logging", module: 'commons-logging' } test {

kanohen

2018-10-24 09:55

useJUnitPlatform() dependsOn 'cleanTest' } task integrationTest(type: Test) { group = 'Verification' description = 'Integration tests against a running instance.' testClassesDirs = sourceSets.integrationTest.output.classesDirs classpath = sourceSets.integrationTest.runtimeClasspath systemProperties['jar.path'] = jar.archivePath systemProperties['server.host'] = System.properties['server.host'] } task wrapper(type: Wrapper) { gradleVersion = "4.5.1" } task('cleanVersionText') { group = 'Resource Processing' description = "Delete the files holding the version text" doLast { delete("$projectDir/$versionpath/VERSION") delete("$projectDir/$versionpath/GITHASH") delete("$projectDir/$versionpath/GITBRANCH") } } task('versionText') { group = 'Resource Processing' description = "Write the version string, git branch and git hash to three local files in the jar" doLast { mkdir("$projectDir/$versionpath") new File("$projectDir/$versionpath/VERSION").text = versionString new File("$projectDir/$versionpath/GITHASH").text = getGitHash() new File("$projectDir/$versionpath/GITBRANCH").text = getGitBranch() } } versionText.dependsOn(cleanVersionText) clean.dependsOn(cleanVersionText) // we want the build to depend on the version task so that the version/GITHASH file is always up to date processResources.dependsOn(versionText) //tasks.withType(Test) { // reports.html.destination = file("${reporting.baseDir}/${name}") //} task testReport(type: TestReport) { group = 'Verification' description = 'Moves the test reports to a location where they can be found by gocd.' destinationDir = file("$buildDir/reports") // Include the results from the `test` task in all subprojects reportOn subprojects*.test } tasks.withType(Jar) { task -> // Includes War and Ear manifest { attributes('Modelservice-Release-Version': versionString) attributes('Modelservice-Release-Githash': getGitHash()) attributes('Modelservice-Release-Gitbranch': getGitBranch()) } } ```

jeroen.claassens

2018-10-24 13:54

has joined #general

jeroen.claassens

2018-10-24 14:08

Hello, I'm looking for some help. I am tackling the task of upgrading the npm dependencies in my corporation and along with that i want to upgrade the old `pact` v3.0.1 (pact-consume-js-dsl) to the new `@patch-foundation/pact` (pact-js) v7.0.1. Since I cannot find any migration guide between these two packages I figured I'd join this server to get support. Right now I'm facing an issue with Pact Term. In our project we use `Pact Term` (`Patct.Matchers.Term`) however when following what is written here in the docs (https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/matching#regular-expressions) I get the error ``` 'Content-Type': _pact.Pact.term({ ^ TypeError: _pact.Pact.term is not a function ``` This happens in a `beforeEach` block at the `headers` property and we use Pact Terms many times after that too. Section of code:

dagarwal

2018-10-24 14:48

Hello all , do u push pact tests to pact broker only from master branch or from all the branches .Is their a way we can restrict our test only for master branch .I tried with few npm dependencies .It all works fine on my local but I am not able to get branch name on jenkins .Any suggestions ?

alex

2018-10-24 15:36

has joined #general

zhirschtritt

2018-10-24 17:42

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-10-24 20:18

@dagarwal the answers to all of your questions are at https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki and specifcally probabaly https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Using-tags.

matt.fellows

2018-10-24 20:19

Publish all of your pacts, and use tags to separate the important ones (e.g. your `master` code line generated pacts) from WIP ones. On the provider side, you should be able to configure the fetch to only grab the relevant tags.

dagarwal

2018-10-25 08:04

Ok thank you ,will give a look :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2018-10-25 09:16

:+1:

michael.ohegarty

2018-10-25 13:50

has joined #general

zdprescott

2018-10-25 18:25

has joined #general

shidhore.ajinkya

2018-10-26 10:14

has joined #general

marco.dellolio

2018-10-28 02:58

Hello! Thank you for the support so far, you guys are amazing. Today question is about JWT. Testing the matching of a signed JWT token it is out of scope for PACT? Should I just the ?three parts? structure for a JWT. What?s your opinion/experience about it?

liran.tal

2018-10-28 08:04

@marco.dellolio heyas can you explain more specifically how is JWT related to your contract tests?

matt.fellows

2018-10-28 08:47

Are you looking to test JWT contract itself, or authenticated APIs that use them?

marco.dellolio

2018-10-28 11:44

Every API request must be authenticated using a signed JWT containing url and parameters in the signature.

matt.fellows

2018-10-28 11:49

ok cool. The problem will be that whatever you put into the consumer contract will (likely) be invalid when it is later verified by the provider (assuming it?s short-lived)

matt.fellows

2018-10-28 11:50

I would on the consumer side, generate the JWT and ensure it?s in the request (you can use matchers to ensure it matches the expected query string)

matt.fellows

2018-10-28 11:51

For the verification, assuming it?s JS, use the `customProviderHeaders` option of the verifier to dynamically overwrite it with a valid token for the test https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/#verification-options

matt.fellows

2018-10-28 11:53

Alternatively, disable the JWT verification code in your Provider, as @tom.hombergs advocates in his recent article: https://reflectoring.io/pact-node-provider/

matt.fellows

2018-10-28 11:54

I personally prefer this option, on the assumption that a) it is easy enough to mock the JWT authorization implementation in the provider, and b) you have sufficient test coverage of that sub-system through other types of testing

matt.fellows

2018-10-28 11:54

@liran.tal you should add all of the articles from @tom.hombergs to your `awesome-contract-testing` repo :slightly_smiling_face:

tom.hombergs

2018-10-28 12:14

:slightly_smiling_face:

liran.tal

2018-10-28 17:02

@matt.fellows will definitely add! Thanks for the mention :slightly_smiling_face:

marco.dellolio

2018-10-28 20:14

Thank you guys, according to this, a testing case ?return 403 {error: ?..} if request if the jwt doesn?t contain the correct signature? can be considered out of scope.

matt.fellows

2018-10-28 20:16

I would still consider testing that case, and another with a slight modification - "no JWT present"

matt.fellows

2018-10-28 20:17

It should be possible to generate an invalid JWT but if not then test not supplying it at all

abubics

2018-10-28 22:08

"Invalid" sounds like too vague a use case. Even if that's the level of detail in the error, there are lots of reasons it could be invalid (e.g. expired, malformed, wrong signature, etc), which are more relevant to the testing context :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2018-10-28 23:59

true. From a contract point of view, you probably want to capture the different responses from the system - e.g. `401`, `400` and `403` type errors. They can often be generated by different means, so worth thinking through what you need/want to test, vs what you can test via other means

abubics

2018-10-29 00:09

(and what isn't worth testing, because the library/protocol does it for you)

efoshager

2018-10-29 02:30

has joined #general

shidhore.ajinkya

2018-10-29 13:58

Hi everyone! I have implemented PACT on consumer side and I was able to publish *.json pact file to PactBrocker using following code in dotnet core. var pactPublisher = new PactPublisher("http://johnsoncontrolsinc.pact.dius.com.au", new PactUriOptions("***", "***")); pactPublisher.PublishToBroker($"..\pacts\userservice.api-event.api.json", "1.0.2"); On provider side, when I try to verify the same published Pact, using a unit test case (see below code): IPactVerifier pactVerifier = new PactVerifier(config); pactVerifier .ProviderState($"{_providerUri}/provider-states") .ServiceProvider("Event.API", _providerUri) .HonoursPactWith("UserService.API") .PactUri("http://johnsoncontrolsinc.pact.dius.com.au/pacts/provider/Event.API/consumer/UserService.API/version/1.0.2", new PactUriOptions("***", "***")).Verify(); I get below error when I run that unit test. Can someone please help? PactNet.PactFailureException : Pact verification failed. See output for details. If the output is empty please provide a custom config.Outputters (IOutput) for your test framework, as we couldn't write to the console. at PactNet.Core.PactCoreHost`1.Start() in C:\projects\pact-net\PactNet\Core\PactCoreHost.cs:line 139 at Event.Test.EventApiTests.EnsureEventApiHonoursPactWithConsumer() in C:\POC\pact2\Event.Api\Event.Test\EventAPITests.cs:line 55 Error reading file from http://johnsoncontrolsinc.pact.dius.com.au/pacts/provider/Event.API/consumer/UserService.API/version/1.0.2 No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. - connect(2) for "http://johnsoncontrolsinc.pact.dius.com.au" port 80 C:/POC/pact2/Event.Api/Event.Test/bin/Debug/netcoreapp2.0/pact-win32/lib/ruby/lib/ruby/2.2.0/net/http.rb:879:in `initialize' C:/POC/pact2/Event.Api/Event.Test/bin/Debug/netcoreapp2.0/pact-win32/lib/ruby/lib/ruby/2.2.0/net/http.rb:879:in `open' C:/POC/pact2/Event.Api/Event.Test/bin/Debug/netcoreapp2.0/pact-win32/lib/ruby/lib/ruby/2.2.0/net/http.rb:879:in `block in connect' C:/POC/pact2/Event.Api/Event.Test/bin/Debug/netcoreapp2.0/pact-win32/lib/ruby/lib/ruby/2.2.0/timeout.rb:74:in `timeout' C:/POC/pact2/Event.Api/Event.Test/bin/Debug/netcoreapp2.0/pact-win32/lib/ruby/lib/ruby/2.2.0/net/http.rb:878:in `connect' C:/POC/pact2/Event.Api/Event.Test/bin/Debug/netcoreapp2.0/pact-win32/lib/ruby/lib/ruby/2.2.0/net/http.rb:863:in `do_start' C:/POC/pact2/Event.Api/Event.Test/bin/Debug/netcoreapp2.0/pact-win32/lib/ruby/lib/ruby/2.2.0/net/http.rb:852:in `start'

zhirschtritt

2018-10-29 15:09

Hi all, question regarding best practices: If I have a provider that does some external data-lookups when you hit an endpoint, what?s the best practices for mocking out those requests? For example, if I have a consumer that hit?s a provider endpoint `/gatherAllTheData` and the provider reaches out to a number of other services to synchronously aggregate data.

efoshager

2018-10-29 17:52

Hi All, is there a way to only test against specific elements? As opposed to the whole provider

anfalsiddiqui

2018-10-29 21:14

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-10-29 21:23

My guess is that You?re hitting it on `http` (port `80`) but it needs to be `https` (port `443`). My guess is either a) the publisher isn?t actually working or b) it is able to handle the redirect to https but the verifier isn?t

matt.fellows

2018-10-29 21:23

OR you?re inside a proxy environment and not allowed to connect to that host?

matt.fellows

2018-10-29 21:25

The answer is yes, depending on which language/library you use.

matt.fellows

2018-10-29 21:25

e.g. in pact js:

matt.fellows

2018-10-29 21:25

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/#re-run-specific-verification-failures

matt.fellows

2018-10-29 23:38

See https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/provider#only-stub-layers-beneath-where-contents-of-the-request-body-are-extracted

matt.fellows

2018-10-29 23:38

There are a couple of relevant sections there, andn a link to this gist: https://gist.github.com/bethesque/43eef1bf47afea4445c8b8bdebf28df0

hansrd_98

2018-10-30 05:08

has joined #general

romuald.quantin

2018-10-30 13:24

Sorry for the long block of text, I'm happy to take that somewhere else if that's not the right place. I got an issue, not caused by pact itself but more as a conceptual question caused by the way the pact mock service is used. This page does not cover everything: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service/wiki/Using-the-mock-service-with-CORS In case you make a request from a browser, the Origin header will be sent, the pact mock service can just return `Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *` for it to work. However, if you make request with `withCredentials`, chrome for example will not take a wildcard for answer (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42803394/cors-credentials-mode-is-include). That's why most backend framework instead takes the Origin value and send it back as `Access-Control-Allow-Origin`, for example for it could look like: ``` withRequest: { headers: { 'Origin': 'http://mydomain.com', willRespondWith: { headers: { 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin': 'http://mydomain.com', ``` Unfortunately, doing this will prevent you making request against the pact mock service from let's say, a localhost. The solution could be to add a matcher and with a wildcard: ``` willRespondWith: { headers: { 'Access-Control-Allow-Origin': Pact.Matchers.somethingLike('*'), ``` This will make you able to request from a localhost domain, to the pact mock service, but the only thing you want to make sure is that `'Access-Control-Allow-Origin` contains `http://mydomain.com` so that your app can call your service, and this doesn't do the job. Any thoughts?

zhirschtritt

2018-10-30 14:06

thanks Matt!

shidhore.ajinkya

2018-10-30 18:02

Thanks a lot @matt.fellows you both guresses are accurate :blush: . I need to hit https and also I was in my office's proxy environment. It works great at my home. Do you have any idea how to fix proxy issue in Visual Studio 2017 when I work in my office? I have the proxy server IP with me.

efoshager

2018-10-30 18:15

I'm a bit confused on consumers and providers in pact testing when only one endpoint is being tested. So the consumer generates a pact file based on the provider data being passed. This pact file is then tested against the contract?

efoshager

2018-10-30 21:26

What if the provider endpoint has like 30k lines? Does the consumer expect all 30k lines to be there?

bethskurrie

2018-10-30 21:28

The pact file *is* the contract.

bethskurrie

2018-10-30 21:31

Does the consumer care about every one of those 30k lines?

bethskurrie

2018-10-30 21:32

Can you set up a failing executable example in a repository? It always takes me a while to wrap my head around cors each time I pick it up again!

efoshager

2018-10-30 21:39

Sorry, I meant the pact file is then tested against the provider.

bethskurrie

2018-10-30 21:42

Yes

efoshager

2018-10-30 21:42

It did when I tested it. I added the provider data I wanted passed in the consumer, published, and it failed when I verified because it expected all the info.

bethskurrie

2018-10-30 21:42

Why is it different with only one endpoint?

efoshager

2018-10-30 21:43

I think I'm just confusing myself that both the consumer and provider have two separate endpoints. Thank you for clarifying!

abubics

2018-10-31 01:30

@efoshager ? It might help to clarify some vocabulary (for ease & consistency of communication) . . . - The implementation of the provider endpoint should be irrelevant to the consumer. I assume you mean the response is 30k lines? - Any consumer endpoint is generally implicit in an API client, not usually referred to as a separate concept/entity.

abubics

2018-10-31 01:32

- The pact test doesn't change the interaction of the consumer/provider, it's just more explicit about the sequence of communication.

abubics

2018-10-31 01:33

- The Pact-facilitated part of a contract test cares more about the shape of data than the values in the data. If you're writing tests that care about huge amounts of content (rather than structure), you might be better served with a different kind of test (e.g. unit test, not contract test)..

sylvia.yap

2018-10-31 05:20

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-10-31 07:31

It shouldn?t, we follow Postel?s law and only look at the bits we care about. Can you share your tests so we can understand why it?s failing?

matt.fellows

2018-10-31 07:32

Hi @shidhore.ajinkya not sure I?m afraid. You might have to ask Dr. Google :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2018-10-31 08:04

If it failed because it expected "all the info" it's because the consumer expected "all the info".

romuald.quantin

2018-10-31 09:16

Hi Beth, setup is hard so that it might take a while, I'll think to the simplest way of showing you that. I keep you posted.

bethskurrie

2018-10-31 09:17

Try using this: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone-e2e-example

romuald.quantin

2018-10-31 09:27

Thank you, I'll check that. I might still start from scratch as I "might need" the PactJS version to do an xhr request.

paulswilliams

2018-10-31 11:41

So, I've also got a question about best practices, this time in relation to contract vs functional provider tests or possibly microservice / ui responsibility as described at https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/consumer/contract_tests_not_functional_tests The documentation advises contract tests be declarative about password complexity rules thus allowing password complexity rules to change over time with redeployments of the upstream service, without requiring consumer change. This is a great aim; a significant argument for micro-services and embracing different release cadences etc. However, perhaps it's a bad example, or perhaps I'm missing something, but I see a problem over this ambiguity; in this example the consumer also needs to understand the complexity rules to state them to the user either initially, or later if the user attempts to use an unsafe password. The UI needs to describe to users that passwords must be x length, contain this, that, and the other. The only solutions I see are: 1. the client understands at least a specification of the rules and is informed of breakage by server using some kind of status code, so the UI renders appropriate messages back to the user. These status codes would thus need Pact coverage to ensure reliable interoperability. This would break the documentation's advise? 2. the client knows nothing of the rules and if a user attempts an insecure password, the server encapsulates all responsibility of validation including rendering an error message eg error message string back through to the user via the consumer. This follows the documentation's advise and has the advantage of looser coupling between the components, and the ability to add new rules without redeploying the consumer. However, in my view, this would be breaking SRP; the service would be responsible in some part with UI concerns like the formatting of the error message, perhaps i18n etc. I'm wondering, is this just the wrong example to demonstrate non implementation contract tests, or am I missing something?

matt.fellows

2018-10-31 12:02

So I think that?s a good enough example. The password complexity logic will be contained within the API and as you state, you want to avoid breaking the SRP where possible, and you need a way to convey errors to the user. All that the functional test vs contract docs is saying, is that you don?t need to break all of the permutations of the password rules as part of your Pact testing. You?re probably going to have a standard `400` type error for a bad input, and then there should be an error body e.g. ``` { "error": "invalid password", "reason": "doesn't match complexity rule: > 10 chars", "code": 1234 } ```

matt.fellows

2018-10-31 12:03

that is a very contract-testable document, that you can now test without having to do all of the behaviour tests.

matt.fellows

2018-10-31 12:05

The Providers? job is to make sure it enforces the complexity rules, the job of the consumer is to make sure it can render messages. You should be able to design the consumer to gracefully handle new error codes (aka Postel?s Law) so that the system itself isn?t brittle

sarala_01

2018-10-31 12:38

has joined #general

borsuk.artem034

2018-10-31 13:55

has joined #general

romuald.quantin

2018-10-31 14:41

Hi Beth, here is an example: https://github.com/soundstep/pact-ruby-standalone-e2e-example/blob/master/DEMO.md

romuald.quantin

2018-10-31 14:42

let me know if you have any problem running it

romuald.quantin

2018-10-31 14:42

there are 3 folders that explain the different CORS behavior

romuald.quantin

2018-10-31 14:44

An explanation there to what we are trying to do: https://github.com/soundstep/pact-ruby-standalone-e2e-example/blob/master/demo/tests/cors-error/test.js#L26

romuald.quantin

2018-10-31 14:44

again, just to be clear, this is not a pact-mock-service issue, it behaves in the right manner, it is just not accessible because of CORS issues

romuald.quantin

2018-10-31 14:45

we are not sure how we should approach this

romuald.quantin

2018-10-31 14:45

thanks in advance for any time taken looking at this!

romuald.quantin

2018-10-31 14:45

cheers.

paulswilliams

2018-10-31 14:58

Hey @matt.fellows, I'm not wondered away.. I'm just parsing and thinking. I have a slow brain :wink:

kevin.cormier

2018-10-31 15:02

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-10-31 20:12

No worries - I was resting my eyes :zzz: (7am our time now)

efoshager

2018-10-31 21:37

Any idea why I'm getting a 500 error when trying to generate a contract with a POST method? GET methods work fine.

bethskurrie

2018-10-31 21:40

What do the mock service logs say?

bethskurrie

2018-10-31 21:57

Can you raise an issue in one of the repos so I don't loose track of this @romuald.quantin?

romuald.quantin

2018-10-31 22:00

Sure, it is not exactly an issue, but I can summarize this in the pact-node or pact-mock-service repo. Tomorrow, cause that's the end of my day ;) cheers

romuald.quantin

2018-11-01 10:53

here you go: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service/issues/97

efoshager

2018-11-01 14:04

node ./node_modules/mocha/bin/mocha ./test/pact/generate_reports/api.js --timeout 10000 Creating Pact Server with options: consumer = ui, cors = false, dir = C:\Projects\ui\pacts, host = 127.0.0.1, log = C:\Projects\ui\logs\pact.log, pactFileWriteMode = overwrite, port = 8993, provider = RegisteredCoupons, spec = 2, ssl = false, sslcert = , sslkey =

efoshager

2018-11-01 14:06

Created 'standalone\win32-1.61.1\bin\pact-mock-service.bat service --consumer 'UI' --pact_dir 'C:\Projects\ui\pacts' --host '127.0.0.1' --log 'C:\Projects\ui\logs\pact.log' --pact-file-write-mode 'overwrite' --port '8993' --provider 'RegisteredCoupons' --pact_specification_version '2'' process with PID: 21988

efoshager

2018-11-01 14:22

I, [2018-11-01T09:07:38.262193 #23576] INFO -- : Registered expected interaction POST /ok/user D, [2018-11-01T09:07:38.262193 #23576] DEBUG -- : { "description": "a request", "providerState": "a ui", "request": { "method": "POST", "path": "/ok/user", "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json" }, - "body": { - "page": "browse", - "id": "201203164639", - "xpl": [ - "00891038001", - ] - } }, "response": { "status": 200, "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json" }, "body": { "couponDetails": [ { "summary": "3.00$", "expDueDays": -1, } ] } } } I, [2018-11-01T09:07:38.293393 #23576] INFO -- : Received request POST /ok/user D, [2018-11-01T09:07:38.293393 #23576] DEBUG -- : { "path": "/ok/user", "query": "", "method": "post", "headers": { "Accept": "application/json", "User-Agent": "axios/0.15.3", "Host": "localhost:8993", "Connection": "close", "Version": "HTTP/1.1" } } E, [2018-11-01T09:07:38.293393 #23576] ERROR -- : No matching interaction found for POST /ok/user E, [2018-11-01T09:07:38.293393 #23576] ERROR -- : Interaction diffs for that route: E, [2018-11-01T09:07:38.293393 #23576] ERROR -- : Diff with interaction: "a request" given "a ui" Diff -------------------------------------- Key: - is expected + is actual Matching keys and values are not shown { "headers": { - "Content-Type": "application/json" }, - "body": { - "page": "browse", - "id": "201203164639", - "xpl": [ - "00891038001", - ] - } + "body": null } Description of differences -------------------------------------- * Could not find key "Content-Type" (keys present are: Accept, User-Agent, Host, Connection, Version) at $.headers * Expected a Hash but got nil at $.body

efoshager

2018-11-01 15:19

Okay, I figured it out. Had to change my header in my axios request and add charset=utf-8 to my withRequest.

r.chinn

2018-11-01 15:50

has joined #general

r.chinn

2018-11-01 15:53

Hi All, Can anyone point me in the right direction for raising a potential bug?

borsuk.artem034

2018-11-01 16:41

https://github.com/pact-foundation

bethskurrie

2018-11-01 20:33

@r.chinn Find the appropriately repository in the pact-foundation org, and give the steps to reproduce it, the expected behaviour, and the actual behaviour. An executable code example to reproduce the issue is also polite and will help get your issue addressed more quickly.

efoshager

2018-11-01 21:04

I'm having a similar 500 issue from what I posted earlier. This time it is when adding a query to the url

efoshager

2018-11-01 21:05

E,[2018-11-01T14: 45: 29.245780 #30696] ERROR -- : No matching interaction found for GET /api/v2/products/1/(Price + Details)?upc=422504 E,[2018-11-01T14: 45: 29.245780 #30696] ERROR -- : Interaction diffs for that route: E,[2018-11-01T14: 45: 29.245780 #30696] ERROR -- :

bethskurrie

2018-11-01 21:07

Can you see the interaction being set up in the logs?

bethskurrie

2018-11-01 21:07

What is the path and query?

anothonyvong

2018-11-01 21:35

has joined #general

hansrd_98

2018-11-02 01:10

hi folks, I?m experimenting with pact-js (having previously used the ruby version of pact a fair bit), and anm having difficulty getting provider tests to work. So, after running the consumer tests, I can see the pact now in the pact broker, and it looks legit. When running the provider tests, based on the example here: https://github.com/DiUS/pact-workshop-js/blob/master/provider/test/providerPact.spec.js I get this error: ``` TypeError: verifier.verifyProvider is not a function ``` The provider test looks like this: ``` const verifier = require('@pact-foundation/pact').Verifier const chai = require('chai') const chaiAsPromised = require('chai-as-promised') const expect = chai.expect chai.use(chaiAsPromised) describe('Pact Verification', () => { it('should validate the expectations of the mock consumer', function () { this.timeout(10000) let opts = { provider: 'PaymentService', providerBaseUrl: <I have the provider endpoint here> pactBrokerUrl: <Broker url>, pactBrokerUsername: <Broker username>, pactBrokerPassword: <Broker password>, publishVerificationResult: true, providerVersion: '1', } return verifier.verifyProvider(opts) .then(output => { console.log('Pact Verification Complete!') }) }) }) ``` Any ideas what I?m doing wrong?

abubics

2018-11-02 01:19

Hi @hansrd_98 :slightly_smiling_face: you'll get better targeted support in #pact-js

abubics

2018-11-02 01:19

But I think `require('@pact-foundation/pact').Verifier` is a constructor

abubics

2018-11-02 01:20

so you probably want `new Verifier().verifyProvider(...)`

hansrd_98

2018-11-02 01:42

Thanks @abubics . Didn?t realise there?s a dedicated channel for js :slightly_smiling_face: Anyways, got it working fine with the below: `const { Verifier } = require('@pact-foundation/pact');` and inside the `it` block, `await new Verifier().verifyProvider(opts)`

abubics

2018-11-02 01:46

Nice one :ok_hand:

matt.fellows

2018-11-02 03:13

hehe thanks!

kobvel

2018-11-02 08:48

has joined #general

kobvel

2018-11-02 08:50

Guys. Quick question - should we host Pact tests as a separate repository?

jerwinecares

2018-11-02 09:18

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-11-02 10:09

I wouldn't. They belong as part of your normal test suite. They would go where the rest of your tests go.

bethskurrie

2018-11-02 10:10

The advantage of contract tests is that they give you immediate feedback. You don't want to slow that down by moving them further away from your code.

jesus.medinilla

2018-11-02 13:07

Hi everyone! Anyone knows how we can install Pact Broker on premise in HA (high availability)? Is there any documentation regarding this topic?

liran.tal

2018-11-02 13:55

@jesus.medinilla I don?t know about high availability but just getting it installed on premise is easy with the docker base image: https://github.com/DiUS/pact_broker-docker what kind of traffic are you expecting that qualifies as a requirement for high availability?

jesus.medinilla

2018-11-02 13:58

Having running two different instances (at least) sharing the load and the data. I don't know if only sharing the database would be enough (plus a load balancer) or more configuration is needed to achieve this

mats.lundkvist

2018-11-02 14:15

hi, I just downloaded the latest pact-ruby-standalone 1.62.2 but when I try to run ```bin/pact-mock-service version``` I get the following error ```bin/pact/lib/ruby/bin/ruby: line 6: bin/pact/lib/ruby/bin.real/ruby: No such file or directory``` but the file exists with read and execute permission for all users. What am I missing?

efoshager

2018-11-02 14:26

I tried adding a specific query parameter and adding it to the path directly, both throw the same error

efoshager

2018-11-02 17:09

Okay, I figured this one out. I used the query parameter and left out the ?. And then hardcoded the query in the expectation

efoshager

2018-11-02 21:21

I have some mock data similar to this. Is there a way to just reference "menu-coupons" and "categories" without specifying everything else in categories?

bethskurrie

2018-11-02 21:31

Are you on alpine linux @mats.lundkvist?

jeffm

2018-11-02 22:36

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-11-02 23:22

If not that, check correct architecture too

matt.fellows

2018-11-02 23:23

Why would you want to do that? Are you not interested in the shape of those fields?

bethskurrie

2018-11-03 00:25

Yes, you can just expect an empty hash.

jjlehva

2018-11-03 12:34

has joined #general

jjlehva

2018-11-03 12:55

Hi all! I am trying out Pact for the first time (with node and js). I?ve been testing this with a small microservice system and I ran in to a small problem when I started figuring out how to verify the provider side of things. I got the pact broker running and my consumer tests properly publishes the pacts there :ok_hand: The problem is simply that I?ve got the consumer pacts created for integrations between `Client A` and `Api 1`. Now when I try to verify the pacts for `Api 1` I am left wondering how should I tackle the requests from `Api 1` to `Api 2`, `Api 3` and `Api 4` which happens when the clients requests the endpoint from the `Api 1`. Should I mock those requests from `Api 1` to the other Apis during the provider verification or do I have to really run all the rest of the Apis as well? That would then again lead to running real integrations which is kind of the thing I would like to get rid of? I am just wondering if I?ve got the whole concept of Pact wrong or just missing some details from the documents. Any help would be great! :slightly_smiling_face:

liran.tal

2018-11-03 13:55

@jjlehva congrats on your progress so far! your intuition is correct - API 1 should stub the downstream dependencies. It makes sense that API1 has contracts with API 2, 3 and 4 so you can use the contracts with them as stubs, or just stub them out completely without the contracts.

matt.fellows

2018-11-03 14:28

Your doing great @jjlehva!

matt.fellows

2018-11-03 14:29

There's a section on the http://docs.pact.io I think under provider best practices that talks about exactly this +with a link out to a gist).

joscha.alisch

2018-11-03 16:18

has joined #general

vishesh92

2018-11-05 06:12

https://hub.docker.com/r/pactfoundation/pact-stub-server/tags/ tag v0.1.0 & v0.1.1 were removed recently from docker and our tests started failing because of that and we will have to update the image version at multiple places. Does latest version of the stub server image break or gets breaking changes frequently?

uglyog

2018-11-05 06:13

Versions 0.1.0 and 0.1.1 have a serious defect. Use 0.0.9 or 0.2.0 instead

uglyog

2018-11-05 06:15

Latest is pointing to 0.2.0 now

vishesh92

2018-11-05 06:38

ok. Thanks.

mats.lundkvist

2018-11-05 07:54

I run arch linux. I have an older version that works ```bin/pact-mock-service version 2.8.0``` but I wanted to upgrade for a new project

mats.lundkvist

2018-11-05 08:15

fixed it, I had some issues with my machine. Thanks for your help

dora.daniluc

2018-11-05 12:14

has joined #general

iryna.feuerst

2018-11-05 13:13

has joined #general

efoshager

2018-11-05 15:09

Because then my contract will be extremely long. Would it be best practice to pass all data?

efoshager

2018-11-05 16:27

like 5k lines

jbbarquero

2018-11-05 19:21

has joined #general

guilherme.santos6

2018-11-05 19:36

has joined #general

jbbarquero

2018-11-05 19:38

Hello, this is my first message here

jbbarquero

2018-11-05 19:39

I want to publish pacts to a broker with HTTPS and a certificate issued by a custom CA so I need to provide a truststore

jbbarquero

2018-11-05 19:40

But I don?t find this option in the maven plugin: https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/pact-jvm-provider-maven

jbbarquero

2018-11-05 19:40

https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/pact-jvm-provider-maven#publishing-pact-files-to-a-pact-broker

jbbarquero

2018-11-05 19:44

I can select a custom truststore (https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/pact-jvm-provider-maven#specifying-a-custom-trust-store) or modify the HTTP Client (https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/pact-jvm-provider-maven#modifying-the-http-client-used) but only for the provider

jbbarquero

2018-11-05 19:47

Is it possible to specify a trustore for publishing pact files into a Pact Broker with HTTPS with certificates issued by a custom CA?

josh.mccure

2018-11-05 23:00

has joined #general

efoshager

2018-11-05 23:02

Actual array is too long and should not contain a Hash at $.items[1] -Why am I getting this error when my contract is specifying a specific array?

uglyog

2018-11-05 23:15

Wow, nobody has needed to do that before. You can publish the pact files with a PUT request to the broker using something like curl and be able to supply certificates.

xcq1.defy

2018-11-06 09:25

has joined #general

a.carpe

2018-11-06 13:16

has joined #general

a.carpe

2018-11-06 13:28

~Hello I?m using the pact-ruby to verify a pact produced by pact-jvm in V3 format~

a.carpe

2018-11-06 13:29

~it fails because the matching rules contain the `combine` key~

a.carpe

2018-11-06 13:30

~``` "$.assignedTimeSlot": { "matchers": [ { "match": "type" } ], "combine": "AND" } ```~

a.carpe

2018-11-06 13:31

and fails with this error: ``` pact-support-1.8.0/lib/pact/matching_rules/v3/merge.rb:124:in `block (2 levels) in log_ignored_rules': undefined method `any?' for "AND":String (NoMethodError) ```

a.carpe

2018-11-06 13:39

here is the pull request: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-support/pull/63

a.carpe

2018-11-06 13:42

made a mess, wanted to post on pact-ruby channel? if anybody can delete these messages it would be great

nigel.hannam

2018-11-06 15:15

has joined #general

aaronmckaynz

2018-11-07 03:44

has joined #general

hima.sanagavarapu

2018-11-07 19:19

has joined #general

nish

2018-11-07 22:35

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-11-08 09:07

I think you're probably still interested in the shape of each object in the array, but not all the array items. If so, You could consider array matches to make your tests more succinct but still cover off the contract.

hstene

2018-11-08 11:03

Is the pact-broker down? My team reports that their managed pact-broker is not responding?

alexander.premer

2018-11-08 11:08

has joined #general

hcw99498

2018-11-08 14:33

has joined #general

rnv27647

2018-11-08 15:04

has joined #general

efoshager

2018-11-08 16:07

@hstene it's not down for me

efoshager

2018-11-08 17:30

I see, thank you

zhirschtritt

2018-11-08 17:35

Our team is currently evaluating Pact and we?re not sure it?s the right fit. One scenario: we have known consumers who are expecting our API to provide specified message via POST. First of all, are we the consumers in that case, or is our customer? And second, is this a reasonable use for contract testing? Any thoughts would be appreciated! Thank you :pray:

efoshager

2018-11-08 22:06

Is it possible to verify multiple providers to pact broker from a single file?

efoshager

2018-11-08 22:23

found out a way but not sure if its best practice. i'm adding multiple options and then passing those options through multiple verifiers and not exiting until the last verify

mboudreau

2018-11-08 23:14

I think you might have mistyped that, first consumers = customers?

mboudreau

2018-11-08 23:14

the consumers would be whatever uses the API

mboudreau

2018-11-08 23:14

now, if your company only provides the API for 3rd parties to use, they are the consumers

mboudreau

2018-11-08 23:16

however, this doesn't mean you can't still have pact tests to make sure your APIs follow a contract, the only thing is that you don't have a real life consumer to base it on, which is fine. Contracts don't have to be made from the consumer, you could, if you're keen, just create the contract file by hand, or use the consumer DSL to create one for you which you then use to test your API

mboudreau

2018-11-08 23:18

not really, the whole point is that your provider should be unique in a way, hence the contracts are a many to one, consumer to providers respectively

mboudreau

2018-11-08 23:18

if what you're trying to accomplish is to 'reuse' code or contracts between providers, I'd suggest you do that through code reuse, but not contract reuse

mboudreau

2018-11-08 23:18

does that make sense?

hstene

2018-11-09 07:11

Our broker was on an overloaded worker instance. They moved it and it came back online :slightly_smiling_face:

kevin.cormier

2018-11-09 15:29

Hi All. We are looking at evaluating Pact in the next few weeks. I'm trying to find some guidance on securely running a pact broker in AWS while testing in travis. Does anyone have any recommended reading?

efoshager

2018-11-09 15:55

i don't want to reuse any contracts, just simply verify multiple providers from a single file. i have a single script in my package.json that i want to be executed to verify all 10 providers i'm using from a single file.

zhirschtritt

2018-11-09 16:36

ok, that clears things up. I was having a hard time convincing my team that the customer is the consumer, even though we initiate that particular communication via a POST

efoshager

2018-11-09 18:33

other teams at my work are writing the consumer contracts, multiple teams use my providers, i want to verify all providers from a single file. each provider is unique with its given name.

matt.fellows

2018-11-09 19:45

Maybe https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Configuration#running-the-broker-behind-a-reverse-proxy

matt.fellows

2018-11-09 19:46

A simple option is nginx (or another proxy) with auth attached to it, then use Travis secrets to manage creda

matt.fellows

2018-11-09 19:46

Alternatively, you could add rack middleware to the app with your own custom auth

kevin.cormier

2018-11-09 20:41

@mr.matt.r.long Thanks for the info!

jani.jegoroff

2018-11-10 19:50

has joined #general

nihei.dev

2018-11-11 06:56

has joined #general

kamilmarkow

2018-11-11 15:05

has joined #general

liran.tal

2018-11-11 18:04

:wave: I created `awesome-contract-testing` as a repository to help consolidate all kinds of resources for this topic. would be great if you want to contribute: https://github.com/lirantal/awesome-contract-testing I?ll also gladly add you to the repo collaborators to help organize and curate content

silvia.pusterla

2018-11-12 09:14

has joined #general

silvia.pusterla

2018-11-12 09:14

Hi all, My name is Silvia and I?m from Data Natives. Glad to be part of your community! I wanted to let you know about our Data Natives conference that will take place on November 22-23. It focuses on key areas of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Internet of Things, FinTech, HealthTech and more. Our event aims to bridge the gap between technical innovation and business interests. We?d like to offer your community a 50% discount on tickets using this promo code: DN18LOVESCOMMUNITY. You can also enter the raffle for a free ticket here: https://datanatives.typeform.com/to/aKSIlv Please, find more info about the conference here: http://datanatives.io/ Hope to see you there!

nikolajs.cmihuns

2018-11-13 09:57

has joined #general

jesus.medinilla

2018-11-13 11:39

Hi, I'm trying to execute a provider validation using pact-provider-verifier (pact-1.61.2 , linux 64 version) but I've been unable so far: This is what I'm retrieving: pact-provider-verifier --pact-broker-base-url $PACT_BROKER_URL --provider-base-url http://**** --provider users_http_provider --provider-app-version=0.0.1-SNAPSHOT --publish-verification-results=false INFO: Fetching pacts for users_http_provider from http://***** INFO: Reading pact at http://*****/pacts/provider/users_http_provider/consumer/organizations_http_consumer/version/0.0.6-SNAPSHOT /opt/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-support-1.8.0/lib/pact/matching_rules/v3/merge.rb:119:in `block (2 levels) in log_ignored_rules': undefined method `any?' for "AND":String (NoMethodError). Anyone can help me out with this, please? EDIT: The problem is this line: $stderr.puts "WARN: Ignoring unsupported #{key} #{value} for path #{path}" if value.any? from /ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-support-1.8.0/lib/pact/matching_rules/v3/merge.rb file. "any?" method on strings is not supported is this ruby version

sandy

2018-11-13 13:02

has joined #general

dimas.kotvan

2018-11-13 18:13

has joined #general

efoshager

2018-11-13 19:22

is something like this possible? i want to very many providers in one file. the above code only executes the first opts1 then finishes. even with proccess.exit taken out, it still executes the first opts1 and finishes

matt.fellows

2018-11-13 19:52

Looks like maybe a bug, are you able to pleae submit a ticket with your pact file so we can repro?

matt.fellows

2018-11-13 19:53

Ideally, a gist or something to reproduce would be great

matt.fellows

2018-11-13 19:55

This is not currently possible but could be easily added. If you could please raise an enhancement request to pact js we can discuss there

matt.fellows

2018-11-13 19:56

You'll have to Manually loop for now.

matt.fellows

2018-11-13 19:56

May I ask more about your use case? It would seem unusual to be doing multiple providers at once

marco.dellolio

2018-11-13 20:41

Hey guys good evening/morning I have 2 question, confirmations really: 1 - There is not system in place to push a pact file when a Provider changes because is not of Pact was designed? 2 - We are not supposed to test consumers against in dev providers (using a specific `sha`)

efoshager

2018-11-13 21:04

its mainly because we're running our provider verification through a pipeline and has been requested to be in one file

tjones

2018-11-14 00:21

@marco.dellolio When the provider changes, you only need to do a new verification. Pact is driven by the consumer. You can think of a pact file as a consumer saying "hey, this is the behaviour I rely on". It's not a full API definition. This is a nice feature, as it means that provider changes that don't affect consumers (eg on API endpoints or data objects that aren't being used yet) don't break any tests

tjones

2018-11-14 00:23

If you have the scenario where a provider changes the API in a way that breaks consumers, verification will fail. This needs to be communicated to the consumers who can then update their api calls and tests (which will generate a new Pact file, which can then pass verification)

tjones

2018-11-14 00:24

If you're developing the API at the same time as using Pact, it's easiest to drive changes from the consumer. However, it is still possible to drive them from the provider.

tjones

2018-11-14 00:24

For your second question, I'm not sure I understand. Could you elaborate a bit?

tjones

2018-11-14 00:25

This document might be relevant: https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/versioning_in_the_pact_broker

tjones

2018-11-14 00:28

Hi all - I've had a couple of cases where I've written consumer tests in cases where provider verification is extremely impractical (eg third party providers). I think this is still valuable, as it ensures that you're using whatever client library correctly (it picked up a javascript case where `http://axios.post({options, url})` should have been `http://axios.post(url, options)`, whereas mocking `axios` might have missed it). Are there other advantages? What do people think?

ryan

2018-11-14 22:22

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-11-15 06:24

Why does it need to be in one file? How does that affect the pipeline? There's no reason you couldn't loop thru all providers in a single just file and run the verification per provider. Still I'd like to know more about why that's necessary. I can't think if many situations where you want to know all providers need to be verified at once. That seems like you're creating too much coupling. @bethskurrie @uglyog thoughts?

bethskurrie

2018-11-15 06:34

My thoughts are "why does it have to be one file? " too. Can you explain that constraint @efoshager?

matt.fellows

2018-11-15 07:40

I still do it

matt.fellows

2018-11-15 07:42

You still get the following benefits: 1. You still verify your collaborator?s behaviour (as you stated) 2. You get documentation 3. There can still be some ways to verify (but they are scary/hacky/dangerous/all of the above)

jonas.natten

2018-11-15 08:02

has joined #general

liran.tal

2018-11-15 12:30

4. if you use the broker to store the pact then you can also see which 3rd parties are used through-out your services very quickly

liran.tal

2018-11-15 12:30

also, will add all of this insight to my upcoming doc on the subject. great points!

ashwin.bakker_nl

2018-11-15 14:54

has joined #general

acooper106

2018-11-15 20:23

When using tags, our pact provider verification is verify against latest and pervious pacts. For example, we added a dev tag to the pact, then removed the dev tag and added a prod tag, then ran provider verification against the consumer pact with the dev tag and the test still found and ran against the previous pact with the dev tag. Is this the expected behavior? If so is there a way to run the provider verification against the latest pact on the broker?

tjones

2018-11-16 02:58

That'd be awesome @liran.tal!

kanwaldeepbhangu117

2018-11-16 07:37

has joined #general

mats.lundkvist

2018-11-16 08:26

Hi, I'm currently writing a provider test in golang with the pact standalone. But it looks like the pact is tested against values and not the correct matchers (regex and type) that is specified in the pact json. Is there some configuration needed to get regex and type matching to work? Edit: From what I can tell pact go cannot handle pact v3

matt.fellows

2018-11-16 09:33

@mats.lundkvist yes, only Pact JVM supports full pact v3 spec. Go/JS support the message pact portion of v3 and everything else is v2

bethskurrie

2018-11-16 09:33

But v2 supports type matching and regex

matt.fellows

2018-11-16 09:41

If it has the `combine` matcher in it then that won?t work, standard regex/type matching should work as per examples (I think you?ve indicated use of this in the past)

mats.lundkvist

2018-11-16 11:10

Thanks for helping!

nikolajs.cmihuns

2018-11-16 11:21

Question to some ... :slightly_smiling_face: If I want to create pact v3 tests for provider in Scala (but don't want to use Junit libs which we have e.g. pact-jvm-provider-junit) what core modules/libs I can rely on ? As I see I can use something from here - https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/pact-jvm-provider

nikolajs.cmihuns

2018-11-16 11:22

but not sure if V3 is supported here

acooper106

2018-11-16 15:28

@bethskurrie Has anyone experienced this? Or know how to fix this?

ashwin.bakker_nl

2018-11-16 16:29

Anyone have experience with Pact in combination with Spring Cloud Contract? I've made a post on stackoverflow, maybe someone in here knows the answer https://stackoverflow.com/questions/53340847/spring-cloud-contract-pact-broker-json-string-can-not-be-null-or-empty

gregigcool

2018-11-16 19:57

has joined #general

ravbaker

2018-11-17 10:24

has joined #general

uglyog

2018-11-18 21:26

Yes you can, all the libraries support the V3 format but you'll have to write the test support code yourself. There is also a pure scala implementation https://github.com/ITV/scala-pact

uglyog

2018-11-18 21:27

But the pact-jvm-provider library contains the verifier used by the other test support modules.

sandy

2018-11-19 01:28

Hello, you were kind enough to provide us with a hosted pact broker, however I am unsure as to wether seeing a 404 on the base URL is normal. We have tried publishing our javascript pact via the binary, and have not been able to get a successful message. Any thoughts?

mboudreau

2018-11-19 01:37

what's the URL you're using?

sandy

2018-11-19 02:13

Its the one we were sent in the email. `https://liftango.pact.dius.com.au`

bethskurrie

2018-11-19 02:14

Hi Sandy. We recently did a cull of brokers that had no pacts and hadn't been used for over a month.

bethskurrie

2018-11-19 02:15

Is this your first pact?

sandy

2018-11-19 02:17

Ah, yes, we started evaluating a couple of months ago, and got sidetracked, but now were moving forward :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2018-11-19 05:01

Your account may be disabled, we'll reenable for you

acooper106

2018-11-19 13:59

Or is there any material that would answer this question?

ashwin.bakker_nl

2018-11-19 14:41

Fixed it. My base class wasn't setup properly. See SO thread for working base class if curious.

ben7091

2018-11-19 16:29

has joined #general

sandy

2018-11-19 21:24

thanks, that would be awesome

matt.fellows

2018-11-20 05:51

Your account should be reactivated, apologies for the delay

nikolajs.cmihuns

2018-11-20 07:02

@uglyog thank you for answering:thumbsup:

nikolajs.cmihuns

2018-11-20 08:11

find it strange that we have AmqpTarget, BaseTarget etc. in pact-jvm-provider-junit lib, not in pact-jvm-provider

nikolajs.cmihuns

2018-11-20 08:12

so comes out that we don't have some general V3 support, only something which is coupled to framework specific things like junit

uglyog

2018-11-20 08:14

That is just historical. The Target classes were written for the JUnit implementation, which is why they are there.

uglyog

2018-11-20 08:17

The V3 support is implemented in the core libraries (matching, models, etc). The verifier in pact-jvm-provider uses the core libraries to do the actual matching. The specific framework libraries use the verifier.

sandy

2018-11-20 11:20

No problem, thanks Matt. I have been able to publish our first consumer pacts! really appreciate it.

sasa.milovic

2018-11-20 15:05

has joined #general

sasa.milovic

2018-11-20 15:19

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask for support for a hosted pact broker?

sasa.milovic

2018-11-20 15:20

We've got one at https://asos.pact.dius.com.au, but it's been having issues last week and today again, we seem to be getting "Service Unavailable"

sasa.milovic

2018-11-20 15:22

Also, might be worth mentioning that the join slack link at https://pact.dius.com.au/ takes you to a "there's nothing here yet" heroku landing page :smile:

rjmcguinness

2018-11-20 15:58

has joined #general

uglyog

2018-11-20 21:34

@sasa.milovic we'll look into that for you. The previous slack was decommissioned in favour of the #pact-broker channel

abubics

2018-11-21 03:04

Hey y'all :slightly_smiling_face: We're trying to do some CDC testing for a legacy system (the consumer) written in C++, and not coming up with any good technology fits. Any recommendations?

abubics

2018-11-21 04:09

Looks like we're going to try making a Python test harness, treating the C++ system as a black box. Wish us luck xD

matt.fellows

2018-11-21 05:08

OK, that?s one option

matt.fellows

2018-11-21 05:09

another is to simply use the Pact CLI tools. On the provider side, it?s a cinch. On the consumer side, you might need to orchestrate a few calls to the mock service. Details/breadcrumbs: * How to write a consumer test, without a consumer language / DSL support * https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service/blob/master/script/example.sh * how to write a provider test, without provider language / DSL support * https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases

matt.fellows

2018-11-21 05:16

You?re welcome!

abubics

2018-11-21 06:20

The reason for attempting in python is there's a set of company-wide existing test harness codebases (in python), so it might've reduced the learning curve

lloydchang

2018-11-21 08:21

has joined #general

sasa.milovic

2018-11-21 12:58

Thanks!

ian.fessey

2018-11-21 16:22

has joined #general

sandy

2018-11-22 02:24

Hey folks, I have read what I could find about matching, and I have a question. We are using javascript, and I have a case where I want to be able to verify a pact where the value of the key in the object is treated the same way `like()` treats the values. i.e. ```pickingUpRides: { 9: { rideId: 9, passengerSeats: { standard: 1, wheelchair: 0, }, }, }``` so I am asking, can I create a pact response, where I want the key `pickingUpRides` to have a nested object with a key of type 'number' where I don't care about the value, but it must contain at least one nested object? And then to be able to verify the structure under `9` as per normal?

tjones

2018-11-22 02:34

I think JSON requires that keys are strings, so this might be challenging - the default pact matchers work on types

tjones

2018-11-22 02:35

I had a similar situation that we solved using states - the state was something like `a rides record with ID 9 exists`

sandy

2018-11-22 03:05

Yeah, the JSON spec requires a string, this was pulled from the JS... ill take a look at states, as we have decided to just couple the IDs in the interim between consumer/provider

sandy

2018-11-22 03:07

so the key type is not important as far as treating it as any allowed value

tjones

2018-11-22 03:14

for HTTP pacts, pact will verify what was on the wire

tjones

2018-11-22 03:14

(which is probably a string)

tjones

2018-11-22 03:17

As to whether you can use matchers to specify allowed formats for object keys, I'm not sure. Might be a @bethskurrie question

tjones

2018-11-22 03:17

> we have decided to just couple the IDs in the interim between consumer/provider States will let you describe the coupling in a nice way, so that any future provider implementations don't get surprised.

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 03:19

If you're using a non pact-jvm impl, I don't think it will even allow you to use a number as a key.

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 03:19

Let me do a quick experiment with ruby.

bethskurrie

``` {9 => 'foo'}.to_json => "{\"9\":\"foo\"}" ```

bethskurrie

Numbers are not allowed as keys.

bethskurrie

By default, anyway

bethskurrie

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Publishing-and-retrieving-pacts

I really wouldn't recommend it.

sandy

2018-11-22 03:21

Thanks Beth, yes, I mistakenly thought typescripts ability to do this translated to the JSON spec. It doesn't.

sandy

2018-11-22 03:23

So we are planning to just have these tests be aware of the given ids until we can move to a new approach

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 03:23

:thumbsup::skin-tone-3:

acooper106

2018-11-22 04:26

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 04:26

Don't remove the dev tag.

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 04:27

You say /latest/dev or /latest/prod

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 04:27

You don't typically remove tags

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 04:27

The overall latest is /latest

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 04:28

acooper106

2018-11-22 04:28

Not sure what you mean. I would expect that if the latest pact doesn't have a tag then the verification shouldn't run against it

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 04:29

@acooper106 please read these docs and tell me if you have any further questions

acooper106

2018-11-22 04:30

I would think a pact should have either dev or prod not both. Sure I'll check it out

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 04:30

Think of the tags as a history of its progress

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 04:31

It was at one stage dev, then it became prod

acooper106

2018-11-22 04:31

yes I'm not asking about urls

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 04:32

When you retrieve a pact by tag, you are always retrieving the latest pact with that tag.

acooper106

2018-11-22 04:32

I was talking about the provider verification running against a pact in history

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 04:33

The provider verification retrieves pacts by URL.

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 04:33

If you want to understand how the provider verification selects the pacts to verify, you should understand the URLs.

acooper106

2018-11-22 04:33

I don't have a url in my junit test. I guess that's what I'm looking for a doc on

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 04:34

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Publishing-and-retrieving-pacts

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 04:34

The junit test will retrieve the latest pact for the tag you give it.

acooper106

2018-11-22 04:37

ok the latest pact on my broker only has prod tag. but the previous version pact has dev. When I run the provider verification it runs against the pact version with the dev tag.

acooper106

2018-11-22 04:38

I would expect it not to run against the previous version because the latest pact on the broker says prod

acooper106

2018-11-22 04:41

I wish there was a way to put the exact url in the test

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 04:41

What is your configuration?

acooper106

2018-11-22 04:41

when doing pact swagger validation the test needs the url of the pact your running against

acooper106

2018-11-22 04:50

I sent you the email with details on exactly what happened. What exact configurations do you need from me

acooper106

2018-11-22 04:56

I just checked the broker again. Currently this provider have 2 pacts with dev tags no prod tags. When I run the provider verification locally 2 pacts come up. and the broker updates the laste verified status. I would expect the test to say there were no pacts with "Prod" tag

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 04:57

That seems reasonable

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 04:58

I haven't used this plugin, but can you look at the documentation and see if there is a verbose option you can put on?

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 04:58

To get a better idea of the tags, can you have a look at the matrix view for this pact?

acooper106

2018-11-22 05:02

I did. the prod tag existed on version 1.0.0

bethskurrie

So, there is a prod tag...

acooper106

but the latest is only dev

bethskurrie

And if you're configuring your test to verify the latest prod, then it will verify that one.

bethskurrie

It finds the latest pact with the prod tag.

acooper106

2018-11-22 05:04

~run again latest prod~

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 05:04

It does not find the latest pact, and then see if it has a prod tag on it.

acooper106

2018-11-22 05:05

my latest pact is 1.0.1

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 05:06

If you have configured your test to verify the latest prod, then it should verify 1.0.0

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 05:06

If you have configured your test to verify the latest dev, then it should verify 1.0.1

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 05:07

If you have configured your test to verify the latest (with no tags specified, not recommended) then it will verify 1.0.1

acooper106

2018-11-22 05:07

can this be changed

acooper106

2018-11-22 05:08

the test only has tags no way to specify version

acooper106

2018-11-22 05:08

latest or otherwise

acooper106

2018-11-22 05:08

I would think latest would just be the one showing on the broker

bethskurrie

When you specify the tag name, it will verify the latest pact with that tag.

bethskurrie

> the test only has tags no way to specify version This is the normal behaviour.

acooper106

I wasn't expecting it to go back in history to find prod tag over the latest version published

acooper106

bethskurrie

According to the images you sent me, it was configured with the "prod" tag.

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 05:10

I can see in the screenshot, `tags="PROD"`

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 05:10

That means it will verify the latest pact that has the prod tag.

acooper106

2018-11-22 05:10

yes but the current version on the broker is 1.0.1 DEV

acooper106

I was expecting it to only look at that one and say there are no pacts with that tag

bethskurrie

So, configure it to verify `tags="DEV"`

bethskurrie

But there is a pact with dev and a pact with prod.

bethskurrie

Which ever tag name you put in, it will find a pact.

bethskurrie

2018-11-22 05:13

If you put in "foobar" it should raise an error - there are no pacts with tag "foobar".

acooper106

2018-11-22 05:15

I see. I just thought it would check only check the latest version. But I see you've clarified that its expected to look at pervious versions for the tag

acooper106

2018-11-22 05:23

hmm now I think it makes sense because we don't want the provide build to fail when a consumer uploads a new pact with 1.0.1 dev. but I think the broker last veried is a little misleading since it just looks like 1.0.1 dev was varied, when actually it was 1.0.0 PROD that was varied. Maybe last verified should still be yellow.

acooper106

2018-11-22 05:25

why should this update when my tag is prod

fewstera

2018-11-22 09:55

has joined #general

roger.vieira

2018-11-22 12:51

has joined #general

roger.vieira

2018-11-22 13:03

Hi guys I have some doubts trying to use Pact in my projects: ? why I need to call a PactVerificationResult in order to generate the Pact's contract file (the one that is used to publish in Pact Broker)? ? is mandatory to use @Test annotation to call for a method that will generate Pact contract? Is there another way to call for contract generation? Maybe I've misunderstood about Pact application scenarios, but actually is not so clear for me the reason why I need to call a mock server using the contract in order to generate Pact file, imo this seems to be against Pact's purpose, because the main objective of Pact is to not "touch" in third parties' APIs, just test contract between consumers and providers.

roger.vieira

2018-11-22 13:04

(I'm not sure whether this is the right place for my questions)

romuald.quantin

2018-11-22 13:38

General question, we updated our nodejs version which support http2. Is there a correlation between pact and http2? If yes, where can I find more information?

uglyog

2018-11-22 21:02

Pact is a contract *testing* framework. It is designed for writing and executing contract tests. The actual pact file is just an artefact of the test execution on the consumer side.

tadeusz.rychter

2018-11-22 21:17

has joined #general

hans.hofkens

2018-11-22 21:32

has joined #general

paul.mckeown

2018-11-22 21:43

has joined #general

fraser.crichton.devel

2018-11-22 22:05

Hi there, I?m working at an organisation where we are at the early stages of investigating Consumer-Driven Contract Testing and looking at how to achieve this. Many of our API Services are Java Spring Boot applications and our clients are a mixture of React, Ember, mobile applications and service-to-service. Something that we are looking at currently is: https://cloud.spring.io/spring-cloud-contract/single/spring-cloud-contract.html Am just wondering if anyone else using Spring Cloud Contract? Is it mature? Are there any problems people have experienced implementing it? Thanks.

mboudreau

2018-11-22 22:40

What do you mean correlation?

lovesh.jain

2018-11-22 23:01

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-11-23 05:46

I haven?t used it personally, but I can say that it is mature and the community around it is very good. Marcin (project Lead) has also made aspects of it compatible with Pact, so there is some interoperability also

matt.fellows

2018-11-23 05:47

Any reason why you?re looking at it instead of Pact?

ots.indrek

2018-11-23 09:41

has joined #general

ots.indrek

2018-11-23 10:24

Hey, I have a question regarding preventing missing verifications https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/pact_nirvana#8-prevent-missing-verifications I have set up tagging when a deployment is made, also webhooks are in place that trigger provider CI jobs. > To reach Pact Nirvana, the final step is to have a CI build that checks out the code for the production version of your provider, and have it verify the same pacts that the head version does. Should the final step be part of the deployment? For example, if `can-i-deploy` reports that a verification is missing, the deployment script will do the verification? Or could this be done when a webhook triggers a provider CI job?

bethskurrie

2018-11-23 10:31

Is the content of the prod and dev pact the same?

bethskurrie

2018-11-23 10:31

The verification belongs to the content, so if they have the same content, they will both be verified

bethskurrie

2018-11-23 10:32

There is a good document on versioning in the broker on http://docs.pact.io

bethskurrie

2018-11-23 10:34

I'm not 100% sure this final step is necessary (and I wrote this document) so I would wait and see if you need it.

bethskurrie

2018-11-23 10:35

One way to do it would be to have a separate job that ran the verifications with the prod codebase that was triggered by a webhook.

ots.indrek

2018-11-23 10:49

Thanks, I'll first start without the final step then and see if I run into a situation where it might be needed

bethskurrie

2018-11-23 11:00

Yes, good plan. If you're deploying your provider regularly, I don't think you'll need it. I think it's mostly relevant if you have long gaps between deployments.

fewstera

2018-11-23 12:13

Any idea why pact-go isn?t working from inside a docker container? ``` 2018/11/23 12:10:38 [DEBUG] pact setup logging 2018/11/23 12:10:38 [DEBUG] pact setup 2018/11/23 12:10:38 [DEBUG] checking CLI compatability 2018/11/23 12:10:38 [INFO] checking pact-provider-verifier within range >= 1.15.0, < 3.0.0 2018/11/23 12:10:38 [DEBUG] running binary pact-provider-verifier 2018/11/23 12:10:40 [DEBUG] checking version for binary pact-provider-verifier version 1.21.0 2018/11/23 12:10:40 [DEBUG] checking if version 1.21.0 within semver range >= 1.15.0, < 3.0.0 2018/11/23 12:10:40 [DEBUG] 1.21.0 satisfies constraints 1.21.0 >= 1.15.0, < 3.0.0 2018/11/23 12:10:40 [INFO] checking pact-broker within range >= 1.16.0, < 2.0.0 2018/11/23 12:10:40 [DEBUG] running binary pact-broker 2018/11/23 12:10:41 [DEBUG] checking version for binary pact-broker version 1.17.0 2018/11/23 12:10:41 [DEBUG] checking if version 1.17.0 within semver range >= 1.16.0, < 2.0.0 2018/11/23 12:10:41 [DEBUG] 1.17.0 satisfies constraints 1.17.0 >= 1.16.0, < 2.0.0 2018/11/23 12:10:41 [INFO] checking pact-mock-service within range >= 2.9.8, < 3.0.0 2018/11/23 12:10:41 [DEBUG] running binary pact-mock-service 2018/11/23 12:10:42 [DEBUG] checking version for binary pact-mock-service version 2.12.0 2018/11/23 12:10:42 [DEBUG] checking if version 2.12.0 within semver range >= 2.9.8, < 3.0.0 2018/11/23 12:10:42 [DEBUG] 2.12.0 satisfies constraints 2.12.0 >= 2.9.8, < 3.0.0 2018/11/23 12:10:42 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager 2018/11/23 12:10:42 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager 2018/11/23 12:10:42 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager 2018/11/23 12:10:42 [DEBUG] pact provider verification 2018/11/23 12:10:42 [DEBUG] client: verifying a provider 2018/11/23 12:10:42 [DEBUG] waiting for port 8000 to become available 2018/11/23 12:10:42 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor 2018/11/23 12:10:42 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor 2018/11/23 12:10:42 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor 2018/11/23 12:10:42 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor 2018/11/23 12:10:42 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor 2018/11/23 12:10:42 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor 2018/11/23 12:10:52 [ERROR] Expected server to start < 10s. Timed out waiting for Provider API to start on port 8000 - are you sure it's running? 2018/11/23 12:10:52 [DEBUG] starting verification service with args: [./replaced-id-pact.json --custom-provider-header X-is-test: true --custom-provider-header X-user-details: {"name": "CDC User", "email":"", "groups": ["journalist", "content-editor"]} --format json --provider-base-url http://app:8000] ``` If I change the provider base url to localhost and run the tests outside of docker with the provider inside of docker it works fine.

fewstera

2018-11-23 12:14

``` func TestProvider(t *testing.T) { c := getConfig() pact := &dsl.Pact{ Consumer: "intel-cms-admin", Provider: "intel-cms-srvice", LogLevel: "DEBUG", } pact.VerifyProvider(t, types.VerifyRequest{ ProviderBaseURL: "http://app:8000", PactURLs: []string{replacedPactJSONFile}, CustomProviderHeaders: []string{ "X-is-test: true", fmt.Sprintf("X-user-details: %s", c.userDetailsJSON), }, }) } ```

fewstera

2018-11-23 12:15

I can curl http://app:8000 from inside the container, so it can see the provider

bernardo.guerreiro

2018-11-23 15:27

You shouldn't be using Pact to test third party API's. You use it to test services you control end to end, consumer/provider pairs. The mock server is replacing your provider API on the consumer side . You need it in order to generate the contract, because when you run your tests, as part of them, your mock server will be called (instead of your real provider), and return the interaction you defined for it. That moment when you've successfully called and received back the interaction you established is when the contract is generated. That contract is the whole point of pact. That then can be used by the real provider to test against the real endpoint.

fewstera

2018-11-23 16:30

^^ seems like a bug with this https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/c2dcd782ab0bb3ee4a6a689ba0c4083f31258628/dsl/client.go#L125 It appears to always assume your address is localhost, I guess it needs a similar function to getPort where it gets the host from the provider base url.

stevejbartholomew

2018-11-23 17:15

has joined #general

kristine.jetzke

2018-11-23 21:04

Hi, just in case someone is interested: I wrote a blog post on writing pact tests in spring boot and one one integrating the tests into Jenkins build pipelines using the pact broker: https://link.medium.com/q3cC0j8w5R and https://link.medium.com/4o0ZIqhx5R

matt.fellows

2018-11-23 23:34

In most cases, the contract doesn't change all that often, so in most cases what's already in prod can be checked with can I deploy.

matt.fellows

2018-11-23 23:35

This is for those edge cases Beth alludes to

matt.fellows

2018-11-23 23:36

Thanks for looking. I'll try to get to these next week. If you haven't already, raise a bug and a PR if you're interested - and we can get it sorted

matt.fellows

2018-11-23 23:39

Thanks, will take a read tonight! So many more strikes coming out now :pray:

jornhansen

2018-11-24 08:14

has joined #general

fewstera

2018-11-24 15:58

I will try raise a PR Monday :slightly_smiling_face: Spent most of Friday afternoon trying to solve a different issue that turned out to be a simple fix in the end :man-facepalming:

fraser.crichton.devel

2018-11-26 04:58

I?m not, but one of the teams I?m working with is and they are interested in exploring Spring Cloud as an alternative as they use Spring for all their services. Many of our other teams may choose plain Pact, so we just want to be sure the Pact Broker and Spring Cloud will play together. Yes, I have to say it seems to over complicate things but we want our teams to feel empowered to choose which tools they use hence trying to find out a bit more so we can help them along. Hope Melbourne is treating you well btw.

matt.fellows

2018-11-26 05:50

Oh - hello!

matt.fellows

2018-11-26 05:50

I replied via mobile but didn?t click - how?s it going?

matt.fellows

2018-11-26 05:51

And yes, totally get the ?pick the right tool for the situation/context/team? - always looking to see if there is something missing / broken that we need to address

matt.fellows

2018-11-26 05:51

How?s it all going? I?m (temporarily) in the states, but will be home in Melbourne next week. Where are you?

matt.fellows

2018-11-26 05:54

:slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2018-11-26 05:54

no worries, thanks

matt.fellows

2018-11-26 06:36

@kristine.jetzke nice work on the Jenkins example! It?s _pretty_ detailed - and we like that!

kristine.jetzke

2018-11-26 07:46

Thanks :blush:

fewstera

2018-11-26 12:39

Heres that PR https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/pull/101

syed.haq

2018-11-26 12:53

has joined #general

uma.shanker

2018-11-26 16:25

has joined #general

inbox

2018-11-26 16:39

Does the free pact broker expire?

matt.fellows

2018-11-26 16:53

Not for any active accounts, but if you haven't used it for several months and never pushed Tobit, we've probably disabled it

inbox

2018-11-26 20:15

I see. Would it be possible to reenable https://aramark.pact.dius.com.au/ ? or reapply for it? We've been busy with other work and haven't had an opportunity to push to it.

bethskurrie

2018-11-26 21:16

Send us an email to to remind me, and I'll do it at work today @inbox

inbox

2018-11-26 21:16

Thank you!

bethskurrie

2018-11-26 22:09

Done.

fraser.crichton.devel

2018-11-27 03:53

Am back in NZ. Hope you are enjoying the States - might try and get you a trip over this side of the Tasman :wink:

matt.fellows

2018-11-27 06:36

I?m keen! NZ is beautiful

matt.fellows

2018-11-27 06:36

Can we go in winter? :slightly_smiling_face:

shkutov.max

2018-11-27 16:39

has joined #general

fraser.crichton.devel

2018-11-27 20:10

We might be able to get you back in winter :wink:

christian.draeger1

2018-11-27 20:50

has joined #general

rahul.neotech

2018-11-27 21:01

has joined #general

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-27 21:14

has joined #general

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-27 21:24

are python pact people using pact-python or pactman? i'm just starting to play around with pact testing and since pactman supports the v3 spec i'd prefer to use that!

bethskurrie

2018-11-27 21:39

Pactman has v3 support, but pact-python has better broker integration. Depends which is more important to you.

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-27 21:53

anywhere i can read about the better broker integration?

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-27 22:06

to be more clear: is there a breakdown of differences between pactman and pact-python written anywhere?

james.carman

2018-11-27 22:27

Working on automation around pacts and CI/CD. In particular, we are writing Java services. I?m trying to figure out how folks typically rerun pact verification for an already released version of a service?

james.carman

2018-11-27 22:29

I would have previously verified the pacts that existed at release time. Now, suppose a new consumer comes along.

james.carman

2018-11-27 22:29

The pact verification is part of the ?normal build? or do we have a special job that we run dedicated solely to pact verification?

kristine.jetzke

2018-11-27 22:33

We usually have a dedicated job that is triggered by pact webhooks. I actually wrote a blog post about this a couple of weeks ago: https://link.medium.com/T9fZ1bhhcS

james.carman

2018-11-27 22:39

Fantastic! Right now we are using the hosted version, so the web hook won?t be able to reach our Jenkins box. But this is great info

bethskurrie

2018-11-27 22:41

Just make sure the separate job is also triggered by a commit to the provider, as part of your normal pipeline too.

james.carman

2018-11-27 22:43

Do folks typically run verification against an in-process, stubbed-out (the downstream dependencies) instance of the service?

james.carman

2018-11-27 22:43

Or a deployed version?

james.carman

2018-11-27 22:44

I like the idea of the isolation

rahul.neotech

2018-11-28 00:16

Hi :wave: I?m new to using pact and encountering a problem at the moment. Has anyone here used protobufs with pact ruby?

kristine.jetzke

2018-11-28 06:59

We mostly run verification against stubbed-out instances. But for some legacy applications we use the real ones.

stevejbartholomew

2018-11-28 12:22

Hi, I'm new to PACT and Javascript and am trying to run the https://github.com/DiUS/pact-workshop-js (successfully) but trying to switch out certain parameters to test for simple String equivalence (unsuccessfully) and I'm not clear where I'm going wrong

james.carman

2018-11-28 12:34

Are there any good examples of this pattern of running the verify test in isolation?

stevejbartholomew

2018-11-28 12:35

this maybe more to do with novice skills at using Mocha

james.carman

2018-11-28 12:35

By itself I mean

stevejbartholomew

2018-11-28 12:35

but....if anyone's willing to help, I can share code, would be most appreciated

stevejbartholomew

2018-11-28 12:41

specifically, my issue is in issuing the npm run test:pact:consumer command

stevejbartholomew

2018-11-28 12:41

and receiving the error:

stevejbartholomew

2018-11-28 13:09

pls ignore above - i'd overlooked a stack overflow question to which matt has kindly responded

kristine.jetzke

2018-11-28 14:23

I think it depends on your stack. We mostly use spring boot so it?s pretty straightforward with spring boot integration tests.

james.carman

2018-11-28 14:37

That?s what we use. Just trying to see how you set the test up to run by itself. Is it a separate project or is it ?in tree? with the rest of your code.

james.carman

2018-11-28 14:37

I know how to write the test itself

james.carman

2018-11-28 14:38

Just interested in strategies used to isolate it to be run by itself from a git tag

james.carman

2018-11-28 14:38

I hope I?m making sense here.

kristine.jetzke

2018-11-28 15:01

We have it in the same tree as all other code. They are named *ContractIT and we have added a maven profile to run only those

james.carman

2018-11-28 15:01

ok, that?s what I figured. Didn?t know if there was some other maven magic you were using :slightly_smiling_face:

james.carman

2018-11-28 15:02

Thank you so much for your insights, @kristine.jetzke

james.carman

2018-11-28 15:02

are you specifically running that exact test or just running only the failsafe plugin in the other profile?

kristine.jetzke

2018-11-28 15:10

We only run tests that match the *ContractIT pattern (using failsafe). We try to skip as many other steps as possible e.g. we exclude unit tests.

james.carman

2018-11-28 15:12

fantastic. I like it. Care to share your profile configs? :slightly_smiling_face:

james.carman

2018-11-28 15:12

I?m sure I can figure it out, but if you have it handy and it?s something you can share

kristine.jetzke

2018-11-28 15:15

I left the client where I implemented this last Friday so I don?t have access to the production code anymore. I have a small example with the profile: https://github.com/tinexw/cdc-with-pact/blob/master/user-service/pom.xml#L48

kristine.jetzke

2018-11-28 15:15

However, it does not include the surefire exclusion but that should be easily found.

kristine.jetzke

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6612344/prevent-unit-tests-but-allow-integration-tests-in-maven

james.carman

so, exclude *all* from surefire and include only ContractTestIT in failsafe

james.carman

this one looks like you?re only including ContractTest.java in surefire

kristine.jetzke

Yes, that?s how we implemented it.

james.carman

running them as unit tests, which is fine also

james.carman

I don?t really need failsafe

kristine.jetzke

Yes, that works too

james.carman

Totally fine. I like it

james.carman

Thank you again!

james.carman

this is pretty slick!

kristine.jetzke

good luck :slightly_smiling_face:

james.carman

Yeah, now the trick is figuring out how to populate ?the matrix? properly with the right environment tags and what not, but this blog post seems to have that nailed down

james.carman

I will soon achieve ?pact nirvana? :slightly_smiling_face:

james.carman

I want to beef up my presentation to include this part.

kristine.jetzke

Ah sorry. So yes, the example is only using surefire. In the production code we implemented it using failsafe and in the contract tests excluded all unit tests and all integration tests *except* the ContractIT ones.

james.carman

I gave a talk going over the general stuff, but this is a really cool extension to that talk

james.carman

I think Surefire is just fine.

kristine.jetzke

Yeah, and the interesting part :wink:

james.carman

exactly!

james.carman

2018-11-28 15:28

I don?t see any reference to it anywhere, but I figured I?d ask. Is the pact broker CLI available via homebrew?

james.carman

2018-11-28 15:28

I did a ```brew search pact``` and only found ?impactor?

matt.fellows

2018-11-28 17:33

@james.carman It?s not, but it?s something we?ve talked about

matt.fellows

2018-11-28 17:33

It would be an obvious thing to do :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2018-11-28 17:33

Also Chocolatey/Nuget/whatever it is these days for Windows :slightly_smiling_face:

shirley.ong1

2018-11-28 18:30

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2018-11-28 21:34

When I looked at homebrew, one of the criteria was that the tool wasn't available via another means of installation, so I thought we might be excluded. Also, it had to be submitted by someone who wasn't the maintainer.

bethskurrie

2018-11-28 21:35

This was years ago though.

james.carman

2018-11-28 21:46

oh wow. I guess with the stuff happening with npm it might make sense to have rules like that

richard.jones

2018-11-28 22:08

I would dispute the ?better broker integration? since pactman verifier can be just pointed at a broker with a provider name to pull in all the metadata from the broker for that provider :slightly_smiling_face:

richard.jones

2018-11-28 22:08

Or rather, I?d like to know where pactman is seen to fall short in broker integration :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2018-11-28 22:09

Oh, my bad. I didn't think it did this yet.

bethskurrie

2018-11-28 22:09

Does it also publish verifications?

richard.jones

2018-11-28 22:10

Yep!

bethskurrie

2018-11-28 22:10

And verification results from the tests?

richard.jones

2018-11-28 22:11

I?m not sure what that means. Which tests?

bethskurrie

2018-11-28 22:11

The result of each individual test.

bethskurrie

That's relatively new to the ruby impl, so you may not have realised it was there.

richard.jones

Sorry, which tests? The tests using the mocks?

bethskurrie

Sounds like you can ignore my analysis though, zhammer.

richard.jones

Ahh. I?ll look up that ruby feature?s documentation.

bethskurrie

2018-11-28 22:13

We're still trying to work out a format for it.

bethskurrie

2018-11-28 22:13

There's an issue somewhere.

bethskurrie

2018-11-28 22:13

At the moment, it can be any arbitrary JSON in the testResults key.

richard.jones

2018-11-28 22:14

I?m still confused about which tests are generating these results. It?s the tests using the pact mocks? So the results of those tests are sent to the pact broker to register against the consumer?

bethskurrie

2018-11-28 22:16

The results of each interaction verification.

bethskurrie

2018-11-28 22:16

They get included in the verification results going back to the broker.

bethskurrie

2018-11-28 22:16

Whether it passed or failed, and the diff.

richard.jones

2018-11-28 22:17

ahhh! righto. that sounds useful, yes! When the format is nailed down more I?ll definitely want to support it :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2018-11-28 22:18

I'll find you the issue with the current format, but it doesn't support v2.

bethskurrie

2018-11-28 22:18

If you're interested in coming up with a format that supports v3, even better!

richard.jones

2018-11-28 22:19

\o/

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-28 22:20

@richard.jones are you a / the maintainer of pactman? i'm really interested in experimenting w/ pact testing on some personal projects and will probably use pactman

richard.jones

2018-11-28 22:20

I?m a maintainer, yes. Primary author, but we have a few folks helping maintain it now.

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-28 22:21

would be happy to contribute also if things go well! right now i'm mostly concerned about not having an in-python pact provider verifier like in the ruby package: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby/wiki/Provider-states#provider-codebase

richard.jones

2018-11-28 22:23

@zach.the.hammer pactman is the tool we (ReeceTech) use for pact verification, yes. I?m migrating us over to using the mocking in pactman also (no more firing off a separate process to do test mocking!), though the pact-python to pactman migration for our large-ish codebase is tricky due to API conflicts which I?m sorting through.

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-28 22:23

i'm used to testing in `pytest` or `behave` where i can setup fixtures in python within the testing framework. doing this via an additional endpoint seems like a major headache / perhaps not even possible (in a reasonbly non time-consuming way) for things like mocking calls to external services

richard.jones

2018-11-28 22:24

@zach.the.hammer yep, that?s our toolset also

richard.jones

2018-11-28 22:24

and also the same reasoning why I started the pactman project

richard.jones

2018-11-28 22:25

let?s take this convo over to the #pact-python channel tho rather than gum up #general :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2018-11-28 22:26

:+1:

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-28 22:27

haha sounds good! at least we were just gumming up this thread

matt.fellows

2018-11-28 22:50

We should create own tap, which doesn?t have these requirements/restrictions

matt.fellows

2018-11-28 22:51

It?s basically a git repository that you run `brew tap ...` on and then can run the install

christian.hope

2018-11-28 23:05

has joined #general

cosmin.mogos

2018-11-29 10:52

has joined #general

cosmin.mogos

2018-11-29 11:49

Hi, I have a question regarding initial PACT sharing. If my understanding is correct the PACT file is generated after the consumer tests successfully run. What mechanism can be used to share PACT files before the consumer tests can be implemented. i.e share the contract before the consumer implements requred functionality, so the discussion can be started with the producer team? more detailed JVM related question https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9UN99H24/p1543329108034800

ruben.perezg

2018-11-29 14:53

has joined #general

james.carman

2018-11-29 16:55

It seems that the general approach to supporting ?environments? in the pactbroker is to use tags to do so, applying tags like ?prod? to a particular pact file. Am I understanding that correctly?

matt.fellows

2018-11-29 17:04

Yep, that?s the defacto approch!

james.carman

2018-11-29 17:08

Okay, cool. So, we tag it as ?prod? only after a successful deployment to the production environment?

james.carman

2018-11-29 17:08

and perhaps tag it as ?provisional? or something as we?re running it through its paces?

james.carman

2018-11-29 17:09

asking for the production version of the provider verify itself against our ?provisional? tag?

james.carman

2018-11-29 17:09

I really hope this makes sense :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2018-11-29 17:31

yep

matt.fellows

2018-11-29 17:33

I normally go with `dev` for what?s currently pushed to master, and `prod` once it is released to prod

matt.fellows

2018-11-29 17:34

and then for branches, you could do a few different things. There are a few posts on the wiki e.g. https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Using-tags

james.carman

2018-11-29 17:37

as far as keeping track of ?what version is in prod? for providers, that would be up to the specific organization to determine how to best do that?

james.carman

2018-11-29 17:38

I suppose that part is really supported (no matter how it?s done) using the webhooks out of the pactbroker.

james.carman

2018-11-29 17:39

meaning, you would tie a webhook to the ?go verify the prod version of service ?foo? against this new consumer pact that just got published?

matt.fellows

Probably, yes

matt.fellows

But the broker does have a mechanism to query what version of what is where (assuming you tag etc.)

matt.fellows

This article might be worth reading too - the effective pact setup guide: https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/pact_nirvana

james.carman

if the provider doesn?t have any pacts, then it can?t really be ?tagged?, right?

matt.fellows

You can query the broker like this `pact-broker describe-version --pacticipant PACTICIPANT --latest prod` to retrieve the version of the broker tagged `prod`

james.carman

or, can we tag a verification also?

james.carman

I mean a provider that doesn?t call anyone else

james.carman

it wouldn?t be able to be tagged because it didn?t publish any pacts to the broker

matt.fellows

exactly

matt.fellows

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/API-documentation

BUT

matt.fellows

2018-11-29 17:42

When a provider performs a verification against a pact, it publishes its version. So when you query a pact by tag, you can retrieve the _latest_ provider that verified it

matt.fellows

2018-11-29 17:42

the command above does this

james.carman

2018-11-29 17:43

yep, but if the production version of the provider has not yet verified this pact (it?s a brand new consumer maybe), then we have no data

james.carman

2018-11-29 17:43

I really hate to be such a bother with all these ?what ifs? questions, man

james.carman

2018-11-29 17:43

I?m just trying to wrap my head around how to fully instrument this stuff

james.carman

2018-11-29 17:44

I am trying to ?RTFM? as much as I can :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2018-11-29 17:44

no don?t be sorry, if the manual has it I?ll point to it, if not it maybe needs to be addressed

matt.fellows

2018-11-29 17:45

I don?t think I?m up with the latest on how to deal with the chicken-and-egg problem of new contracts, I?m currently in the states for work. @bethskurrie is on the bleeding edge for that one

james.carman

2018-11-29 17:45

I think we have a gap (at least at my org) where we need to somehow maintain this state of ?what version is deployed in which environment?

james.carman

2018-11-29 17:46

luckily, spring boot provides a nice handy ```/actuator/info``` endpoint which includes our versions, so we can go get it without having to maintain the state in a database I suppose

james.carman

2018-11-29 17:47

loves Spring Boot actuator

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-29 18:11

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-29 18:12

The link on this page to the ?publish verification results? key resource 404s https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/blob/master/lib/pact_broker/doc/views/publish-verification-results.markdown

rahul.neotech

2018-11-29 18:51

Hi :wave: I?m using pact-ruby to write a contract test for our consumer and provider service. Our services communicate via protos and the protos are encoded when sent over the wire. When the protos are encoded, they contain certain characters that are not JSON serializable (pact throws; an error I received looks like this - "\xC8" from ASCII-8BIT to UTF-8). I was able to overcome this by Base64 encoding the request and response - in the pact gem - before it is JSON serialized in the consumer - and then Base64 decoding it in the provider before it is used for verification. I?m wondering if there?s a better solution for what I?m doing. Can someone help?

rahul.neotech

2018-11-29 19:25

cc @beth

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-29 20:12

I believe this is the new location https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/blob/master/lib/pact_broker/doc/views/pact/publish-verification-results.markdown

rahul.neotech

2018-11-29 23:12

@bethskurrie

bethskurrie

2018-11-29 23:14

Hm. I don't think there is a way to transfer non UTF-8 characters on JSON is there?

bethskurrie

2018-11-29 23:15

Sounds like you're trying to do something that is not possible in JSON, and the pact problem is just a side effect.

bethskurrie

2018-11-29 23:18

Perhaps JSON is not the best transfer format for your situation.

rahul.neotech

2018-11-29 23:49

There might be a way

rahul.neotech

2018-11-29 23:50

Suppose my example string is this `test_string = "\x05\x10\x00\x18\xC8\x068\x04@\x00J\x0ETestAccount"`

rahul.neotech

2018-11-29 23:50

If I try to call `.to_json` on it, it throws with the error message "malformed UTF-8"

bethskurrie

2018-11-29 23:51

You can use other content types than JSON, however, you will lose the ability to use matchers.

rahul.neotech

2018-11-29 23:51

I looked up the following: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4867883/convert-non-ascii-chars-from-ascii-8bit-to-utf-8 and tried `test_string.force_encoding('UTF-8').to_json` and even that threw an error

bethskurrie

I feel that you have a Ruby/API problem first, before you have a pact problem.

rahul.neotech

But then I found this: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18067203/ruby-to-json-issue-with-error-illegal-malformed-utf-8 and tried `test_string.force_encoding("ISO-8859-1").encode("UTF-8").to_json` and it worked

bethskurrie

I think you're going to lose information by force encoding the string.

bethskurrie

I don't think that's what you want.

rahul.neotech

2018-11-29 23:53

I see... actually its not just the encoding that worked

rahul.neotech

2018-11-29 23:54

I took the encoded protobuf as the `test_string`, ran that above command `force_encoding("ISO-8859-1").encode("UTF-8")` to get an `output_string`, and used the `output_string` to reconstruct the proto

rahul.neotech

2018-11-29 23:54

And it worked as well

rahul.neotech

2018-11-29 23:54

So maybe it works no? :neutral_face:

bethskurrie

2018-11-29 23:55

I don't understand enough about encoding to be able to give you a reliable answer, I'm sorry.

rahul.neotech

2018-11-29 23:56

Okay, no worries, thanks a lot for taking time out to reply to my questions :slightly_smiling_face:

rahul.neotech

2018-11-29 23:59

Oh BTW, what are the other formats I can use instead of JSON even if I lose the ability to use matchers? Is there a link I can look at to learn this?

bethskurrie

2018-11-30 00:12

XML is almost finished, but we lost momentum. Any other format just does plain text matching, but it may not handle non-utf8 chars.

bethskurrie

2018-11-30 00:12

I have a feeling there's a force encode somewhere

bethskurrie

2018-11-30 00:15

If you're comfortable in ruby, you can implement your own matcher for your own format quite easily.

bethskurrie

2018-11-30 00:16

Here's an example https://github.com/uldissturms/pact-xml

rahul.neotech

2018-11-30 00:22

I was thinking along the same lines :slightly_smiling_face: ... on implementing a custom matcher for the protobufs. I'll take it from here. Thanks a lot for replying to my messages. You were super helpful :100::+1:

bethskurrie

2018-11-30 00:40

no problem

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-30 01:46

@bethskurrie is this the endpoint for publishing pact verification results?

matt.fellows

2018-11-30 01:49

That would be super cool

matt.fellows

2018-11-30 01:49

The question about gRPC and protobufs comes up a lot

matt.fellows

2018-11-30 01:49

I?d love for you to tell us why you think Pact does (or does not) solve a problem for you. We?ll then update our docs accordingly

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-30 02:05

i don?t see how to tag the provider verification

bethskurrie

2018-11-30 02:11

Yes.

bethskurrie

2018-11-30 02:11

You tag a pacticipant version, not a result.

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-30 02:12

> To reach Pact Nirvana, the final step is to have a CI build that checks out the code for the production version of your provider, and have it verify the same pacts that the head version does. If you have followed the recommended strategy of tagging provider versions in the broker on deployment to production, you can use the broker to determine which version of the provider is currently in production. Make sure that the provider application version used when publishing your verification can be reverse engineered to a git reference.

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-30 02:12

>>> To reach Pact Nirvana, the final step is to have a CI build that checks out the code for the production version of your provider, and have it verify the same pacts that the head version does. If you have followed the recommended strategy of tagging provider versions in the broker on deployment to production, you can use the broker to determine which version of the provider is currently in production. Make sure that the provider application version used when publishing your verification can be reverse engineered to a git reference.

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-30 02:12

this confuses me a bit

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-30 02:13

is this ?provider prod? tag done separately via > create-version-tag

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-30 03:42

Agh okay so I have been reading the pact nirvana and pact versioning docs over and over and there is still one thing I can?t understand: https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/pact_nirvana#5-allow-contracts-to-change-without-breaking-your-builds As far as I can tell the recommended workflow is: 1) We have a Consumer and a Provider with some existing pact. 2) Consumer and Provider teams talk. They decide they want a feature for Consumer to be able to get the information about an Alligator from Provider team if the Alligator exists. 3) Consumer service makes a feature branch: `feature-fetch-alligator` 4) Consumer writes a pact in their consumer tests to ?mock? out the desired interaction with the Provider. The pact, in pseudo, looks something like: ``` provider: Provider consumer: Consumer given an alligator named mary exists GET /alligator?name=Mary will respond with status 200 body like { id: 1, name: ?Mary? } ``` 5) Pushing `feature-fetch-alligator` branch to origin triggers the CI feature branch build, which publishes the pact file to the broker with the consumer version {git sha} and the tag feature-fetch-alligator. **Here?s where I?m confused** Assuming an identical pact hasn?t been published and verified by the provider previously, the consumer build fails, as the pact isn?t verified. The provider CI build **doesnt** verify this pact since it?s not tagged `master`. Instead, the provider team locally tests against the `feature-fetch-alligator` pact in their own `feature-provide-alligator` branch in the Provider repo. The feature is built out, and the pact passed locally! `feature-provide-alligator` is merged to master. *what happens now?!?!?!* the tag for the new consumer contract still isn?t `master`! So the Provider still won?t verify the `feature-fetch-alligator`-tagged pact. The Pact *is* supported by the Provider, but it is not verified. Consumer CI never passes, and the branch is never merged. Essentially: provider won?t verify until pact is tagged as master. Consumer can?t merge to / tag as master until provider verifies. What am i missing?

bethskurrie

> **Here?s where I?m confused**

bethskurrie

You are very observant.

bethskurrie

What you're missing is that I have a feature that I have been working on that I haven't fully released and documented.

zach.the.hammer

Ah!!!!!!

zach.the.hammer

Wow my brain feels a lot better now

bethskurrie

2018-11-30 03:44

I got blocked because I couldn't decide what to call it, and then I started renovations on my house.

bethskurrie

2018-11-30 03:44

Normally, the provider team would just do a manual verification of that new tag - again, because they've talked.

bethskurrie

With the new feature, (which may be called WIP pacts or may be called pending pacts) the new pact would be pulled in at the next verification, but *it would not fail the build*.

bethskurrie

That way the consumer gets the feedback they need, and the provider doesn't have to change any code.

bethskurrie

And their build doesn't break.

zach.the.hammer

http://blog.pact.io/introducing-wip-pacts/

^ thats what i was thinking!!

bethskurrie

2018-11-30 03:46

bethskurrie

2018-11-30 03:46

Here's my work in progress post about work in progress pacts.

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-30 03:47

Awesome

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-30 03:48

I will let my brain relax a bit and then read this

bethskurrie

yeah, it does your head in after a while

bethskurrie

even me, and I came up with it!

zach.the.hammer

Wait that page is 404ing

bethskurrie

https://docs.pact.io/faq#can-i-test-graphql

Hm, probably beacuse I haven't published it. Let me see if there's a pre-publish link

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-30 03:50

Hah i thought perhaps it was a very meta joke

bethskurrie

2018-11-30 03:50

That should work http://blog.pact.io/p/a0cea6a6-1a6e-40af-ae44-bcf1c27add3f/

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-30 03:51

Alright I will read this in a bit. I?ll let you know if any names come to mind for wipacts

bethskurrie

2018-11-30 03:51

Also, if you have a preference for wip/pending, then please let me know! I'm leaning towards "pending" at the moment. Naming things == hard.

zach.the.hammer

2018-11-30 03:51

^ lol i think we?re on the same page

matt.fellows

2018-11-30 05:34

This is what I was referring to this morning :slightly_smiling_face:

dan

2018-11-30 15:51

has joined #general

dan

2018-11-30 16:14

Hello everyone! I'm running the Pact broker with custom authentication. Can `pact-provider-verifier` be configured to use custom headers? I could only find basic http auth in the docs.

matt.fellows

2018-11-30 16:42

It does, run the `help` flag

matt.fellows

2018-11-30 16:42

Or if you could elaborate on what you need in code

popo63301

2018-12-01 16:47

has joined #general

popo63301

2018-12-01 16:58

Hi! Does it work well with GraphQL?

matt.fellows

2018-12-01 17:10

bing.sun

2018-12-02 09:24

has joined #general

zach.the.hammer

2018-12-02 14:52

Is there a tool to check the syntax of a pact file? Specifically for support while working on a pact implementation. Something like `pact-json-validator --spec 3.0.0 --file my_pact_files/Test.pact.json`

bethskurrie

2018-12-02 20:32

There's a JSON schema Somewhere.

bethskurrie

2018-12-02 20:33

Personally, I don't recommend reimplementing the pact matching logic.

bethskurrie

2018-12-02 20:33

Ron has a rust implementation that should allow other languages to call via ffi bindings.

bethskurrie

2018-12-02 20:34

The plan is to move all the languages that are currently using the ruby standalone to use that

bethskurrie

2018-12-02 20:34

Trying to keep multiple implementations in line with each other is quite hard, and slow to roll out new features.

zach.the.hammer

2018-12-02 21:36

Some of this is just building out the implementation to explore pact mechanics

zach.the.hammer

2018-12-02 21:38

I think i saw that rust implementation when looking for v3 implementations

ashish.dubey91

2018-12-03 10:25

hey guys, the public free pact broker has been returning many 5XXs lately. anything wrong there?

bethskurrie

2018-12-03 10:28

We've just moved to some new infrastructure, and we're still ironing out the no downtime deployments.

bethskurrie

2018-12-03 10:28

We hope to have it sorted soon.

ashish.dubey91

2018-12-03 10:28

okay. thanks

gabe

2018-12-03 13:34

has joined #general

gabe

2018-12-03 14:06

Hi there, I'm using the Python Pact library. When sending binary files in the a request payload, I seem to always get back a `"Error ocurred in mock service: Encoding::UndefinedConversionError - \"\\xFF\" from ASCII-8BIT to UTF-8"` error. This does not happen if the payload is a dictionary. Has anyone else ran into this?

gabe

2018-12-03 14:11

Is perhaps the library trying to coerce payloads to strings?

sai.krishna

2018-12-03 14:33

has joined #general

mcon

2018-12-03 17:43

has joined #general

mcon

2018-12-03 22:22

Hi pact folks, I've written a short RFC on the idea of adding protobuf support for pact - it would be great to get people's thoughts on it: in terms of whether such a feature is likely to be accepted, and whether the approach seems reasonable. Thanks, Matt https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/issues/62

madhukar.mishra

2018-12-04 05:46

ignore if this if of no value: Implementation wise you just use pact to generate stubbed responses which you test your app against, it doesn't add too much complexity in code besides having to define your contract in the dsl of your platform

madhukar.mishra

2018-12-04 05:56

we have the same scenario, we have gone with the 2nd option. So yeah, we've sort of chained contracts.

madhukar.mishra

2018-12-04 06:04

Hi, we're quite close to figuring out how pact will work end to end for all our services. We're now hooking up CIs together with webhooks as prescribed in the docs. I'm having trouble looking at webhook status, they aren't showing up in the webhook status column on the broker homepage, even when they've been triggered. Using the latest image for the broker. *Note*: I'm using global webhooks, (provider, consumer not specified).

madhukar.mishra

2018-12-04 06:05

~I have checked if the webhook actually got triggered.~

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 07:38

Can you raise an issue in the pact broker github repo with the exact steps to reproduce.

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 07:38

Have a look at the logs. It may be a display issue.

madhukar.mishra

2018-12-04 07:43

Will do Beth, thanks. I have a suspicion it's got something to do with global hooks. I'll open the issue as when I have more details.

madhukar.mishra

2018-12-04 07:48

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Debugging-webhooks doesn't have too much to go on

madhukar.mishra

2018-12-04 07:49

I have enabled `DEBUG` logging but can't seem to get anything useful out of ``` docker-compose logs | grep -i webhook ```

madhukar.mishra

2018-12-04 07:52

This is what broker's section looks like in the compose config ``` broker_app: image: dius/pact-broker links: - postgres # If you remove nginx, enable the following #ports: # - "80:80" environment: PACT_BROKER_DATABASE_USERNAME: postgres PACT_BROKER_DATABASE_PASSWORD: password PACT_BROKER_DATABASE_HOST: postgres PACT_BROKER_DATABASE_NAME: postgres PACT_BROKER_WEBHOOK_SCHEME_WHITELIST: http https PACT_BROKER_WEBHOOK_HOST_WHITELIST: /.*/ PACT_BROKER_LOG_LEVEL: DEBUG ```

madhukar.mishra

2018-12-04 07:53

Not sure if I'm looking in the wrong places.. is there a way to get execution statuses from the API without knowing the execution ID?

madhukar.mishra

2018-12-04 07:59

app logs are in `/var/log/nginx/error.log` in the `broker_app` container only :grinning:

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 08:06

Yes.

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 08:06

Go to the HAL browser

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 08:06

There's a relation that shows you the web hook statues.

madhukar.mishra

2018-12-04 08:08

oh, embarrassing, I must have missed it.

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 08:11

Hm. I beg your pardon.

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 08:12

So, there is a known bug where the global webhooks dont show up in the UI status page.

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 08:12

It would give you a link if it did.

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 08:13

/pacts/provider/PROVIDER/consumer/CONSUMER/webhooks/status

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 08:13

Go to the API browser, and create the link as per that template.

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 08:13

You'll see a list of triggered webhooks, or error logs.

madhukar.mishra

^ having touble navigating to this in the browser*

madhukar.mishra

sure, thanks

bethskurrie

Click on the API browser link

bethskurrie

Top right

madhukar.mishra

sure, I got it

madhukar.mishra

https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1543910361048100?thread_ts=1543903472.045000&cid=C5F4KFKR8

I've been using the HAL browser a lot

madhukar.mishra

2018-12-04 08:16

Thanks again Beth

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 08:16

I'll try and fix that display bug.

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 08:16

That would have made it easier to find the logs.

madhukar.mishra

2018-12-04 08:23

We could help fix the docker setup to log properly if you like. Looking for low hanging fruit to contribute :smile:

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 08:25

I didn't realise it was broken!

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 08:25

But please, do!

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 08:26

App logs should come out in the stout of the docker container. Do they not?

madhukar.mishra

2018-12-04 08:28

Nope

madhukar.mishra

2018-12-04 08:28

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 08:29

That's... Unusual.

madhukar.mishra

2018-12-04 08:33

getting them out with `docker-compose exec broker_app tail -f /var/log/nginx/error.log`

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 08:34

Please do submit a PR! I'm wondering how it hasn't been picked up yet.

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 08:34

Does it happen when running the docker container without docker compose?

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 08:37

Typically, people just run the docker image in prod. Docker compose is just for messing around with locally.

madhukar.mishra

2018-12-04 08:40

Will try it out and let you know.

bethskurrie

2018-12-04 08:40

Many thanks :-)

james.carman

2018-12-04 15:12

When I run pact_broker locally (using the pact_broker-docker) I get the warning: ``` A security update is available for your version (5.1.11) of Passenger, we strongly recommend upgrading to version 5.3.5. ```

james.carman

2018-12-04 15:35

There seems to be a rather long pause in my verify test after the Spring Boot application is started: ``` 2018-12-04 10:34:14.315 INFO [-,,,] 55404 --- [ main] com.myco.VerifyPactTest : Started VerifyPactTest in 10.281 seconds (JVM running for 11.861) Verifying a pact between sample-hello-client and hello Say Hello 2018-12-04 10:34:25.429 INFO [-,825962565f72090b,825962565f72090b,true] 55404 --- [o-auto-1-exec-1] c.m.provider.RequestLogFilter : BEGIN POST /api/hello ````

james.carman

2018-12-04 15:36

11 seconds pause

james.carman

2018-12-04 15:36

here?s what my test looks like: ``` @RunWith(SpringRestPactRunner.class) @Provider("hello") @IgnoreNoPactsToVerify @PactBroker @EnableAutoConfiguration @SpringBootTest(webEnvironment = SpringBootTest.WebEnvironment.RANDOM_PORT, classes = HelloConfig.class) public class VerifyPactTest { @TestTarget public final Target target = new SpringBootHttpTarget(); } ```

james.carman

2018-12-04 15:56

I think the pause is us downloading the pacts from the broker.

james.carman

2018-12-04 16:01

When I run against the local, Dockerised pact_broker the pause is much shorter

james.carman

2018-12-04 16:02

When I run against the one set up at http://dius.com.au it?s taking much longer. I don?t know that it needs to be terribly fast, but is there any option to speed that up?

james.carman

2018-12-04 16:03

This may not be the proper forum for questions like that. Sorry

andrew.nicholson

2018-12-04 16:24

Does the pact-spec support rules about nested arrays? I.e. if I want to express in my contract that a field is an array of arrays, where both the inner & outer arrays have at least 1 element?

james.carman

2018-12-04 16:37

if you?re using the Java DSL: ``` newJsonBody(o -> o.array("myarray", array-> { array.array(nested-> { }) }) ```

james.carman

2018-12-04 16:37

you can do stuff like that

james.carman

2018-12-04 16:37

so, I would assume it?s allowed

andrew.nicholson

2018-12-04 16:44

hmm...maybe I should try the java8 dsl - I'm using the junit4 dsl, and while I can declare bodies that have nested arrays, I don't seem to be able to declare an outer array minlength 1 combined with declaring that the inner arrays are also minimum length one...

andrew.nicholson

2018-12-04 16:45

also from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/tree/version-3#matcher-path-expressions-in-bodies, item 5 is `A star (*) can be used to match all keys of a map or all items of an array (one level only).` -- which makes me think that maybe a matcher matching items in all nested arrays isn't supported by the spec?

james.carman

2018-12-04 16:46

There are some methods like minArrayLike and minMaxArrayLike that makes me think there has to be some sort of ?at least one? or whatever you?re looking for.

james.carman

2018-12-04 16:46

I have not used them, but it?d be interesting to see what they spit out in a pact file when run

james.carman

2018-12-04 16:52

when I added this: ``` .array("array", array -> { array.minArrayLike(1, nested -> { nested.stringType("foo", "bar"); }); })) ```

james.carman

2018-12-04 16:52

I see this in the pact file: ``` "$.array[0]": { "matchers": [ { "match": "type", "min": 1 } ], "combine": "AND" }, "$.array[0][*].foo": { "matchers": [ { "match": "type" } ], "combine": "AND" } ```

james.carman

2018-12-04 16:54

odd syntax, but I suppose it works :slightly_smiling_face: I?ve not tried to upload it to the broker

andrew.nicholson

2018-12-04 16:55

Yeah - I can generate that with the junit one - and that works. What I'm then trying to do is also say that the nested array(s) are an array of strings, minimum length one

james.carman

2018-12-04 16:56

so, instead of it thinking you?re creating an ?object? for each value in the array, you want it to be an array of strings

andrew.nicholson

That's a hurdle, as is declaring minimum length rules on both the inner and outer arrays

james.carman

gotcha

james.carman

I think you?ve already outrun my n00b status :slightly_smiling_face:

james.carman

sorry I couldn?t be of more help

andrew.nicholson

it could be that I'm veering too far away from 'example-based contracts', and trying to describe a too-generic shape of data

andrew.nicholson

nah, it's useful to talk through it -- appreciated the suggestions!

andrew.nicholson

plus I'm now trying out the java8 dsl and it's awesome

james.carman

I don?t think it?s unreasonable to be able to describe the shape like this, though

james.carman

Yeah, I like the java8 dsl

james.carman

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/53751549/how-to-convey-to-provider-a-contractual-agreement-of-data-format

much more straightforward

yousafn

2018-12-04 19:00

has joined #general

hagglundized

2018-12-04 23:13

has joined #general

borsuk.artem034

2018-12-05 08:30

Hi all, someone know progress about that issue https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service/issues/82, or possible workaround how I can get pact file from pact broker to pact-mock_service?

madhukar.mishra

2018-12-05 08:38

for now you can just download the pacts yourself and run pact_stub_server to consume them and provide stubs to dev/test against

madhukar.mishra

2018-12-05 08:40

we do that for running some API tests, and other stuff as well. Let me know if you need details.

matt.fellows

2018-12-05 10:53

You can use the API in the broker to query the pact and easily download them. Should take all of 15 minutes to write a bash script that gets the pact file and starts the stub service with it

borsuk.artem034

2018-12-05 13:45

thanks for answers, you are really help me

matt.fellows

2018-12-05 19:06

:+1:

tim

2018-12-05 20:20

has joined #general

uma.shanker

2018-12-06 07:33

Hey Guys, Facing an issues while implementing pact contract testing using springboot and kotlin , Here is code example I have written but it's not wokring. please help. @Rule var provider: PactProviderRuleMk2 = PactProviderRuleMk2("test_provider", PactDemoApplicationTests()) @RunWith(SpringRunner::class) @SpringBootTest class PactDemoApplicationTests { @Pact(consumer = "test_consumer") fun createFragment(builder: PactDslWithProvider): RequestResponsePact { val headers = HashMap<String, String>() headers["Content-Type"] = "application/json" return builder .given("test state") .uponReceiving("ExampleJavaConsumerPactRuleTest test interaction") .path("/dummies") .method("GET") .willRespondWith() .status(200) .headers(headers) .body("[{" + "\"id\": \"39b2374e-863e-449c-9d7d-b130d5cde957\"," + "\"value\" : \"this is the judge that kept the cat that milked the rooster that tossed the rooster all forlorn that lay in the house that Jack built and this is the house that Jack built\"," + "\"id\": \"dc95d89a-8452-4958-9b84-c20e9108db00\"," + "\"value\" : \"this is the rooster that kept the man that crowed in the morn that married the house that Jack built and this is the cheese all forlorn that waked the farmer that married the judge that married the house that Jack built\"," + "\"id\": \"9a18b039-7408-4c6b-a1f7-7dfffdb5ca98\"," + "\"value\" : \"this is the cat that milked the house that Jack built and this is the maiden all forlorn that kept the house that Jack built\"," + "\"id\": \"e556c8b9-4063-4913-88e2-019ee184aca6\"," + "\"value\" : \"this is the farmer that married the cat that lay in the judge all forlorn that married the house that Jack built and this is the judge with the crumpled horn that chased the house that Jack built\"," + "}]") .toPact() } @Test @PactVerification() fun doTest() { System.setProperty("pact.rootDir","../pacts") val productRestFetcher = DummyEventRestFetcher() productRestFetcher.setBackEndUrl(provider.url) val dummies = productRestFetcher.fetchDummyEvents() Assert.assertNotNull(dummies) print("All dummies: $dummies") }

uma.shanker

2018-12-06 07:34

Saying provider.url not be nill

uma.shanker

2018-12-06 07:34

java.lang.IllegalStateException: provider.url must not be null

matt.fellows

2018-12-06 07:36

Is it nil?

uma.shanker

2018-12-06 07:37

Yes Matt.

uma.shanker

2018-12-06 07:39

Actually I have placed @Rule at the top of the class(outside class definition), When I was placed it inside the PactDemoApplicationTests class it was complaining "Rule must be public"

kristine.jetzke

2018-12-06 08:02

place it inside and make it public.

uma.shanker

2018-12-06 08:41

Thanks Tine. After placing inside class saying org.junit.internal.runners.rules.ValidationError: The @Rule 'provider' must be public.

uma.shanker

2018-12-06 08:42

I think I have to code in Java only Any suggestions?

kristine.jetzke

2018-12-06 08:49

Can?t you make it public? (sorry, I don?t know kotlin, just Java)

uma.shanker

2018-12-06 08:54

Thanks Tine, I was able to run successfully tests are passing now but pact file is not generated

kristine.jetzke

2018-12-06 09:18

Can you remove the `System.setProperty("pact.rootDir","../pacts")` line and check in the default location?

kristine.jetzke

2018-12-06 09:19

target/pacts (or build/pacts if you use Gradle)

uma.shanker

2018-12-06 09:37

yeah got it. thanks after path change it is working. thanks Tine for the help.

kristine.jetzke

2018-12-06 09:38

:slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2018-12-06 09:39

Just give it the URL @madhukar.mishra

matt.fellows

2018-12-06 09:40

It works now?

bethskurrie

2018-12-06 09:40

Try putting the credentials in the URL.

matt.fellows

2018-12-06 09:40

Ah yeah.

dagarwal

2018-12-06 10:29

Hi All , My api path is : api/test/{id1}/content/{id2}/content . I have added the matchers like this : path: term({ generate: ?/api/test/8061159/content/115578/content?, matcher: ?/api/test/[0-9]+/content/[0-9]+/content? }) When i run the provider verification , it fails with an error as {Id2} does not exist . any idea , how to achieve the same ?

matt.fellows

2018-12-06 19:50

What have you tried so far? Provider states?

sthan

2018-12-06 21:06

has joined #general

sk8390

2018-12-07 09:23

has joined #general

sk8390

2018-12-07 09:25

Hi All,

sk8390

2018-12-07 09:33

I want to verify only few objects inside a Json object and ignore few... for example in a big json structure... {"name":"Senthil", "Details":[{ "address":"{ <IGNORE Details> }",}, {"Salary" : "<Some Integer>"}, "{"Job_Details":["{"JobCode":"<Integer>"},{"Job Desc":"<IGNORE>"},{<IGNORE>}"}]"}"],"{<IGNORE>}"}.... during pact:verify its excatly matching all elements in json and my verfication fails... hence I need to verify only Salary and Job_code and can ignore rest in the JSON... Could you please help me in this?

matt.fellows

2018-12-07 11:17

Simple - don?t include the fields you don?t care about in the consumer test, and they won?t be checked in Provider verification. Also, you probably want to use ?matchers? so that the specific values don?t matter

zach.the.hammer

2018-12-07 22:09

Are pact descriptions between a consumer and provider unique? For example can I have the pacts: ?consumerService?, ?providerService? given ?there are no alligators? upon receiving `'a request for an alligator'` should return a 404 ?consumerService?, ?providerService? given ?there are alligators? upon receiving `'a request for an alligator'` <-- same description string should return a 200

zach.the.hammer

2018-12-07 22:09

?upon receiving? being the description

mboudreau

2018-12-08 00:34

If I remember correctly, every test is unique, so the two requests can be the same or different. It depends on how you coded it. If you're using the same code for that request, they'll be the same

nirpet111

2018-12-08 14:59

has joined #general

ittennull

2018-12-08 16:04

has joined #general

ittennull

2018-12-08 17:32

Hi so, what's your thoughts, plans and timeline on creating new .net core implementation of pact free of ruby stuff? I'm currently working on such a thing and wondering if I should continue

mboudreau

2018-12-09 00:20

it's a valid question. I don't have much visibility on the .net implementation as it's not my area of work, maybe ask in the #pact-net channel.

abubics

2018-12-10 00:48

I guess this would be somewhat assisted/subsumed by the Rust migration, too

mboudreau

2018-12-10 01:08

definitely

s.umair.riaz

2018-12-10 04:37

has joined #general

samuel.verstraete

2018-12-10 08:32

has joined #general

athalytra

2018-12-10 10:59

has joined #general

athalytra

2018-12-10 11:09

Hello to all, just a simple general question: I know that PACT is best to be executed during CI phase and 'can-i-deploy' feature can give the green light to CD phase. But, what is your opinion about exercising PACT tests on an already deployed environment?

ashish.dubey91

2018-12-10 11:30

for some reason from my ubuntu machine I can `dig http://foo.pact.dius.com.au` just fine but when I do `curl http://foo.pact.dius.com.au` I get `Could not resolve host: http://foo.pact.dius.com.au`

ashish.dubey91

2018-12-10 11:30

any DNS changes happened recently?

abubics

2018-12-10 12:49

The second-best time to add tests is now? :upside_down_face:

athalytra

2018-12-10 13:39

Let me provide some details: I'm referring to a test env that is deployed daily. I was thinking to use Contract testing in this stage. Then we can use 'can-i-deploy' feature to give green light to deploy our Staging env...

pcohen

2018-12-10 21:32

has joined #general

abubics

2018-12-10 22:43

That kinda depends on your deploy workflow, but there's nothing stopping you at each promotion.

abubics

2018-12-10 22:44

I wouldn't even deploy to test if contract tests fail, though.

matt.fellows

2018-12-11 04:25

Just created #protobufs if anyone is keen to see how we might make Pact + Protobufs play nicely together. Thanks to @rahul.neotech who has been thinking / spiking on this recently!

madhukar.mishra

2018-12-11 05:41

the issue is just with compose. Haven't had time to see what's wrong yet.

anushree.shenoy

2018-12-11 05:52

has joined #general

saso.madaric

2018-12-11 08:40

has joined #general

joaquin.delgado

2018-12-11 11:52

has joined #general

james.carman

2018-12-11 14:16

So, if one were to want to create a new ```@TestTarget``` implementation, how would one go about that? Are there any docs anywhere?

victor.akinyemi

2018-12-11 15:40

has joined #general

james.carman

2018-12-11 17:29

What is the best practice with respect to running pact tests in Java with Maven? Should we make them integration tests or unit tests?

james.carman

2018-12-11 17:29

Surefire or Failsafe?

james.carman

2018-12-11 17:29

They?ll run fine either way, but is one way considered more ?proper? than the other?

matt.fellows

2018-12-11 19:21

It?s hard to say exactly where they always fit on the pyramid, but generally speaking I group them logically with the ?integration tests? code, even if they are more of a unit test in nature.

matt.fellows

2018-12-11 19:28

There is some commentary on the docs site e.g. https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/consumer#use-pact-for-isolated-unit-tests, but that might not be exactly what you were wanting

james.carman

2018-12-11 20:05

Also, with the hosted pact broker provided by the pact foundation, we get a read-only set of credentials and a read-write set. Within our organization, is there really any reason to ?protect? the read-only creds?

james.carman

2018-12-11 20:05

Meaning, would it be unreasonable to hard-code the configuration in our parent pom.xml file to contain these credentials?

james.carman

2018-12-11 20:08

obviously we wouldn?t want even the read-only stuff to leak out into the world, but if we keep it internal-only it might be okay

uglyog

2018-12-11 21:23

Have a look at the implementation for the HttpTestTarget.

matt.fellows

2018-12-12 01:27

In most organisations, I don?t see why all developers shouldn?t be able to have access to read-only creds. Whether you hard code them in config files is a separate thing :slightly_smiling_face:

felix.dai

2018-12-12 09:48

has joined #general

tghcastro

2018-12-12 12:41

has joined #general

dagarwal

2018-12-12 12:49

@matt.fellows: i have added data by post api call at provider level but it generates with different id everytime .So I am not sure how to get the id?s( of consumer level and provider level) to match

alessio.paciello

2018-12-12 15:25

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2018-12-12 20:49

Use matchers instead of hard coded values

sthan

2018-12-12 22:13

Hi. I?m pretty new to this group. Can someone tell me the best place to post questions about using PACT?

bethskurrie

2018-12-12 22:13

Here. But if your question is technology specific, it's best to ask in the appropriate channel.

sthan

2018-12-12 22:13

I posted a question on stackoverflow, but was wondering if there was a better place.

sthan

2018-12-12 22:14

zach.the.hammer

2018-12-12 22:45

@sthan i would spend some time reading through the documentation on https://docs.pact.io/

bethskurrie

2018-12-12 22:46

Yes, you can use regular expressions. Look at the matchers documentation for pact-jvm.

zach.the.hammer

2018-12-12 22:51

@bethskurrie when i get the chance i'm going to share a little tool i've been using to handle 'wip' pacts

zach.the.hammer

2018-12-12 22:52

basically i have a script with a `--failon` arg where i can pass a set of pact tags to failon

zach.the.hammer

2018-12-12 22:52

and then in CI read from my PR. if there's a line `feature-pacts: zh-feature-a zh-feature-b` those will be added to failon

zach.the.hammer

2018-12-12 22:53

works pretty nicely to specify in a PR what feature tags a provider PR is implementing

bethskurrie

2018-12-12 22:53

sounds good!

raghavendra.chamarthy

2018-12-13 01:09

has joined #general

abubics

2018-12-13 05:43

SO is good, especially for external discoverability :slightly_smiling_face:

abubics

2018-12-13 05:44

In here might be better for more specific questions and help.

abubics

2018-12-13 05:44

And thanks for being very respectful, not just spamming all the channels on join :joy::ok_hand:

dagarwal

2018-12-13 09:57

is it possible to send matchers in api path ?

matt.fellows

2018-12-13 09:57

Yes

dagarwal

2018-12-13 09:59

i tried like this path: term({ generate: ?/api/test/8061159/?, matcher: ?/api/test/[0-9]+/? }),

dagarwal

2018-12-13 10:00

but when i run verification , it fails with error as 8061159 id does not exist .Their is no way i can generate the same id at provider level

matt.fellows

2018-12-13 10:21

The verification process on the provider side still needs a way of knowing how to make the call to the provider, and it uses the value of generate to do so. That id (or another of your choosing) must be present when this test happens. The way to indicate this to the provider is via provider states

dagarwal

2018-12-13 10:24

but that id will never be present

dagarwal

as it is generated automatically in db :disappointed:

matt.fellows

Can you reset/clear your DB during tests?

matt.fellows

Eg. with docker

matt.fellows

Or an in memory db

dagarwal

yes i will run on jenkins and db will always start fresh

dagarwal

2018-12-13 10:26

but still the id?s are random . if it starts with 1 or so , i can implement easily

matt.fellows

2018-12-13 10:26

So then you should be able to seed the data in a deterministic way, and use a known id in that test

dagarwal

2018-12-13 10:27

thats the thing , id is not known :disappointed:

matt.fellows

2018-12-13 10:27

You can't seed the database with fake data and known IDs?

matt.fellows

2018-12-13 10:28

What kind of database are you using?

dagarwal

2018-12-13 10:28

provider devs are not agreeing to that

dagarwal

2018-12-13 10:28

arango db

dagarwal

i will try to fake the data if possible .looks like thats the only solution

matt.fellows

So I'm not sure I can help you, apart from to say that the only proper way is via provider states and known IDs

matt.fellows

Fake the data?

dagarwal

i mean inserting into db

matt.fellows

matt.fellows

2018-12-13 10:30

I don't see why for an automated unit test this is a problem for you provide team. But fundamentally the issue is collaboration and getting them on board

dagarwal

2018-12-13 10:31

Agreed

dagarwal

2018-12-13 10:31

Thanks , i will try the same

matt.fellows

2018-12-13 11:17

:thumbsup:

matt.fellows

2018-12-13 11:17

the hardest part isn?t software - it?s people :0

dagarwal

2018-12-13 11:18

ha ha true, cant agree more .thats what I am facing these days :stuck_out_tongue:

matt.fellows

2018-12-13 11:23

:smile:

rworcest

2018-12-14 01:04

has joined #general

zach.the.hammer

2018-12-16 15:41

i?ve moved my (small personal) project fully to microservices with pact testing! https://github.com/zhammer/morning-cd @bethskurrie: can you share a public repo that uses pact broker badges? i tried to add badges to my readmes but all the badge titles were `pact: `. i couldn?t get custom titles like `front/users pact:`, etc.

andrew.leith

2018-12-16 21:22

has joined #general

coredump

2018-12-17 01:25

has joined #general

ola.jankowska

2018-12-17 10:49

has joined #general

erik.moller

2018-12-17 15:19

has joined #general

davegallant

2018-12-17 17:03

has joined #general

japedersen

2018-12-17 19:03

has joined #general

japedersen

2018-12-17 19:08

Hi, (apologies if this questions has already been answered.) can a service have both consumer and provider tests?

zach.the.hammer

2018-12-17 19:36

yep

yousafn

2018-12-17 19:47

Have looked for a specific channel for the pact-stub-server but haven?t found one. Have raised an issue https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-stub-server/issues/11 and also added an example repo for my predicament. Hope someone can help!

matt.fellows

2018-12-17 19:51

Absolutely!

kevin.cormier

2018-12-17 20:18

Hi All. I'm wondering if anyone here is using https://pact.dius.com.au/

kevin.cormier

2018-12-17 20:19

We're debating between running our own and using this service and would love to know if people have had any positive or negative experiences with them.

abubics

2018-12-18 00:10

(they have completely isolated lifecycles, however :P)

abubics

2018-12-18 00:11

many people are, and several people aren't

abubics

2018-12-18 00:12

it depends how much you want to look after your own infrastructure & deployment . . . and how that balances against data privacy & SaaS simplicity

ola.jankowska

2018-12-18 11:27

hi i have question, I am using pact broker in the cloud http://pact.dius.com.au where I succesfuly can publish new consumer tests, I also can verify them using java spring boot provider test, and my resutls are generated to json format in target/pact folder, but I still do not know how can I send the results back to broker.

richard.hulm

2018-12-18 11:45

@kevin.cormier We use it quite a lot - we have a few hosted brokers. We do experience occasional errors (lately they've been doing a migration; so had some oddities that should be fixed as a result of moving to more stable infrastructure) But on the whole it's great not having to maintain it ourselves, and the team are always quick to respond which is very useful!

matt.fellows

2018-12-18 12:20

@ola.jankowska there should be a gradle/other property to set that enables publishing the results. What have you tried so far?

godsey.chris

2018-12-18 15:48

has joined #general

zach.the.hammer

2018-12-18 15:50

hey @bethskurrie just bumping on a public repo with several pact badges!

godsey.chris

2018-12-18 16:03

Are there any solutions in place for using my pacts to generate a mock server that i could, say, run a frontend service against in order to do functional testing of my frontend

rworcest

2018-12-18 16:19

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-stub-server I think is what you want

godsey.chris

2018-12-18 16:20

oh, neat, awesome

godsey.chris

2018-12-18 16:20

thanks

kevin.cormier

2018-12-18 20:32

Thanks a ton for the feedback! We'll consider it!

iamjillsanluis

2018-12-19 04:08

has joined #general

kevin.cormier

2018-12-19 17:09

Hi Boris. Thanks for the info! I was hoping from the responses to get a sense of just how big dius was to help inform those decisions. It sounds like a promising solution for our proof of concept.

abubics

2018-12-20 00:03

For a PoC, I'd just use the SaaS one :slightly_smiling_face: it's not hard to set up a private one (there are docker images, etc), but that's waste if you choose not to continue with Pact :slightly_smiling_face:

abubics

2018-12-20 00:03

I'd also go and ask in #pact-broker for more targeted help

elliot.sel

2018-12-20 22:37

has joined #general

marek.rybakiewicz

2018-12-27 16:16

has joined #general

yousafn

2018-12-28 16:29

Hey, Has there been any more thought on below :- https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/stubs ``` Description: Start a stub service with the given pact file(s). Where multiple matching interactions are found, the interactions will be sorted by response status, and the first one will be returned. This may lead to some non-deterministic behaviour. If you are having problems with this, please raise it on the pact-dev google group, and we can discuss some potential enhancements. Note that only versions 1 and 2 of the pact specification are currently supported. ``` Non-deterministic behaviour is really not good is consumers are using these api stubs to develop against. Pact stub server will just yolo the first response back to the client,, client may assume their request is good, but actually it is garbage (may have no request body, or no headers) This is a real blocker to use being able to implement pact alongside swagger with validation tooling. Currently we are 1) Defining our services in swagger 2) Using swagger-cli to validate that the swagger spec 3) Building pact tests and generating the contracts 4) Using swagger-mock-validator to validate the contracts against the swagger spec 5) Using the pact stub server to run our component integration tests in lieu of a provider In order to avoid deterministic matching, we have put a fall-through route to provide a bad request response if the user enters garbage, however this fails swagger mock validation, and will have further implications at provider verification time

yousafn

2018-12-28 16:31

Also where is the pact-dev google group to get my question raised on there, if that has better traction

guidopio.mariotti10_d

2018-12-29 23:43

has joined #general

uglyog

2018-12-30 22:36

@yousafn this is the best channel for pact discussions. As to the warning about non-determinism it is to make sure that people who are using stubs are aware for the cons of using this strategy. If it is a problem for you, don't use them. Some people will be ok with this if it allows them to get up and running quickly.

uglyog

2018-12-30 22:39

The problem with using validating mock servers is that the requests generally have to be correct, even in the smallest detail, otherwise you get an error response.

bitsapien

2018-12-31 06:08

has joined #general

bitsapien

2018-12-31 06:12

Hey folks! New to PACT, quick question. I'm using `pact-jvm-consumer-junit5` to generate a bunch of pact files. The `pactSpecification` version defaults to `3.0.0`. Is there a way I can set it to v2 ?

tjones

2018-12-31 06:15

I believe it's a parameter to `@PactTestFor`

tjones

2018-12-31 06:17

Try `@PactTestFor( pactVersion = PactSpecVersion.V2 /*...etc */)`

tjones

2018-12-31 06:23

Unless I'm missing something, this workflow seems like it's not consumer driven

tjones

2018-12-31 06:25

As Pact is a consumer-driven testing tool, I think you'll be in for a bad time if you're trying to use mock services to drive consumer development - but I might have radically misunderstood what you're trying to do.

tjones

2018-12-31 06:26

Do your pact files describe your whole API, or just the bits that a particular consumer is expecting?

bitsapien

2018-12-31 06:37

Thanks, that worked.

tjones

2018-12-31 06:37

You're welcome! Happy new year!

bitsapien

2018-12-31 06:37

Happy New Year to you too !!

aruna.muthyala

2018-12-31 06:48

has joined #general

aruna.muthyala

2018-12-31 06:55

Aruna [12:23 PM] HI, I created a clientPactTest class with a mock server with some interactions to my webservice component through stubs, created json file, published it, but got stuck at the Verfication part in the ProciderService. Please answer my queries, regarding the ProviderService for verification: 1) Right now iam running my webservice at command line at localhost port 8080. Then I created a ProviderService with a Pact mentioning the provider url and hostname as localhost and port 8080. So that all my tests hit the webservice which I started at command line. Is this the right approach? 2) Iam a bit confused as at many websites its mentioned that we dont run the actual service for pacts verification and we should create a mock server. So if I create a mock server, do i have re write all the endpoints in my providerservice file, the way it is mentioned in the actual webservice ?

matt.fellows

2018-12-31 10:10

Hi Arun, apologies for the delay. I've answered your SO question

serikch

2018-12-31 14:20

has joined #general

jim.frantzen

2018-12-31 16:15

has joined #general

shekharsp27

2019-01-02 06:10

Hi Aruna, I had a look at your comment on SO question. However, I think you are clubbing more than two services in one pact test. In your case, you have a scenario like (A -> B -> C), so service A will call service B and service B has to make a call to service C to fulfill a request from service A. So in this case you need to stub service C and need to call this service while verifying contract.

shekharsp27

2019-01-02 06:11

Also as you said you are planning to start provider and web service on same port 8080 which is not possible on the same machine. And while verifying contract pact framework will not start provider service automatically

yousafn

2019-01-02 10:42

Hi gents, thanks for the replies. I am not trying to test the whole of the API as a consumer (the provider will take care of functionally testing their API), we have a limited set of consumer expectation tests, and we are running a pact stub server off the back of the generated pact contracts. We noted that with the pact stub server, if we served it specific invalid requests, it would return decide on a match to return, rather than serving a 404. Therefore if in component integration testing, our consumer sends a POST request without a body or without a header, we get served a valid provider response, which gives us a false positive, as the consumer wont fail in component integration but will as we perform e2e. I am on the consumer side, our provider isn?t ready yet and wont be for a while. We have agreed swagger definitions, so have been able to draft up pact contracts to describe our use of the API, and using swagger mock validator tool to ensure that our pact aligns with swagger

yousafn

2019-01-02 10:42

Thanks again for all the work :thumbsup:

yousafn

2019-01-02 23:25

Had some more time to look into this today, I noted there is a pact ruby standalone gem called `pact-mock_service` which contains the bin `pact-stub-service`. I switched over to this implementation and it appears to behave in a more predictable manner as per wiremock, where unmapped routes / requests return a 500 error and a message which shows clearly that this is not a pact contract error response. The issue is was having with `pact-stub-server` (which is the rust implementation) is when sending requests without a json body, or with no content-type header set, it would return the closest match on the end point. The above behaviour may be intended, but wasn't suitable for my needs, it was going to fork it but the ruby `pact-stub-service` solves that issue, and also addresses my other issue raised on your repo @uglyog regarding logging. I am happy to close both if required.

yousafn

2019-01-02 23:36

working example https://github.com/YOU54F/pact-consumer-example-typescript/pull/10/commits/14e0ceed636eb7861e80ec93938a3ee09dcf3ccf

uglyog

2019-01-03 02:54

Great that you found a solution, as the behaviour of the `pact-stub-server` is by design. The pact mock servers are generally strict, so the stub server was created to be more lenient.

aruna.muthyala

2019-01-03 06:34

Hi Shekhar, Let me explain my scenario again. Iam having only one service, which is a Webservice. a) In the ConsumerPact.spec.ts, I created a Pact mock server with some interactions for the above Webservice. And created the pact.json file. b) In PublishPact.ts I published the pact.json file. c) In ProviderPact.ts, I created a Pact object with the location of my pact.json file(broker url) and base_url and port. Its localhost and 8080. And then I verify the pact object with the above options. d) Before I run ProviderPact.ts, I start my webservice manually at commandline at localhost & port 8080. Then I run ProviderPact.ts so it points to my webservice at localhost 8080. My intension is to run the actual websservice so my tests are always in sink with the changes in the webservice. Is this approach right?

surajit.mandal

2019-01-03 07:00

has joined #general

mehdizonjy

2019-01-03 08:40

has joined #general

dagarwal

2019-01-03 12:40

Hello guys , how do you fail the consumer jenkins build when ?can-i-deploy? gives the result as verification failed ? I am adding can i deploy command in the consumer codebase as js file and executing it when build is run

hacosta

2019-01-03 12:58

has joined #general

jdesouza

2019-01-03 12:58

has joined #general

dglaubman

2019-01-03 22:21

has joined #general

mboudreau

2019-01-03 22:26

How is it run? Normally the build would fail if anything but error code 0 is returned

shekharsp27

2019-01-04 05:27

:+1:

dagarwal

2019-01-04 10:19

I am adding can i deploy as a shell command in deploy.js file .When jenkins build is run , that file is executed as node deploy.js

dira.thea

2019-01-05 06:22

has joined #general

thomas.scheuchzer

2019-01-05 10:06

has joined #general

ilya.markevich1991

2019-01-05 16:54

has joined #general

ilya.markevich1991

2019-01-05 17:06

Hi guys. Is there any way to pass some additional info to providerStatesSetupUrl? For now I get only state (which is a string), but I want to pass an object that will be used as provider initial state.

mboudreau

2019-01-05 23:20

Not at this current moment. The idea is that the state string is like a unique identifier between the consumer and the provider. As such, the provider should have its own data for that unique string to setup state.

mboudreau

2019-01-05 23:22

I will agree that this isn't the best experience at the moment and we have talked about potential fixes in the product to be able to attach data to the contract or simply have a better way to manage it on the provider side

ilya.markevich1991

2019-01-06 07:19

Thank you! Yep, I think that would be great to have the feature. It simplifies tests setup a lot

ilya.markevich1991

2019-01-06 07:24

By the way, could you please share available links (maybe github issues or smth else) with discussions about the feature?

mboudreau

2019-01-06 22:23

it was mostly done in person or within the maintainers channel. There's nothing concrete, more of an acknowledgment of the issue

matt.fellows

2019-01-07 00:04

Not sure if this would help your specific situation, but we?re exploring ways to make this a bit richer. See https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/spike/proxy-system/examples/e2e/test/provider.spec.js

matt.fellows

2019-01-07 00:05

lmoore

2019-01-07 04:09

has joined #general

ilya.markevich1991

2019-01-07 10:02

Thank you guys for all your help. Matt, the improvements are really good but doesn?t help me share pre-setup info between consumer and provider. It?s not a big problem for me at the moment, just wanted to know maybe there are some ways to do it. But thank you anyway :slightly_smiling_face:

ilya.markevich1991

2019-01-07 10:06

What I think about is to add field to interaction on consumer side (?providerSetupInfo? for example) and pass the field in ?state? on provider setup.

martin.green

2019-01-07 13:42

has joined #general

ola.jankowska

2019-01-07 14:13

hi, i figured it out, works perfect thanks

charles.prynn

2019-01-07 15:47

has joined #general

cdaly

2019-01-07 18:55

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-01-07 20:00

Yes, this is part if the v3 spec but it's not yet supported. We're still working on making that available across the board

matt.fellows

2019-01-07 20:00

:+1:

simon.nizov

2019-01-09 10:14

Hey guys, quick question, should I push the automatically created pact json file to the git repository?

ravbaker

2019-01-09 11:11

no. You shouldn?t. Rather to your pact broker storage.

ravbaker

2019-01-09 11:11

to share it with the provider.

simon.nizov

2019-01-09 16:37

Great, thanks!

mtauraso

2019-01-09 18:26

has joined #general

pravera

2019-01-09 18:30

has joined #general

lauzongrenier.jeremy

2019-01-09 20:26

has joined #general

lauzongrenier.jeremy

2019-01-09 20:44

Hello, I am new to pact and I am very happy I found this gem ! Is it still good practice to set the consumer version to be the commit ID, considering my team is not currently in a continuous deployment cycle, but rather a continuous delivery cycle, and there can be hundreds of commits before tagging the right one to deploy in production environment, say every three weeks or so ? Wouldn't that pollute the pact broker history with useless versioning ? Many thanks ! :smile:

matt.fellows

2019-01-09 21:45

Yep, the broker will handle this just fine. You'll find that over time, most commits aren't changing the actual contract and the broker is smart enough to detect this and manage it effectively

bright.huang

2019-01-10 08:27

has joined #general

pravera

2019-01-10 12:24

Hi guys! Has anyone implemented pact in Travis CI?

jonas.natten

2019-01-10 12:33

I'm doing that in a project

lucas.beier

2019-01-10 12:36

has joined #general

tiago.ferrazmartins

2019-01-10 14:20

has joined #general

tiago.ferrazmartins

2019-01-10 14:25

hi! I have one question. I'm trying to write a match for a array, it can be empty or have at max 5 chars. I cannot use term because it is parsed to array, I cannot use eachlike because the array can be empty and I havent be able to use any other matcher. To ilustrate better, the array can be [], or ['W'] till ['W','W,'W','W','W'].

tiago.ferrazmartins

2019-01-10 14:26

Have anyone dealed with this before?

pravera

2019-01-10 16:54

maybe you need 2 interactions? one for the empty array and another for the max 5 chars?

pravera

2019-01-10 16:55

i'm not sure if it's the best solution

pravera

2019-01-10 16:55

cool! are you following the steps of pact nirvana?

pravera

2019-01-10 18:08

how is that going?

mboudreau

2019-01-10 22:22

that's the correct method. Think each pact interaction like it's own unit test; it's testing one part of the interaction with the provider

abubics

2019-01-10 22:37

If the number of elements in the array is significant, you should have a test for each different state. If it's insignificant, then `eachLike` should be fine :slightly_smiling_face:

leslie.fung.lf

2019-01-11 08:57

has joined #general

tiago.ferrazmartins

2019-01-11 09:42

I have restrictions with this idea. Because matchers increase the flexibility and thus allowing the provider to return different data and still have a valid test.

tiago.ferrazmartins

2019-01-11 09:43

And this solution just takes out all the flexibility I gain with matchers

matt.fellows

2019-01-11 10:28

Did you read the article as to why we recommend this approach?

mboudreau

2019-01-11 11:05

@tiago.ferrazmartins and what are you trying to gain from having a test or an interaction that can provide a whole gamut of different responses? it's like having a unit test that will accept almost any returned result, it's not very useful at finding issues.

tiago.ferrazmartins

2019-01-11 11:08

it is not different from property based testing as long as the result is within the requisites

tiago.ferrazmartins

2019-01-11 11:09

and the function in test is called with a series of valid parameters

tiago.ferrazmartins

2019-01-11 11:13

eachLike does not allow 0, will fail when array is empty. Creating a test for each possible array will only create overhead and contribute little

tiago.ferrazmartins

2019-01-11 11:14

where I could have a matcher and test all possibilities over time and have the same guarantee

tiago.ferrazmartins

2019-01-11 11:14

or almost the same guarantee

mboudreau

2019-01-11 11:17

if you want to do that, sure, but I mean, why test for an array of 0, 1 or multiple? just do a test to make sure it's an array. The matcher is just arrayLike

tiago.ferrazmartins

2019-01-11 11:29

because it is a requirement for it to have maximum of 5 elements, I found this an important requirement to be verified

tiago.ferrazmartins

2019-01-11 11:33

also, the value of the elements is limited, so it also verifiable and part of the contract that just those values are used

tiago.ferrazmartins

2019-01-11 11:34

that's why I find testing only if it is an array is not enough

jonas.natten

2019-01-11 12:16

More or less following the pact nirvana guide. Currently only implemented for interactions between two of our compontents, but it seems to be working flawlessly after initial setup :slightly_smiling_face:

pravera

2019-01-11 19:56

That's great! We're looking forward to implementing it between two services, but still not sure about the steps to follow for our consumer and provider

gbivins4

2019-01-12 00:23

has joined #general

alex291

2019-01-12 15:54

has joined #general

alex291

2019-01-12 15:56

Hi everyone. First of all, thank you for this tool, it'll be awesome in our project. I have an issue I couldn't fix yet, it's about unnamed arrays. The contract I'm writing is like the following:

alex291

2019-01-12 15:56

```[ {object}, {object} ]```

alex291

2019-01-12 15:57

but it only let me create a named one like

alex291

2019-01-12 15:58

```"aName": [{object}, {object2} ]```

alex291

2019-01-12 15:59

I'm using testCompile("au.com.dius:pact-jvm-consumer-junit_2.12:3.6.1")

alex291

2019-01-12 16:00

Can anyone help me?

alex291

2019-01-12 16:00

Thank you :slightly_smiling_face:

mboudreau

2019-01-12 23:51

you mean, the top level json is an array and not an object, right?

mboudreau

2019-01-12 23:52

how are you creating the interaction?

abubics

2019-01-13 09:33

It sounds like you want an `eachLike` with a max of 5?

abubics

2019-01-13 09:33

What part of the system are you testing by checking lists with each different length?

abubics

2019-01-13 09:35

And how are you setting up the provider state?

mat.auburn

2019-01-13 13:51

has joined #general

rjmcguinness

2019-01-14 14:33

Does anyone have experience with automating the generation of consumer pact tests/boilerplate? Or at least streamlining, perhaps with a cli? My current process of copying an old test and replacing things to suit the new one is just a wee bit clunky

pravera

2019-01-14 18:30

When publishing from the CI im having the following error: Failed to publish pact due to error: PactBroker::Client::Error

pravera

2019-01-14 18:30

it's weird cause in the same build that happens for only one pact

pravera

2019-01-14 18:31

there's a pact for another provider that is correctly being published to the broker

pravera

2019-01-14 18:31

anyone has a clue?

matt.fellows

2019-01-14 20:20

Does this answer your question? https://docs.pact.io/faq#can-i-generate-my-pact-file-from-something-like-swagger

matt.fellows

2019-01-14 20:20

that being said, I know of others using other strategies to generate the tests by linking them to _other types of tests_ so that they are still going to be relevant as your code changes

mboudreau

2019-01-14 23:11

@pravera What's the client error specifically? any http errors?

matthew

2019-01-15 06:13

So I upgraded a project from babel 6 to babel 7 and my E2E tests in Nightwatch that use Pacts as mocks no longer work. Any idea how to debug this? The trace from pact-js doesn't really show anything wrong, but every call to `addInteraction` results in a ECONNREFUSED

mboudreau

2019-01-15 06:18

if you revert, does it work again?

matthew

2019-01-15 06:32

yep

matthew

2019-01-15 06:32

but there's also a decent amount of changes when going from 6 to 7

matthew

2019-01-15 06:32

what's weird is that according to the logs it looks like the mock server is starting up

matthew

2019-01-15 06:33

```

matthew

2019-01-15 06:33

``` [2019-01-15T06:09:01.915Z] INFO: pact-node@6.21.2/2315 on 73281f2e23a6: Creating Pact Server with options: consumer = sojournal-ui, cors = true, dir = /opt/pacts, host = 127.0.0.1, log = /opt/app/logs/pact.log, pactFileWriteMode = overwrite, port = 3001, provider = sojournal-api, spec = 2, ssl = false, sslcert = , sslkey = [2019-01-15T06:09:01.918Z] INFO: pact@7.2.0/2315 on 73281f2e23a6: Setting up Pact with Consumer "sojournal-ui" and Provider "sojournal-api" using mock service on Port: "3001" ```

matthew

2019-01-15 06:33

``` Unable to connect to "http://127.0.0.1:3001/interactions" Caused by: Error: connect ECONNREFUSED 127.0.0.1:3001 at Socket.socketErrorListener (_http_client.js:391:9) at emitErrorNT (internal/streams/destroy.js:82:8) at emitErrorAndCloseNT (internal/streams/destroy.js:50:3) at process._tickCallback (internal/process/next_tick.js:63:19) ```

mboudreau

2019-01-15 06:47

Weird. Do you think Babel is changing the pact js?

matthew

2019-01-15 06:49

my hunch is that something somewhere doesn't like babel 7 or something, but I'm not sure

matthew

2019-01-15 06:49

going to try to do some more diffing in the morning

matthew

2019-01-15 06:49

see if I can nail down exactly which package is breaking

mboudreau

2019-01-15 08:09

Thanks, that would be very helpful. I can't imagine what's causing it

matt.fellows

2019-01-15 08:51

thanks @matthew - hopefully we can get to the bottom of it

matt.fellows

2019-01-15 08:51

haven?t had that combination on a project just yet

rjmcguinness

2019-01-15 09:24

The strategy of linking to other types of tests is interesting to me, as currently have to change both pact tests and unit tests if a contract changes. Could you point me in the direction of an example of this? I have also just abstracted lots of boilerplate code from my pact tests into a helper class which saves on maintenance and adds readability. Even if I cannot link to unit tests, I?m happy with this for the time being.

pravera

2019-01-15 13:33

yes, i'm getting a 500 error @mboudreau

makhov.alex

2019-01-15 13:52

has joined #general

pravera

2019-01-15 16:38

but i'm not getting any description of the error

pravera

2019-01-15 16:38

just that

matthew

2019-01-15 17:02

Yeah too be fair it's a bit complex. Running everything in Docker as well, so an extra layer of wtf. What's interesting is that I reuse the same Pact setup and config and stuff for unit tests and that works, only when I'm setting up for e2e tests in nightwatch.

mary.oconnor

2019-01-15 17:20

has joined #general

pravera

2019-01-15 20:16

I have two pacts to publish but i'm having an error when publishing only one of them (only for a specific Consumer_A/Provider_A). The error is a PactBroker::Client::Error with 500 status code. When running the `bundle exec rake pact:publish`, it tags the version of the app and the branch name, publishes correctly for Consumer_A/Provider_B, and then fails when publishing the next pact. The publishing step shown before the error: `Publishing Consumer_A/Provider_A pact to pact broker at https://pact.URL.com` , and stops there. I tried: - Publishing locally - Changing the content of the pact to the same JSON than the last one published - Publishing only for Consumer_A/Provider_A and not Consumer_A/Provider_B

pravera

2019-01-15 20:38

So pact:publish triggers a PUT to the broker right? Is it possible to check this failing requests?

matt.fellows

2019-01-15 22:50

Hmm not that I can find, but I do recall it coming up in Slack/Github at some point - might be worth searching the channels for it sorry

matt.fellows

2019-01-15 22:51

The boilerplate reduction approach is pretty commmon. Probably so common that we could do something about it

matt.fellows

2019-01-15 22:51

suggestions welcome!

matthew

2019-01-16 03:09

So digging in deeper (trying to go about updating a single package at a time), when going from @pact-foundation/pact 5.9.1 to 7.2.0 I start getting: ``` Pact Binary Error: Could not load existing consumer contract from /opt/pacts/sojournal-ui-sojournal-api.json due to undefined method `gsub' for nil:NilClass. Creating a new file. ```

matthew

2019-01-16 03:09

goes away if I change the write mode from update to overwrite, but not sure if that's a symptom of something else

mboudreau

2019-01-16 04:26

weird

mboudreau

2019-01-16 04:28

@bethskurrie Any idea what this error means?

matt.fellows

2019-01-16 04:33

I have a feeling that `update` is no longer allowed, just `merge` (I know this is contrary to the docs).

matt.fellows

2019-01-16 04:34

The error above looks like some other problem wasn?t caught earlier (i.e. it made assumptions about things working) and failed later on in the piece. It looks like a fairly generic error

matthew

2019-01-16 04:58

I've also figured out that my initial problem wasn't babel, but something with nightwatch

matthew

2019-01-16 04:58

not sure how that's affecting it though

bethskurrie

2019-01-16 04:59

I'd need the full stacktrace

bethskurrie

2019-01-16 04:59

If you can't get that, then can you create a repository with instructions to replicate the issue.

shirishcin

2019-01-16 13:11

has joined #general

rjmcguinness

2019-01-16 16:37

No worries. If this boilerplate reduction proves useful and we are happy with it in our codebase I?ll at least open a pr for an example test helper (using angular/ts/karma/jasmine right now).

shirishcin

2019-01-16 16:51

i am just not able to get started with pact on java intellij

shirishcin

2019-01-16 16:51

is there a simple project which i can use ?

ots.indrek

2019-01-16 17:35

Question regarding `can-i-deploy`. When I do `pact-broker can-i-deploy --pacticipant my-pacticipant --version 5e471db --to prod ...`, the result is the following ``` Computer says no �\_(?)_/� CONSUMER | C.VERSION | PROVIDER | P.VERSION | SUCCESS? ---------------|-----------|----------------|-----------|--------- service-a | 55c8086 | my-pacticipant | 5e471db | true service-b | 79f7707 | service-a | 55c8086 | true service-b | 79f7707 | my-pacticipant | 5e471db | true service-c | 380fd66 | my-pacticipant | 5e471db | true service-d | 2c5a9c7 | service-a | 55c8086 | true service-d | 2c5a9c7 | service-c | 380fd66 | true service-d | 2c5a9c7 | my-pacticipant | 5e471db | true service-e | 2a845ca | my-pacticipant | 5e471db | true service-f | 1d8bed8 | service-a | 55c8086 | false service-f | 1d8bed8 | my-pacticipant | 5e471db | true service-g | 70d633a | my-pacticipant | 5e471db | true my-pacticipant | 5e471db | service-a | 55c8086 | true One or more verifications have failed ``` From what I understand, `can-i-deploy` does not allow me to deploy `my-pacticipant` to `prod` because of `service-f | 1d8bed8 | service-a | 55c8086 | false`. I would have expected the output of `can-i-deploy` to only include consumer-provider pairs where `my-pacticipant` is either a consumer or a provider. Instead, I see that the output shows also `service-f` ->`service-a` and other pacticipants that are not related to `my-pacticipant`. Is this an expected behaviour? Perhaps I have fundamentally misunderstood something.

dparkes

2019-01-16 19:20

has joined #general

gopinathlangote11

2019-01-17 11:22

Well. I was also expecting not to see the other mappings than my participant

gopinathlangote11

2019-01-17 11:22

As per their documentations here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker-client#can-i-deploy

gopinathlangote11

2019-01-17 11:23

I am not pretty sure about ```-a, --pacticipant=PACTICIPANT # The pacticipant name. Use once for each pacticipant being checked.```

gopinathlangote11

2019-01-17 11:23

What does `Use once for each pacticipant being checked.` means

tomo

2019-01-17 11:34

has joined #general

alessio.paciello

2019-01-17 16:03

did anybody have to provide custom `Converter` to Spring `MockMvcTarget`?

pravera

2019-01-17 21:05

The solution was to restart the pact-broker server

matt.fellows

2019-01-18 02:58

that would be great!

karishnu

2019-01-18 05:28

has joined #general

galvinshane

2019-01-18 11:34

has joined #general

ashish.dubey91

2019-01-20 07:16

hey guys - is there a backlog of things which can be used for newbies to start contributing to pact tools? like `easy pickings` or `first time bugs` or something else

matt.fellows

2019-01-20 07:17

I use tags on pact js and go to indicate which ones are ready and good for New comers.

matt.fellows

2019-01-20 07:17

Can't remember the tag

ashish.dubey91

2019-01-20 07:18

@mr.matt.r.long thanks. that'd be a good start. is it this? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22help+wanted%22

matt.fellows

That's more for general help

matt.fellows

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/labels/good%20first%20issue

matt.fellows

This is for more newcomers

ashish.dubey91

https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/blob/94217189d0607f4bf7a7cbdcf9f9682c6c50b12f/pact-jvm-consumer/src/main/java/au/com/dius/pact/consumer/dsl/PactDslJsonBody.java#L784

great

matt.fellows

2019-01-20 07:32

I'm just making dinner, but glad for the reaching out. I'm sure we can do more/better - please let us know how

ashish.dubey91

2019-01-20 07:33

sure thing. since we've been playing with pact for a while, I wondered what are the ways for us to start contributing

chris

2019-01-21 14:36

has joined #general

rosemaryjarnold

2019-01-22 00:44

has joined #general

charles.prynn

2019-01-22 10:40

Hey - does anyone know of an example project using `pact-mock-service-docker` docker image? I can't quite work out how to use it if each instance should be for one consumer/provider and cleared before each test.

matt.fellows

2019-01-22 11:00

Yes it probably should

matt.fellows

2019-01-22 11:02

The provider and consumer are given to the service when started, so it's specific to a consumer/provider pair

charles.prynn

2019-01-22 11:44

@matt.fellows Thanks for the reply. Wonder what the use case is for the docker image.. I'll go back to the starting the instance via PHP.

uma.shanker

2019-01-22 12:21

PACT JVM for Message Queues : Can someone provide guide/reference/sample for simple consumer and provider test over kafka message queue?

ramakrishnan.nagaraja

2019-01-22 18:39

has joined #general

ramakrishnan.nagaraja

2019-01-22 18:44

Hi - just started exploring about using pact broker in .net. While trying to publish the pact to the hosted domain from http://pact.dius.com.au, I am getting "One or more errors occurred. (No such host is known). Socket exception" Any idea why it is? I am using the host as sent in the invite email from Pact. Any help is much appreciated.

ramakrishnan.nagaraja

2019-01-22 19:01

I got this No such host is known fixed. Now getting another error "Failed to publish Pact to the broker with http status NotFound: Not Found".

abubics

2019-01-23 02:50

:point_right: #pact-net

gyula

2019-01-23 12:18

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2019-01-24 04:23

yes.

rabih

2019-01-24 06:39

has any one worked with versioning pact with CI builds and github?

matt.fellows

2019-01-24 06:47

what?s your specific question/challenge?

rabih

2019-01-24 06:58

so on every commit, CI Build process will run. I want to know if it is possible to tag the consumer/provider version with a build number?

matt.fellows

2019-01-24 06:59

yes, of course you can. What problem are you having in doing so?

matt.fellows

2019-01-24 06:59

I would suggest as a start, reading https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Pacticipant-version-numbers (and the other tag related docs there)

matt.fellows

2019-01-24 07:00

?and the effective pact setup guide: https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/pact_nirvana

rabih

2019-01-24 07:00

ok sure, Thank you

matt.fellows

2019-01-24 07:01

you?re welcome

inaki.varebeke

2019-01-24 12:06

has joined #general

jeanlouhallee

2019-01-24 13:45

has joined #general

ravbaker

2019-01-24 14:19

I would not recommend numbering with builds but with commit-sha

vivanov.vasily

2019-01-25 00:37

has joined #general

karishnu

2019-01-25 04:37

Is the Pact file generation and the mock server linked? The code examples imply that a Pact file can be generated only after a mock server is set up. However, why can't it be generated from the transactions alone?

matt.fellows

2019-01-25 04:58

In most of the languages, yes, they are linked

matt.fellows

2019-01-25 05:00

The reason is more to do with the ability to scale pact across languages (we re-use the validation/logic engine within the mock server instead of writing for each version of the specifiction for each language)

matt.fellows

2019-01-25 05:00

In Pact JVM this may noto be th ecase

karishnu

2019-01-25 05:08

So basically the code behind the mock server is responsible for Pact file generation too?

matt.fellows

2019-01-25 05:10

yes

matt.fellows

2019-01-25 05:11

It is more modular than that, but because each language binding has to ?cross the boundary?, as far as pact-js is concerned for example, that is the case

karishnu

2019-01-25 05:23

Thank you!

matt.fellows

2019-01-25 05:23

:thumbsup:

ravbaker

2019-01-25 06:32

Why? To be able later easily submit contract verification results back to Github or similar

norepeat17

2019-01-26 22:23

has joined #general

norepeat17

2019-01-26 22:41

Hi @everyone I have one question while using Pact. Is it right to implement the consumer-driven-test with Pact in the front-end under the situation that APIs are not developed yet?

matt.fellows

2019-01-26 22:49

Yep, that's one of the main use cases

norepeat17

2019-01-26 22:52

Thanks for your prompt reply. The cause that I have such this question is that I got this error while implementing tests with Pact.

matt.fellows

2019-01-26 22:58

Can you elaborate more on what you're currently doing? Obviously if you're trying to connect to the real service if it doesn't exist it won't work. Pact is almost always designed to work on localhost

norepeat17

2019-01-26 23:02

As I mentioned above, this service is not developed yet. But I need to implement the tests only with the format of the request and response. Ah, `Pact is almost always designed to work on localhost` This means I should mock the service on my local, right?

matt.fellows

2019-01-26 23:04

Yes, but that's what pact does. When you setup your tests, pact starts a mock service for you. You should configure your code during test to point at it instead of the real thing

norepeat17

2019-01-26 23:07

I see. Thank you. First, I will have some tests on my side And I will come back to you again.

norepeat17

2019-01-26 23:07

Thank you again!

matt.fellows

2019-01-26 23:10

:+1:

norepeat17

2019-01-26 23:24

Hi, I tried to test with mock service but I received `undefined` as a response.

norepeat17

2019-01-26 23:31

The response of the mock service is not a thing that I expect in the interaction.

matt.fellows

2019-01-26 23:40

Upon receiving is mandatory, also you should include the / in the expected path

matt.fellows

2019-01-26 23:40

Have you seen the examples?

norepeat17

2019-01-26 23:44

Thank you, I am now fixing and trying again.

nikolajs.cmihuns

2019-01-28 13:54

Hi, can some help to write in Java dsl the following json object `{"report": "entries": [], "color": "A"}`

nikolajs.cmihuns

2019-01-28 13:55

entries is array of integers which can have zero records

nikolajs.cmihuns

2019-01-28 14:47

did not write curly braces , so json object is - `"report": {"entries": [],"color": "A"},`

nikolajs.cmihuns

2019-01-28 16:52

entries_zero

nikolajs.cmihuns

2019-01-28 16:52

looks like there is no easy way of creating array of integers

thirumal.net

2019-01-28 18:42

~hi~

thirumal.net

2019-01-28 18:42

Hi All, i have specific question related to local development. When developer will run PACT test on local machine, consumer will publish local changes to pact broker. if many developers are working on the same client version in different branches simultaneously (19.0.0 for e.g.). Are there any possibility to understand that integration was broken by local development or by main release branch changes? * i am trying to understand what is the best way to pubslish the pact file to pact broker ? is it through main branch with CLI process or when ever code changes locally through specific branch?*

antonello

2019-01-28 18:55

@thirumal.net You would want to avoid publishing pacts when running the tests locally. There may be occasional circumstances in which you?d want to do that, but generally speaking it should only been done by your CI pipeline.

thirumal.net

2019-01-28 19:09

@antonello -Thank you for your reply. does that mean, developer knows only whether contract is broken or not once after running the CI pipeline ? i am just thinking what is the harm if we run pact test through locally with different branches since pact broker is smart enough to understand whether there is a change or not in pact file, if there is a change then only it will invoke/give signal to provider side , am i correct ?

james.carman

2019-01-28 19:55

If you upload a pact that?s bad from your local workstation, you could impact the provider?s build status. Also, you don?t have good traceability if you allow upload from a developer?s workstation.

james.carman

2019-01-28 19:55

I would stick with *only* the CI server doing the uploads as @antonello said, because it will be performing a repeatable, traceable build process.

matt.fellows

2019-01-28 21:32

@thirumal.net recommend you read this https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/pact_nirvana

sanyam.satia

2019-01-28 21:56

has joined #general

vicenzo

2019-01-28 22:03

has joined #general

nikolajs.cmihuns

2019-01-29 05:16

cc @uglyog @bethskurrie @matt.fellows

nikolajs.cmihuns

2019-01-29 08:33

if someone will encounter the same problem

nikolajs.cmihuns

2019-01-29 08:34

`.object("report", new PactDslJsonBody() .minArrayLike("entries", 0, PactDslJsonRootValue.integerType(), 0) .stringMatcher("color", "^[-ARG]{1}$", "R") )`

chodera.adam

2019-01-29 09:14

has joined #general

norepeat17

2019-01-29 09:19

Hi, I have some problems to publish pacts. So I've checked this https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker In this example, pact broker is running based on ruby. Is it possible to run pact broker with node.js? If yes, there is any example to reference?

karishnu

2019-01-29 09:50

As far as I know the Pact broker is only written in Ruby and you cannot run it using Node. However, its very easy setting it up using the Docker image and requires little to no coding experience.

norepeat17

2019-01-29 09:52

Thank you @karishnu

norepeat17

2019-01-29 09:52

Could you please send me your samples so I can reference it?

karishnu

2019-01-29 09:54

Samples? This page describes the set up process - https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker#rolling-your-own

norepeat17

2019-01-29 09:57

I decided to not use Docker. But now, I will try Docker and come back to you if I have some problems. Thank you.

matt.fellows

2019-01-29 10:51

hi Mazping, what problems are you actually having? (you alluded to problems, was it just related to hosting the Ruby bit?)

matt.fellows

2019-01-29 10:51

as an aside, we have a hosted version available at http://pact.dius.com.au if you want to reduce the amount of setup and management required to run it

matt.fellows

2019-01-29 10:52

If you need to see examples in node JS publishing to the broker, our repo has examples (see e2e) that demonstrate that feature

norepeat17

2019-01-29 10:59

Sorry for the delay in responding. Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation.

norepeat17

2019-01-29 11:00

I will try on my side and come back to you.

matt.fellows

2019-01-29 11:24

ah, nice one!

matt.fellows

2019-01-29 11:24

Sorry I?m not really across the JVM matching library - and without a heavy IDE it can be hard to see what fits into what in Java :smile:

nikolajs.cmihuns

2019-01-29 11:29

it's ok, missed somehow javadocs, here is the link

nikolajs.cmihuns

2019-01-29 11:29

nikolajs.cmihuns

2019-01-29 11:30

thanks for the reply anyway :+1:

norepeat17

2019-01-29 14:46

@karishnu@matt.fellows Thanks for your support again. I've ran the pack broker with Docker. Now, I have one question. As you can see through screenshot, the pact verification result is not mentioned. I think it is because I skipped the verification step while implementing pact tests. So I'd like to just confirm the steps that I think for verification. 1. create pactverify.js as the second screenshot. 2. create npm script as `node ./pactverify.js` I should run this script before publish, right?

norepeat17

2019-01-29 15:33

If I think something is wrong, verifying pacts should be done on the provider side?

matt.fellows

2019-01-29 21:27

This is the order: 1) Run consumer tests 2) publish pacts 3) run provider tests (which will publish verification results)

matt.fellows

2019-01-29 21:27

step 1/2 happens in the same consumer?s CI pipeline

matt.fellows

2019-01-29 21:27

Step 3 happens in the provider?s CI pipeline

norepeat17

2019-01-30 07:17

Thank you. I thought something wrong.

melisturgul

2019-01-30 12:43

has joined #general

claudia.cordes.de

2019-01-30 13:17

has joined #general

dagarwal

2019-01-30 14:49

Hello guys , when i add pact matching with term here on path withRequest: { method: ?GET?, path: term({ matcher: ?/api/assets/[0-9]+?, generate: ?/api/assets/10006? }), }, ( I am getting 404 when i try to load the data on UI :disappointed: ) .Without adding matcher it just works fine for me . Any suggestions on what went wrong and how to achieve it ?

thirumal.net

2019-01-30 18:59

@matt.fellows - can you please clarify one question related to step 2 and step3 ? as per my understanding pact broker should invoke provider side build which will run the pact verification step . if provider build is taking lot of time what would be the better way to handle pact verification from provider side . for example one of provider system build runs for 1 hour to build the solution and running the test cases, in this scenario what is the best way to handle pact verification. i recommended invoking provider build from pact broker through web hooks but provider team dismissed my recommendation saying that we are not going to allow provider build to run multiple times in a day for 1 hour

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-01-30 20:04

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-01-30 20:23

looks ok to me Dolly, what do the pact logs say?

matt.fellows

2019-01-30 20:24

The broker doesn?t have to invoke it (via web hooks) but that is a good approach for many.

matt.fellows

2019-01-30 20:26

If the provider build is taking a long time, well that?s a separate problem altogether. That?s quite a long time, and perhaps there is something else that needs to be looked at / addressed. I can?t give you specific advice about your domain/application etc., but one option could be to split the provider into smaller units so things aren?t so slow. In terms of pact, perhaps you can make the webhook only invoke the ?contract? related tests, instead of the entire pipeline?

matt.fellows

2019-01-30 20:26

This way at least you?ll get faster feedback on the contract verification

thirumal.net

2019-01-30 20:30

@matt.fellows -Thank you for clarifcation. i will recommend to run only contract related tests through web hook instead of entire pipeline

matt.fellows

2019-01-30 20:32

It?s worth thinking through the side-effects of that decision - I?m not sure what the pipeline covers, but presumably a lot. If the contract tests pass, this is probably a good indicator that things are working (especially if you have good coverage), but do exercise some caution

thirumal.net

2019-01-30 20:33

Sure, Thank you!!

andreas.flinck

2019-01-30 21:11

has joined #general

mikhail.laptev

2019-01-31 01:57

has joined #general

mboudreau

2019-01-31 05:14

Just got this google alert come in for a blog around pact: https://gdstechnology.blog.gov.uk/2019/01/29/lessons-learnt-using-contract-testing-in-gov-uk-pay/

mboudreau

2019-01-31 05:15

@oswald.quek good job on the blog, would love to get more opinions about what worked and what could be improved in the process :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2019-01-31 05:58

yep!

matt.fellows

2019-01-31 05:59

I tweeted yesterday, great news! We had a conference call with the team mid last year. Really great bunch of people and are doing some awesome stuff

mboudreau

2019-01-31 06:05

cool

mboudreau

2019-01-31 06:05

who's "we"? :stuck_out_tongue:

matt.fellows

2019-01-31 06:18

Beth and Ron and I

mboudreau

2019-01-31 06:23

:disappointed:

oswald.quek

2019-01-31 09:39

yes thanks for all your help and guidance @matt.fellows @bethskurrie @uglyog!

oswald.quek

2019-01-31 09:39

i think, and this is just personal opinion, is one of the things that worked for us is bypassing the java dsl completely and writing pacts in their json form

oswald.quek

2019-01-31 09:39

so for example we have a pact test here: https://github.com/alphagov/pay-publicapi/blob/master/src/test/java/uk/gov/pay/api/service/CreatePaymentServiceTest.java#L61

oswald.quek

2019-01-31 09:40

the pact is `publicapi-connector-create-payment.json` which is found at https://github.com/alphagov/pay-publicapi/tree/master/src/test/resources/pacts

oswald.quek

2019-01-31 09:40

java isn't good for dsls in my opinion

mboudreau

2019-01-31 10:22

Yep, understood. We've had a few people tell me something similar. I think we need to improve the experience of creating the contract

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-01-31 10:57

Hi there. I?m looking for help / suggestion. We?re trying to implement CDCs with pact and got stuck with verification of a contact on providers side. Our contract contains a lot of requests which require auth by different users (different value for Authorization header). Currently, we can only specify 1 header value for all requests. Any suggestions / workarounds? (I?ve seen this issue, which is about the same https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/209)?

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-01-31 10:57

We?re using pact-js on both consumer and provider sides.

matt.fellows

2019-01-31 11:57

Yep, that issue is in progress and we're looking for feedback. Would love your feedback on it if you're willing to try. It's functional, but not looking to put more quality into it until we get more community validation/involvement

dagarwal

2019-01-31 11:59

i replied here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/54445051/response-is-404-when-term-matcher-added-on-path-of-api-on-using-pact-stub-server

dagarwal

2019-01-31 11:59

@matt.fellows

matt.fellows

2019-01-31 11:59

The crappy workaround I usually implement is a proxy in front of the provider that can override those headers as needed. It's basically what is moving into the frame work

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-01-31 12:00

thanks for your answer, I?ll try it then and provide my feedback then.

matt.fellows

2019-01-31 20:26

That?d be great. I?d personally like to see this out the door, and if it proves useful i?ll roll it into other languages I maintain (e.g. Go)

ruairitobrien

2019-02-01 03:48

has joined #general

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-01 09:25

has joined #general

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-01 09:26

Hello guys. Where do we ask technical questions?

matt.fellows

2019-02-01 09:30

Depends on the topic

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-01 09:35

I think I found a better channel to ask the questions..lets keep general clean :stuck_out_tongue:

karishnu

2019-02-01 12:36

The provider depends on other services, and if one of those services are down during provider verification, the verification will fail. Does Pact help solve this issue?

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-01 13:39

I?d suggest to run provider verification in development / test / ci environment, where you can mock those services your provider depends on @karishnu

rafael.anachoreta

2019-02-01 13:45

has joined #general

tomw

2019-02-01 15:49

has joined #general

manpreet1107

2019-02-01 16:41

has joined #general

shwetapachori1

2019-02-01 17:49

has joined #general

carolyn0429

2019-02-01 20:20

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-02-01 22:01

:wave:

abubics

2019-02-01 23:58

Pact helps more with verifying the contact between implementations of services. To check connectivity between instances of services (i.e. during deployment), you probably want a smoke test :)

matt.fellows

2019-02-02 02:59

Pact is designed to pick up issues prior to deployment, and each component is tested in isolation from others. So in a way, yes, it solves that problem as the dependencies should be stubbed out

karishnu

2019-02-02 07:23

@vitaliy.grigoruk Makes sense! Will give it a try.

hansika

2019-02-03 10:13

has joined #general

doritrieur

2019-02-03 15:11

has joined #general

mark.meninger

2019-02-04 02:26

has joined #general

phodgkinson

2019-02-04 14:05

has joined #general

mehrotrashubhangi

2019-02-04 16:12

has joined #general

julian.jelfs

2019-02-04 17:04

has joined #general

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-04 17:14

Why can't we generate pacts from interaction definitions directly? Why do we need a mock server in between the testing layer and the interactions. Is there any other way to do that other than generating the pacts through the mockup server?

james.carman

2019-02-04 17:45

Well, the mock server serves double duty

james.carman

2019-02-04 17:45

you can use it to test your client code too

james.carman

2019-02-04 17:46

I find the approach nice, because I usually end up having to figure out a way to mock out the downstream services myself in order to test my client library I?ll use to talk to it. This way, I get to kill two birds with one stone.

james.carman

2019-02-04 17:46

disclaimer: no *actual* birds were harmed

james.carman

2019-02-04 17:46

@hossam.saraya.ext ^^^^

hossam.saraya.ext

Yea I agree..but in some situations one might want to isolate pact's flow from their current testing flow

james.carman

I don?t know that anything really dictates that you generate the pact JSON files this way, either. If you can hand-craft them and get them uploaded to the broker, I suppose that?d work also

hossam.saraya.ext

yea thats what I had in mind..like implicitly firing http requests against the mock server

james.carman

I believe the maven plugin will upload JSON files from any directory you point it at

james.carman

2019-02-04 17:50

I?m a Java guy, but, I suppose the other tooling options would allow the same thing

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-04 17:50

ah my question is not about the broker. It's about the part where contracts get generated

james.carman

2019-02-04 17:50

oh, I think I misunderstood

james.carman

my apologies

james.carman

turns ears back on

hossam.saraya.ext

nothing to apologise for

james.carman

So, what is it that you want to achieve?

hossam.saraya.ext

I want my pact contracts generated without having any unit tests

james.carman

generated from what?

hossam.saraya.ext

from interactions

hossam.saraya.ext

just interaction objects or files

james.carman

oh, so more like an api ?specification? in some form

james.carman

like OpenAPI or swagger?

hossam.saraya.ext

exactly

hossam.saraya.ext

no, just the normal interaction form for pact

james.carman

or WADL, etc.

james.carman

2019-02-04 17:53

ok, gotcha

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-04 17:53

``` { state: 'no conditions', uponReceiving: 'a request to do w/e', withRequest: { method: 'POST', headers: { ... }, path: '...', body: like('str') }, } ```

james.carman

2019-02-04 17:53

I suppose you *can* hand-craft those if you?d like

james.carman

2019-02-04 17:54

but, what would you do with them?

james.carman

2019-02-04 17:54

What do you envision your flow to be?

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-04 17:54

1. I would write the interactions manually to describe how the consumer speaks to the provider

james.carman

2019-02-04 17:55

this would be how a *particular* consumer views the world, then?

james.carman

2019-02-04 17:55

how they intend on using said service?

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-04 17:56

yea exactly

james.carman

2019-02-04 17:56

ok, go on. Now what happens?

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-04 17:57

a consumer is still responsible for documenting its interactions with all providers it speaks to

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-04 17:57

2. I use a util from pact that takes these interactions and generate contracts in `pactSpecification` format

james.carman

2019-02-04 17:57

ok, so you want to use the DSL to generate a pact file, but you don?t want to be forced to ?exercise? that pact right this second?

james.carman

2019-02-04 17:58

currently, I believe that if you don?t use one of your interactions, it?ll barf with some error message

james.carman

2019-02-04 17:58

am I understanding you correctly?

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-04 17:58

> ok, so you want to use the DSL to generate a pact file, but you don?t want to be forced to ?exercise? that pact right this second? kind of, I don't want to write code for setting up a provider and launching http requests against it

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-04 18:01

I think an option would be to write the contracts manually..but that feels wrong

james.carman

2019-02-04 18:11

I think the philosophy (I?m not the expert, so hopefully one of the gurus will correct me if I?m way off base here) is that you really don?t know that your ?pact? is correct or not if you don?t use it (dog-food it) in some way, by testing/exercising your client code against it

james.carman

2019-02-04 18:12

If you don?t use it, you?re really not asserting anything useful from the client side

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-04 18:14

that's true

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-04 18:15

but when I define the interaction and write a test to assert for the interaction I just hardcoded..that sounds like doing it twice to me. Maybe I am missing something

james.carman

2019-02-04 18:35

that?s a fair point

james.carman

I might be too far out over my skis here, so maybe one of the gurus can jump in

james.carman

:slightly_smiling_face:

james.carman

I agree that sometimes the consumer-driven contract testing can get tedious

james.carman

https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1548391065116400

Is there a better way? That?s a fair question to ask (and it?s how innovation happens)

zach.the.hammer

2019-02-04 19:44

hey all! haven't had much time for off-hours developing so haven't been too active here for a bit, but i have a question re: plans for pact i know @bethskurrie mentioned once when talking about the python implementation of pact/request/response matcher logic eventually (ideally) moving to one implementation (i believe in rust) what are thoughts on having a side-effect free endpoint on the pact broker that takes in a request / response and a pact, runs the matcher algorithm, and returns the match document? i think this could be pretty cool (but not perfect). essentially pact libraries could just check their pact broker on what their matcher results are, and not have to worry about implementing that logic in their own language or porting in some tricky way to another languages implementation

zach.the.hammer

2019-02-04 19:45

that request/response service could also live in a shipped docker container that you run locally for testing / CI

matt.fellows

2019-02-04 20:19

So if I understand correctly, rather than verifying locally, you?d have the provider verify by talking directly to the broker which has that capability?

matt.fellows

2019-02-04 20:20

@hossam.saraya.ext @james you kinda of covered it, but here is the docs link that discusses this tension: https://docs.pact.io/faq#can-i-generate-my-pact-file-from-something-like-swagger

abubics

2019-02-05 00:40

In the consumer side of Pact tests, there are 3 potential gains: - declaring the intent of a consumer-side API client - verifying that the API client sends out the correct request - verifying that the API client handles the incoming response correctly

abubics

2019-02-05 00:40

You *don't* really get any value from asserting things in the unit test that Pact already verifies

abubics

2019-02-05 00:41

But you can get value from asserting that, for example, once the JSON came in, it was converted to domain objects properly.

abubics

2019-02-05 00:42

I think there are some code samples that just assert the same things that Pact already checks, and we should fix those, rather than devaluing the process (of exercising our API clients)

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 00:43

I meant that we already define the interactions as json objects and feed it to the mockserver. Doing that and then testing/asserting for the interactions feels like doing the same thing twice just in a different way

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 00:46

I think if we have something that generates the contracts directly from the interaction objects we define, it won't defeat pacts purpose if we integrate this as a step in consumer ci pipeline

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 00:48

you are welcome to correct me..I am just speaking out of my 1-week-old pact experience

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 01:13

Yea I see where that is coming from! I think the selling point for having pact as a unit test is the luxury to treat it as a real provider and write less stubs/mocks inside your unit tests. Also, if I use pact in unit tests, I would integrate it into the current tests that asserts request body,headers..etc against mocked/stubbed provider client code instead of writing new `<filename>.pact.spec.js`

zach.the.hammer

2019-02-05 01:46

Basically just having an http endpoint to verify against

zach.the.hammer

2019-02-05 01:46

As an easy way to integrate a dedicated ?matcher? in any language

karishnu

2019-02-05 05:24

karishnu

2019-02-05 05:24

I had a similar question a while ago too.

karishnu

2019-02-05 05:25

https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1548392403118100

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 06:37

One issue I would have with this, is that in mandates the use of a broker - something that is a managed infrastructure. On the one hand, commercially that would be great for business, but on the other, the Pact Broker is currently still an ?optional? part of the ecosystem

abubics

2019-02-05 06:38

@james.carman If you wanted to get some more rationale, my take is hiding in this thread ;D

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 06:38

We have bandied around similar ideas for the broker to enrich the experience, just not for replacing aspects of the core

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 06:38

(and you?re right, rust is the target)

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 06:39

I think I understand what you?re saying

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 06:40

> Doing that and then testing/asserting for the interactions feels like doing the same thing twice just in a different way (edited) Just to be clear, you shouldn?t be asserting that the response was `200` both in Pact and then in the unit test. The Unit test should be _testing the code that calls the API_ - e.g. a `UserService` which may return a `User`. You should have assertions about the `User`, not the JSON response directly.

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 09:02

Yea that makes sense now. Would be great to have that in FAQ or docs somewhere.

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 09:16

Is it a good practice to have pact files commited into git repos? Trivial answer is "No" because they are generated during the consumer CI build anyways. I wast just wondering if there is any use case that supports having the pacts managed by git

karishnu

2019-02-05 09:30

Considering that a Pact Broker is used, which also manages different versions of Pact files, I do not see a use case where committing Pact files to git will help in any way

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 09:45

The main use case was to be able to easily and conveniently use the pacts to run a local stubs from. I believe we either will or already do support fetching from the broker

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 09:45

But you can also do this without committing them

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 10:08

> I believe we either will or already do support fetching from the broker I think we can already do `broker/url/pacts/` to get all pacts

ruban.mahendran

2019-02-05 10:14

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 10:14

Sure, but that's not as easy as passing a flag to the pact-stub-server (https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases) to do it for you. But yes, it's all scriptable today, we want to package it up and make that easier

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 10:19

Does `Pact.verify()` write the pact files even if the verification fails? It's writing pacts for me which is weird as verify should only verify the interactions is being used against mock server? correct or not

bethskurrie

2019-02-05 10:32

It should not write the pact if the mock service verification fails on the consumer side.

keetron

2019-02-05 10:32

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2019-02-05 10:33

I'm not sure at what level the js api works. The pact writing might have been bundled in with the verify method.

bethskurrie

2019-02-05 10:33

Matt should know.

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 10:34

Yea I removed all `finalize` and `writePact` calls from my tests. Yet, I still have pacts generated for me using only `.verify()`

bethskurrie

You'll have to have a look at the source code.

bethskurrie

I'm surprised, but I don't maintain the js.

hossam.saraya.ext

I did. at a glance, it looks like it doesn't do anything to write the pacts

hossam.saraya.ext

``` public verify(): Promise<string> { return this.mockService.verify() .then(() => this.mockService.removeInteractions()) .catch((e: any) => { // Properly format the error /* tslint:disable: no-console */ console.error(""); console.error(clc.red("Pact verification failed!")); console.error(clc.red(e)); /* tslint:enable: */ return this.mockService.removeInteractions().then(() => { throw new Error("Pact verification failed - expected interactions did not match actual."); }) }) } ```

bethskurrie

2019-02-05 10:36

Doesn't look like it's writing to me.

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 10:36

yea me neither. I suspected that it's jest cache or something..cleared it, but still getting generated pacts O_o

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 10:36

@matt.fellows any idea?

keetron

I am trying to have my pact files written someplace else than `/target/pact`, we will have a pact broker in a few weeks but want to do some POC before that and I cannot find how to do this

bethskurrie

Are there automatic hooks created for your test framework?

keetron

I am using Java

bethskurrie

Ask in #pact-jvm

keetron

2019-02-05 10:38

oh cool, more channels :slightly_smiling_face:

keetron

2019-02-05 10:38

ty!

hossam.saraya.ext

no, just a single test file being run by `jest <file>`

hossam.saraya.ext

nothing fancy

bethskurrie

:man-shrugging: Tis a mystery to me.

hossam.saraya.ext

You basically set that in the mock server constructor. (Speaking about the JS lib). Hopefully the java library follows the same convention

bethskurrie

2019-02-05 10:40

Nah. Probably goes though 4 levels of factory impls and xml :-P

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 10:40

Thanks god for js :smile:

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 10:42

To all my fellow java engineers/devs..stay strong

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 10:58

I'm just at my folks house, will check when I get home (soon)

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 10:58

It's also surprising to me

bethskurrie

2019-02-05 10:59

Can you make a reproducible example repository @hossam.saraya.ext?

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 11:00

yea will work on that @evening

dipeshlpatel

2019-02-05 11:20

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 11:24

OK had a quick peep. The workflow that causes this behaviour: - Set expectations - fail a unit test (whether or not it actually hits the correct endpoint) - ~verify()~ won?t be called, because the test framework bails In this case, because `verify()` is never called, when the mock service is shutdown, it still writes the pact.

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 11:24

When `verify()` is actually called, if this fails, the pact isn?t written

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 11:25

that being said - is it actually a problem? If your unit tests fail, then subsequent steps (e.g. publishing to a broker) should not run.

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 11:35

What if my tests pass but the verification fails?

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 11:36

So, the pacts are written anyways when the mockserver is shutdown?

jlopespereira

2019-02-05 14:09

has joined #general

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 15:35

> because `verify()` is never called, when the mock service is shutdown, it still writes the pact. So if I want to generate pacts without hitting the server. I just don't call `verify()` and that would make the server generate pacts when it's closed? :thinking_face:

japedersen

2019-02-05 19:23

Hi, is there a way to ignore a specific header param in the pact test, but still generate it into the pact/interaction file?

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 19:30

Interesting. You mean a request header right?

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 19:42

What's the reasoning behind the need for this?

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 19:43

Something like an auth token?

japedersen

2019-02-05 19:44

yes like an auth token, and in the request header.

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 19:47

but your tests already include these request headers when testing against the mock server? You just don't want to define it in the interactions? If that's the case, I don't know if it's entirely possible, but if you are worried about having sensitive data specified in the pact file, you can use `like` matchers

japedersen

2019-02-05 20:02

So, this header needs to be in the pact file. However, specifying it in the interaction test will cause a failure.

japedersen

2019-02-05 20:02

~So I'm wondering how to ignore a specific header in the test~

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 20:15

It probably ought to be in the interaction (pact file) - why shouldn't it be there? That being said, auth token are often short lived. You can inject a valid one using custom headers. Which language are you using?

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 20:15

There is a section on the docs site about this

japedersen

2019-02-05 20:20

Javascript.

japedersen

2019-02-05 20:22

So in the test if I specify the header param, then there will be a failure, and wont generate that endpoint into the pact file because it doesn't exist (even tho it does in the api swagger). If I could ignore this in the pact test, then my hope is it gets generated into the pact file.

japedersen

2019-02-05 20:23

Is there a way to work around this and just add this into the pact file?

japedersen

2019-02-05 20:24

Or does the pact manager allow to add a new header after tests run?

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 20:26

No, there is no way to add stuff into the pact after the tests run, unless you do it manually (which is almost always a bad idea)

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 20:31

I'm still confused tho. If in your consumer test you must specify an auth header as the API needs it, why does the provider API fail during verification?

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 20:32

Is it a different endpoint for auth? Or is it a token the provider needs and then passes to an auth svc?

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 21:33

> However, specifying it in the interaction test will cause a failure. Is this because you don't know the header value in compile time? so you can't hardcode that value in the interaction?

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 21:33

if I understood you right, then probably this is the reason you can't get your `pact.verify()` to pass

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 21:36

So we?re clear, when we say `pact.verify()` this is in the _consumer_ test, right?

matt.fellows

2019-02-05 21:37

Why would it fail the consumer test?

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 21:39

:man-shrugging:

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-05 21:39

@japedersen would be great if you provide more context

japedersen

2019-02-05 22:25

Hi, apologies. I have solved this.

japedersen

2019-02-05 22:27

I had to fix my jest mocking in all this.

japedersen

2019-02-05 22:30

Adding back the request header, lets my pact tests pass and are being added to the pact file. As desired!

japedersen

2019-02-05 22:30

Sorry for the confusion! @matt.fellows @hossam.saraya.ext

mahyar-1

2019-02-06 08:36

has joined #general

mahyar-1

2019-02-06 08:38

Hi Everyone, Is there anyway to match use path-parameters in pact? I am on jvm and using java

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-06 09:24

Have you checked https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/wiki/Matching?

mahyar-1

2019-02-06 13:38

thanks will check it

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-06 14:48

Hey folks, I?ve noticed that pact mockserver doesn?t save multiple providerStates (defined in spec v3) when generating a contract file. I?ve made a small PR to fix it. Coudl somebody take a look? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service/pull/101

dipeshlpatel

2019-02-06 21:01

Hello everyone, I am new to PACT and was wondering if someone can point out if there is any video series which i can follow or attend PACT workshop in London to gain better understanding to implement using JAVA. Referred the link below but i guess step by step docs/video that is what i need ; https://github.com/DiUS/pact-workshop-jvm

matt.fellows

2019-02-06 22:10

Thanks!

matt.fellows

2019-02-06 22:11

Hi Dipesh, there's no video that I'm aware of that gives you a step by step instruction.

matt.fellows

2019-02-06 22:11

We're considering running webinars but not for a little bit

dipeshlpatel

2019-02-07 07:36

Thanks for the reply @matt.fellows It will be great to have a guide to use PACT as I feel that it is a brilliant tool do Contract Testing instead of Integration Testing.

matt.fellows

2019-02-07 08:28

Thanks Dipesh. Have you gone through the workshop?

dipeshlpatel

2019-02-07 08:59

Not yet. I have explore that avenue too but no workshop in London at present

matt.fellows

2019-02-07 08:59

I meant, have you gone through the github workshop?

dipeshlpatel

2019-02-07 09:02

I have gone through the above pact-workshop-jvm but i am unable to find where to start This could be me being an automation test analyst

bart.schotten

2019-02-07 14:18

has joined #general

martin.hock

2019-02-07 14:24

has joined #general

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-07 15:36

any chance to get this merged / released?

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-07 20:57

What is the difference between pact-node and pact-js?

matt.fellows

2019-02-07 21:07

Pact JS is the DSL you would use to write your contract tests in. Pact Node is essentially a NodeJS wrapper for the Pact components. In most cases, you shouldn?t have to use it directly, but it is used by Pact JS (and other related components). It?s essentially a dependency

matt.fellows

2019-02-07 21:08

You might want to use it for fine grained control over certain things, or for having a JS interface to tools like `can-i-deploy`

james.carman

2019-02-07 21:42

Would it be possible to move the logic in ?can-I-deploy? to an endpoint on the pactbroker?

matt.fellows

2019-02-07 21:43

It?s certainly possible. Why would you want it there

matt.fellows

2019-02-07 21:43

(not disagreeing, just interested in your perspective)

james.carman

2019-02-07 21:43

So that I don?t need a CLI

matt.fellows

2019-02-07 21:44

:slightly_smiling_face:

james.carman

2019-02-07 21:44

I can easily script web calls into my Jenkins workflows

james.carman

2019-02-07 21:44

I really wasn?t trying to be a smart ass :)

matt.fellows

haha I think the bulk of the logic is there anyway

james.carman

Sometimes it?s just natural

matt.fellows

The CLI probably just orchestrates it. ?The matrix? is what contains the magic

james.carman

You get what I mean though, right?

matt.fellows

yep

matt.fellows

@bethskurrie will be able to tell you more

james.carman

Can we move the orchestration behind an endpoint?

james.carman

2019-02-07 21:46

Even if it?s async?

bethskurrie

2019-02-07 21:46

It is.

james.carman

2019-02-07 21:46

All of it?

bethskurrie

No, it depends on what your arguments are.

james.carman

That?s what I mean

bethskurrie

It could be more abstracted.

james.carman

Can we move that logic server-side?

bethskurrie

Yes

james.carman

It does some blocking, right?

bethskurrie

The wait?

james.carman

Some wait period or something

james.carman

Yeah

bethskurrie

I wouldn't want to move that into the endpoint

james.carman

Right

james.carman

Agreed

bethskurrie

Not a good use of server cycles.

james.carman

Nope

james.carman

http://blog.pact.io/2018/07/10/retries-for-can-i-deploy/

What is it waiting for?

james.carman

2019-02-07 21:49

Does it trigger notifications for jobs to run?

bethskurrie

2019-02-07 21:49

A result to come back

bethskurrie

2019-02-07 21:49

bethskurrie

2019-02-07 21:50

james.carman

2019-02-07 21:50

Ok it?s polling

james.carman

2019-02-07 21:51

Hoping something changes (a job runs) to change a verification result

james.carman

2019-02-07 21:51

Makes sense

james.carman

2019-02-07 21:51

Is that all the logic it?s doing, then?

james.carman

2019-02-07 21:52

The polling?

james.carman

2019-02-07 21:53

If not, can we move whatever else it?s doing server-side?

james.carman

2019-02-07 21:53

And the server just always responds immediately with yes/no?

james.carman

2019-02-07 21:54

And maybe the data that backs up that claim

james.carman

2019-02-07 21:54

Like all the verifications that passed

james.carman

2019-02-07 21:55

I don?t mind helping with a PR (my ruby is dusty). I just wanna make sure it?s not against the vision before I crack open some code

james.carman

2019-02-07 21:57

@bethskurrie did I lose you?

bethskurrie

2019-02-07 21:57

I'm in a tunnel

james.carman

2019-02-07 21:57

I hope you are not driving

james.carman

2019-02-07 21:59

No problem, just let me know. I don?t mind helping out. We are benefiting quite a bit from all the great work you folks have done!

bethskurrie

2019-02-07 21:59

In on a train to work

james.carman

:train:

bethskurrie

There is a little bit of logic in the cli code, but it's mostly working out what arguments to send to the matrix

bethskurrie

Any waiting code would need to be put into your http client.

james.carman

Yep

james.carman

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker-client/blob/master/lib/pact_broker/client/cli/broker.rb

Agreed

james.carman

2019-02-07 22:01

Provide back the immediate response from the data currently present

bethskurrie

2019-02-07 22:01

bethskurrie

2019-02-07 22:02

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker-client/blob/master/lib/pact_broker/client/can_i_deploy.rb

james.carman

2019-02-07 22:03

Love the emoticon in the message

bethskurrie

2019-02-07 22:03

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker-client/blob/master/lib/pact_broker/client/matrix.rb

james.carman

2019-02-07 22:42

I know the answer involves tags or labels or whatever they?re called, but does anyone have an example of how they?ve managed that stuff in a CD type environment?

james.carman

2019-02-07 22:44

Like, if I want to verify a new version of my provider against all pacts that are currently tagged as ?prod? to make sure it?s safe to push out my updates?

james.carman

2019-02-07 22:45

Can we push tags onto existing, versioned pacts?

bethskurrie

2019-02-07 22:45

yes

bethskurrie

that's kind of the point

bethskurrie

have you read this? https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/pact_nirvana

james.carman

And I suppose we?d have to remove the previously tagged prod version

bethskurrie

james.carman

Yeah, I?ve read it

bethskurrie

You specify "the latest version tagged prod"

james.carman

It?s been a while

bethskurrie

it means you don't have to remove previous tags.

james.carman

Latest is temporal, not version-based?

bethskurrie

technically, it's the latest version with that tag

bethskurrie

where the ordering is the order the version was published

james.carman

Hmmm

james.carman

If I deployed version 1, then 2

james.carman

Then I had to rollback because we found an issue

james.carman

I redeploy 1

james.carman

And re-tag

james.carman

Who would be considered ?latest??

james.carman

2019-02-07 22:49

I?m guessing 2, since the pact was published after 1?

james.carman

2019-02-07 22:49

That?s probably unlikely

james.carman

2019-02-07 22:50

But in that case, could we ?untag? 2 as prod?

bethskurrie

2019-02-07 22:51

yes

james.carman

2019-02-07 22:51

Cool

james.carman

2019-02-07 22:52

Most likely, we?d just fix 2 and deploy 2.0.1 or something

bethskurrie

2019-02-07 22:52

Btw, lets move this to a thread in #pact-broker so we're not spamming everyone

james.carman

2019-02-07 22:53

Oh sorry

mboudreau

2019-02-07 23:16

yes, please thread your convo :slightly_smiling_face:

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-08 09:46

@bethskurrie looks like you are maintaining this repo. Could you please take a look at this PR? it is just 2 lines of code

matt.fellows

2019-02-08 09:58

There might have been a reason why it wasn't supported the first time, if it was so easy. I recall discussing it around when we were doing the message pacts

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-08 10:30

~http://blog.pact.io/tag/can-i-deploy~ ~Why is this blog post trimmed off? :smile:~ Apparently because I am viewing the tags not the post itself :blush:

bethskurrie

2019-02-08 10:40

I'll have a better look tomorrow, as it's late here now. I don't think v3 writing is actually supported at all from memory. I think it just supports reading v3 pacts. The rule writing format is different for v3 also.

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-08 11:22

oh, well. Didn?t think about rule writing format in v3? :disappointed:

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-08 11:23

I guess I have to specify provider states in 1 string then?

biercoff

2019-02-08 16:23

has joined #general

biercoff

2019-02-08 16:25

Hi guys. Small question. I have a provider that provides a big json payload. And i also have bunch of consumers - each of them is interested in part of this payload. Does every consumer has to specify full provider payload in the contract, or they can specify only structure they are interested ?

james.carman

2019-02-08 16:29

typically a consumer should only deal with the data they?re interested in

biercoff

2019-02-08 16:30

that's what my assumption is as well, but then i find issues like https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/issues/311 and https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service/issues/65

biercoff

2019-02-08 16:31

where i find this

biercoff

2019-02-08 16:31

the documentation here http://docs.pact.io/documentation/gotchas.html it says - "Be conservative in what you send - when the mock server in the consumer project compares the actual request with the expected request, the actual request body is not allowed to contain fields that are not defined in the expected request body. We don't want the situation where our real consumer is "leaking" data that we don't know about."

biercoff

2019-02-08 16:31

and i get confused :slightly_smiling_face:

james.carman

2019-02-08 16:55

I got 404

james.carman

2019-02-08 16:55

on the ?gotchas? link

james.carman

2019-02-08 16:56

There?s a huge difference in how you should treat the request vs. the response here.

james.carman

2019-02-08 16:56

As a consumer, you shouldn?t care that the service sends more data than you need

james.carman

2019-02-08 16:56

restated, you shouldn?t care that the response contains more data than you need

biercoff

2019-02-08 17:31

got it thanks

matt.fellows

2019-02-09 02:02

Yep. Optional elements are a separate but related thing. There is an article on http://docs.pact.io about it discussing it in more deptg. In your case, different consumers just need different bits of the payload And they should write pact tests that only include those bits.

matt.fellows

2019-02-09 02:02

I should say it's very common to do what you're asking, if it helps

petro.turovskyy

2019-02-09 18:41

has joined #general

petro.turovskyy

2019-02-09 18:46

Hey guys! I would really appreciate your input on this one: https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/issues/849

ruban72

2019-02-09 19:39

has joined #general

arvindr3

2019-02-11 08:53

has joined #general

javid.ali

2019-02-11 11:21

has joined #general

arvindr3

2019-02-11 11:27

Hi,

arvindr3

2019-02-11 11:28

i m getting the issue while i m running the Pact Workshop - js

arvindr3

2019-02-11 11:29

Error: Error from response: undefined at request.get.query.then.err (D:\Pact\pact-workshop-js-master\consumer\client.js:33:15) at process._tickCallback (internal/process/next_tick.js:68:7)

javid.ali

2019-02-11 11:33

Hi non-techie here, had a quick look at docs but couldn't gather, does Pact interactions use the real API and database of the app or is this mocked out? Sorry for dumb question. Thanks.

matt.fellows

2019-02-11 12:19

Hi Arvind, please ask in the #pact-js channel, and provide all of the details as to what you?re doing, what steps you?ve attempted to resolve them and the results of those attempts.

matt.fellows

2019-02-11 12:20

From the point of view of the _consumer_, the _provider_ is completed mocked out in the test, and the recordings with that mock (it?s still a real API endpoint) become the contract (simplified). When testing the _provider_, Pact assumes the role of the consumer, and sends actual HTTP requests to the real provider - if it needs a DB you may choose to use it or mock it out.

matt.fellows

2019-02-11 12:20

That help?

james.carman

2019-02-11 12:23

I always mock it.

james.carman

gopinathlangote11

gopinathlangote11

gopinathlangote11

sorry mistake

javid.ali

2019-02-11 13:34

Thanks @matt.fellows that makes sense :slightly_smiling_face:

sneha.puskoor

2019-02-11 20:04

has joined #general

brian

2019-02-11 23:10

has joined #general

pilit63

2019-02-12 07:57

has joined #general

pilit63

2019-02-12 07:58

Hi guys! New on the channel

pilit63

2019-02-12 08:04

Im creating a pact verification platform and I found a problem managing versions and where to publish result. The use case is this: in a provider test, I want to publish or not the results of my verification depending on the version of the consumers. These versions can be snapshots or finals, so I want to select only snapshots to be published (the verifications) to work in merge requests. Currently Im using the property "pact.verifier.publishResults" but I need to select whether I publish a verfication of a contract or not dynamically reading consumer version. Is there any option to do this? As PactRunner uses InteractionRunner, I cannot extend it easily..

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-12 14:29

How can we match two request with the same METHOD & URL. The difference between requests is that one has 1 more json field than the other

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-12 14:32

there should be different state probably, and different description in this case

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-12 14:35

is it ok to have both interactions with request.body set to `Pact.like({...})`

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-12 14:35

does that make the matcher match against body type only and disregard the body content?

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-12 14:37

in other words.. IS: ``` body: like({ name: 'str' }) ``` equivalent to ``` body: { name: like('str') } ``` ?

jonas.lmk

2019-02-12 14:43

has joined #general

mtissot79

2019-02-13 07:51

has joined #general

sam

2019-02-13 16:10

has joined #general

sam

2019-02-13 16:43

Looking for some advice regarding where to put the consumer pact. We have some webservices, where the webservice team provides its own client library (java). For example, a team provides both application "foo-ws" and "foo-ws-client" library. A different team creates an application "bar" that makes uses of "foo-ws-client" to get data from "foo-ws". Does the consumer pact belong in "foo-ws-client" or "bar"? Should the pact make use of foo-ws-client, or should bar create it's own client to talk to foo-ws?

james.carman

2019-02-13 16:45

I would vote ?bar?.

james.carman

because your pact would only specify the data that ?bar? is interested in

james.carman

For example, the response type coming from foo-ws-client might have 10 fields in it

james.carman

but, bar only cares about 3 of them

james.carman

it shouldn?t bother with the other 7 when specifying its pact

james.carman

2019-02-13 16:47

it?ll still use foo-ws-client to talk to foo-ws, but it only does stuff with those 3 fields

sam

2019-02-13 16:50

that makes sense. but if foo-ws makes a breaking changing that breaks foo-ws-client, "bar" would break instead of foo-ws-client

sam

2019-02-13 16:51

that's ok? it's really the client that's broken

james.carman

2019-02-13 16:55

well, if *anything* breaks, that means folks need to start talking :slightly_smiling_face:

james.carman

2019-02-13 16:56

foo-ws is hopefully downloading all pacts declared against it and verifying them as they make changes

james.carman

regardless of what client library they use to talk to foo-ws. All clients don?t get the luxury of auto-upgrading to the latest and greatest foo-ws-client

james.carman

we have the exact same situation here at work

james.carman

we use JAX-RS, though

james.carman

https://github.com/jaxxy-rs/jaxxy/blob/master/example/src/main/java/org/jaxxy/example/service/HelloService.java

so, one team will publish an API jar that has JAX-RS-annotated interfaces in it

james.carman

2019-02-13 16:58

everybody that wants to use it will create a type-safe client proxy object that implements the jaxrs interface from the API jar

sam

2019-02-13 17:03

very good points! thanks for your help

sam

2019-02-13 17:11

That's an interesting way of publishing an API! We use JAX-RS for our webservice implementation too, but I'm curious about the setup you just mentioned. Is there a blog post or something that goes over that particular strategy?

james.carman

2019-02-13 17:15

The trick is separating your JAX-RS annotated stuff out into its own jar

james.carman

2019-02-13 17:15

lemme see if I have an example?

james.carman

2019-02-13 17:16

james.carman

2019-02-13 17:16

That?s an example of the pattern

james.carman

2019-02-13 17:16

from my ?jaxxy? library

james.carman

2019-02-13 17:20

we are using CXF to generate the client proxies

james.carman

2019-02-13 17:20

The ?microprofile? API has a new feature that makes this standardized

sam

2019-02-13 17:22

cool, thanks for the info

james.carman

2019-02-13 17:22

you?re welcome

bilgehanl.03

2019-02-14 13:21

has joined #general

igwe.kalu

2019-02-14 15:32

has joined #general

igwe.kalu

2019-02-14 15:38

Hi everyone

igwe.kalu

2019-02-14 15:40

I'm new in this community and I came armed with a question :crossed_swords: :slightly_smiling_face: With reference to this Github issue: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/268 > Contract testing is about making sure your consumer team and provider team have a shared understanding of what the requests and responses will be in each possible _*scenario*_. > ~ https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/consumer#use-pact-for-contract-testing-not-functional-testing-of-the-provider - How could one possibly test a resource update contract without being sure there's an existing record to update? - In other words, how may the contract regarding a hypothetic product update scenario be tested?

james.carman

2019-02-14 16:25

@igwe.kalu contract testing isn?t functional testing

james.carman

2019-02-14 16:26

just make sure you?re not trying to verify that the service is, behind the scenes, doing the right thing with your data

james.carman

2019-02-14 16:26

with the contract test, you should only really be concerned with the ?shapes? of the responses.

james.carman

2019-02-14 16:26

There can be a bit of a gray area around error scenarios

pkuang

2019-02-14 16:38

has joined #general

jwatanabe

2019-02-14 18:38

has joined #general

igwe.kalu

2019-02-14 18:44

@james.carman thanks for the reminder. Be rest assured that I already have those factors in strict consideration. However, my questions remain open. And I?d very much appreciate an actual answer from any person experienced in the concept

james.carman

2019-02-14 18:45

you?re welcome (I think, although that sounded terribly dismissive)

james.carman

2019-02-14 18:47

@igwe.kalu what exactly are you trying to test and what have you tried so far?

james.carman

2019-02-14 18:48

?functions as expected? sounds a bit ?functional testy?

james.carman

2019-02-14 18:48

and not ?contract testy?

james.carman

2019-02-14 18:53

Perhaps what you?re trying to do is establish some known ?state??

james.carman

2019-02-14 18:54

https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/provider_states

matt.fellows

2019-02-14 23:45

@igwe.kalu > - How could one possibly test a resource update contract without being sure there?s an existing record to update? You?re right, you can?t. But the way you test this in Pact is separated into different pieces 1. The consumer test _does not create the state in advance_ by, for example, first creating the resource. It simply is a test that specifies its expectations - including the state: ?_given_ that resource X exists? (this is the ?state?) then ?when I call `GET` on `/resource/id`? I should get back some response. 2. It is important here that this test is performed in isolation from any other, stateful tests to avoid the functional nature of the test 3. When the provider verifies this piece of code, it is passed the state before the test. In the case above, the state is ?_given_ that resource X exists?. It is the responsibility of the provider to ensure it is in this state before the tests runs. This usually takes the form of seeding/clearing a database The net result is that the consumer tests are clean, simple to understand, and not dependent on the stateful ordering of things, yet the provider can still test interactions that traditionally depended on those things.

matt.fellows

2019-02-14 23:46

Theoretically, if you could spin up multiple provider code bases, you could perform the contract tests _in parallel_. Typically this isn?t needed because they are usually quite fast anyway owing to the fact that you usually stub out any of its dependencies, repeating this pattern all the way down the dependency tree

cocoa

2019-02-15 06:52

has joined #general

cocoa

2019-02-15 06:59

Incidentially, I have a question regarding provider states and this last post. if I have a test for GET on /resources/id and have a provider state "resource X exists" I see two options regarding the "id" part. The id in the request obviously has to match the id of the provider state. 1. predefine a fixed id (e.g. 42) that all "consumers" using that provider state must know and use (requires out of band documentation)

cocoa

2019-02-15 07:00

2. templateable provider state, e.g. "resource X with id {id} exists", which does not exist (as far as I see)

cocoa

2019-02-15 07:01

3. include id in provider state, i.e. "resource X with id 42 exists"

cocoa

2019-02-15 07:01

letting the consumer define ids at will seems crazy :slightly_smiling_face:

cocoa

2019-02-15 07:02

and as a side question: what are the params in pact jvm on the ProviderState meant for? I don't see it being used by the interaction runners at all

cocoa

2019-02-15 07:03

and another related question: what is the best way to avoid provider state explosion in regard to "options" on a resource

cocoa

2019-02-15 07:03

e.g. if I have a resource X that can optionally have option A and B

cocoa

2019-02-15 07:04

I don't want to define provider states for all combinations (without A and without B, with A and without B, ...)

cocoa

2019-02-15 07:05

use three provider states? "resource X exists" + "has option A" + "has option B"?

cocoa

2019-02-15 07:05

this requires a strict ordering of provider state

cocoa

2019-02-15 07:06

"has option A" cannot be done after "resource X exists" because "has option A" requires the existence of "option A"

stein

2019-02-15 08:06

"It is the responsibility of the provider to ensure it is in this state before the tests runs. This usually takes the form of seeding/clearing a database" This is quite an interesting topic and I would be interested to see how different folks manage the provider setup. I have always ran a version of the provider with the entire service/domain layer mocked out - which ensures we aren't testing any behaviour or business logic. I feel having a real database goes too far, but I'd be interested in hearing arguments for it - maybe easier setup. I've taken the mocking approach in both golang and java projects.

james.carman

2019-02-15 12:03

Running your verification using mocks makes this much simpler

james.carman

2019-02-15 12:05

We have state methods that allow you to pass in data to establish state. We don?t store data in a database or anything, but simply train the mocks using the desired state

james.carman

2019-02-15 12:05

The tests are very fast and it?s easy to isolate everything

james.carman

2019-02-15 12:09

@sam the client proxy stuff is being standardized by the microprofile client API: https://github.com/eclipse/microprofile-rest-client

james.carman

2019-02-15 12:10

CXF implements this

matt.fellows

2019-02-15 12:17

You'd still need to know that the state exists, but the ids at least could be made to be dynamic with, say, a callback/hook in the provider tests to fetch known "parameters" for the interaction. @uglyog thoughts?

matt.fellows

2019-02-15 12:17

We are also looking at ways to visualise these available states in the pact broker

matt.fellows

2019-02-15 12:17

To ease with new clients getting started

robin

2019-02-15 13:56

has joined #general

daniel.hegner

2019-02-15 14:36

has joined #general

tom.mortiboy

2019-02-18 05:49

has joined #general

tom.mortiboy

2019-02-18 05:55

Hello all! Just been looking at the hosted pact broker at https://pact.dius.com.au. If you use this service, are contracts and documentation public, or is there auth to keep pacts private?

abubics

2019-02-18 06:07

There is currently basic auth (in the free version), and no anonymous option

abubics

2019-02-18 06:07

Also, hello! Welcome :smile:

tom.mortiboy

2019-02-18 06:07

thanks!

bethskurrie

2019-02-18 06:20

We are at this very moment working on social login.

bethskurrie

2019-02-18 06:21

And API tokens.

ben.smith

2019-02-18 08:07

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-02-18 08:50

Ah back travelling again I see Tom. Snow good in Japan? :grinning:

matt.fellows

2019-02-18 08:51

Just so we're clear, acct is private - no one else can see your contracts etc.

rabih

2019-02-18 13:00

Hello, is there a way to hide password from the generated testing debugging log?

matt.fellows

2019-02-18 19:59

what password are you referring to? which language are you using?

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-19 09:37

Hey @bethskurrie @matt.fellows. Considering that V2 doesn?t support multiple provider states (and V3 contract writing is not yet implemented), what would be your suggestion for specifying multiple provider states for pact interactions? In order to run provider verification in our app, we need to set up multiple entities in a DB (e.g. `user with name=TestUser exists`, `company with id=1 exists`, `Survey round for user with id=1 is open`). Defining this state as 1 string is not optimal and will lead to a lot of code duplication on provider?s side (in a state setup code). As a workaround, I?m thinking about encoding JSON object with states into a string using `JSON.stringify` and then decoding it from string to a JSON object via `JSON.parse` on provider verification side. What do you think about such idea?

bethskurrie

2019-02-19 09:38

What languages are you working in?

bethskurrie

2019-02-19 09:38

Pact Ruby actually supports verifying in v3, just not writing in v3.

bethskurrie

2019-02-19 09:39

Hence, pact go, js, net also support verifying in v3.

bethskurrie

2019-02-19 09:39

Not all features are supported yet, but the multiple states and params are supported

bethskurrie

2019-02-19 09:40

It calls the provider state endpoint once for each state.

bethskurrie

2019-02-19 09:42

What is your consumer written in?

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-19 09:43

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-19 09:43

on both sides

bethskurrie

2019-02-19 09:44

Do you really need to specify all 3 things?

bethskurrie

2019-02-19 09:44

I tend to just specify the most important object in the request. In your case, the survey round I would think.

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-19 09:45

well, there a lot of interactions in a contract and some of them depend on different combinations of states

bethskurrie

2019-02-19 09:45

Does this change the way the responses look?

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-19 09:45

yes

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-19 09:46

the endpoints we?re covering with a contract are quite flexible in terms of output (based on query params and provider states)

bethskurrie

2019-02-19 09:47

We really need to support v3. Matt and I are just a bit maxed out at the moment with the commercial pact broker work.

bethskurrie

2019-02-19 09:48

You can try putting all the provider state info in a json string. It'll be yucky, but if it gets you through until we can support it properly, we'll and good

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-19 09:49

Thanks! I?ll be happy to contribute to both Ruby & JS codebases, if some help is needed.

bethskurrie

2019-02-19 09:50

I'd love help.

bethskurrie

2019-02-19 09:50

There's going to be a lot of little things scattered throughout the Ruby library though, it's not straight forward unfortunately.

bethskurrie

2019-02-19 09:52

I'll see if I can find some things that are easy to explain.

ola.jankowska

2019-02-19 09:57

hi I need some help, I have frontend in Angular that is publishing tests to broker and backend in java that is running tests against production environment, the only thing we are missing is adding Authorisation (Bearer Token) header to all requests, we have test user for that, how can we inject this header (end before that get the token because it is valid very short time ) I am using pact-jvm-provider-maven_2.12

matt.fellows

2019-02-19 10:07

look for ?request filters? - that?s probably what you need

matt.fellows

2019-02-19 10:07

But testing against prod?. probably not a great idea

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-19 10:08

:+1:

ola.jankowska

2019-02-19 10:11

why not? we want to be sure we will not brake any contracts when releasing new version

ola.jankowska

2019-02-19 10:12

thanks I found request filters! that is what i Need now I just need to log in :smile:

matt.fellows

2019-02-19 10:13

:slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2019-02-19 10:13

So, the contract really should be something owned by the provider team and done at build time. Not all contracts will be able to be performed this way - say creating an order or something

matt.fellows

2019-02-19 10:14

Best to have it automated in CI, and have the provider team own the outcome

matt.fellows

2019-02-19 10:14

if it works for you, sure, but the approach will have limits

ola.jankowska

2019-02-19 10:33

I see you can filter tests per environment so we can always split test for P and T

rabih

2019-02-19 10:33

node

matt.fellows

2019-02-19 10:35

which password though? a password in a test, or for a broker?

bethskurrie

2019-02-19 19:56

@ola.jankowska the recommended way to test contracts is to do it before deploying to production. You can read about it here: https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/pact_nirvana

bethskurrie

2019-02-19 19:57

Testing against a live deployed app rather than against one running in CI can make it slower and more difficult to set up and tear down provider states, and to stub downstream services.

bethskurrie

2019-02-19 19:58

The contract tests would typically be run in the CI pipeline of the provider.

bockus

2019-02-20 02:46

has joined #general

rickard.andersson

2019-02-20 07:01

has joined #general

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-20 08:36

Interesting? Just discovered that I can pass a JSON object to `state` in provider interaction definition and then it is gonna be saved as JSON in a contract json file and then pact verifier reads it and passes a JSON object to /pactStateSetupUrl. So, no need to encode state into a string?

matt.fellows

2019-02-20 09:32

oh wow, magic! (I don?t really like magic, especially if that magic may have been written by me)

matt.fellows

2019-02-20 09:33

I?ll take a look later, hopefully that?s something that?s repeatable across languages and not a ?quirk? for JS only

hossam.saraya.ext

2019-02-20 09:41

Also wanted to add that testing in general against production servers is a bad idea because you don't want to add test data or delete existing data into/from your production data stores if you are not mocking/stubbing

mail

2019-02-20 11:03

has joined #general

oswald.quek

2019-02-20 12:17

:wave: is there a way to tell the pact broker to ignore certain consumers when using the can_i_deploy script (https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker-client/blob/4a27c00e09f4512d539dedbc5c26518e29b8dde5/lib/pact_broker/client/can_i_deploy.rb)?

martin.green

2019-02-21 07:30

Hello, first of all, I love the concept of Pact and CDC?s. Well done! I?m really interested in hearing about peoples implementation of Pact into their company. Most documentation seems to be on tutorials, which is great. But I can?t seem to find much on people?s experiences with using Pact. What are the pain points? How long did it take to implement etc. Much appreciate any info

matt.fellows

2019-02-21 07:45

I'm a maintainer so I'm biased. I'll let the crowd answer and pop in later

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-21 10:19

Hi @martin.green I?m currently implementing Pact in a company I?m working for (at the moment, we have 1 provider and a bunch of consumers). Integrating pact mockserver on the consumer side was quite easy and straightforward. Enabling pact contract verification on provider side took much more time for me, as we need to set up states on our provider side for each request + some of our provider endpoints require auth. While I was implementing provider verification, it turned that I had to refactor all interaction definitions on a consumer side (fix states, make sure that dynamic data is not hardcoded and relevant matchers are used).

lukas.mrtvy

2019-02-21 12:19

has joined #general

lukas.mrtvy

2019-02-21 12:20

Does Pact provide healthcheck or metrics endpoint for Prometheus?

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-21 12:35

I think you need to ask this in #pact-broker @lukas.mrtvy

ramkhi

2019-02-21 14:51

has joined #general

martin.green

2019-02-21 15:08

Thanks very much for the reply @vitaliy.grigoruk

simon.nizov

2019-02-21 16:19

@martin.green What language are your services written in?

martin.green

2019-02-21 16:41

Hey @simon.nizov, the consumers are written in js and the backends are Scala

simon.nizov

2019-02-21 16:43

No tips from me then :)

oswald.quek

2019-02-21 16:44

hello. looking at https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm#supported-jdk-and-specification-versions, i take it pact doesn't support java 11 at the moment?

oswald.quek

2019-02-21 16:59

hi @martin.green some pain points i've found are: - the pact consumer js doesn't have the ability to set parameterised states for use with a pact java provider, for e.g. in https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/pact-jvm-provider-junit#provider-state-callback-methods `someProviderState(Map<String, Object> providerStateParameters)` - circular dependencies, for example changing a consumer pact without requiring a change of code on the provider side. we documented this in more detail at https://gdstechnology.blog.gov.uk/2019/01/29/lessons-learnt-using-contract-testing-in-gov-uk-pay/ - recently we had an issue where 1) there was a master build of a [provider] project built 2) someone came along and added a brand new consumer service that had a contract with said provider service on a pull request branch. this published the new pact to the pact broker 3) when the provider project was to be deployed to our staging environment, it failed because the "can-i-deploy" (https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker-client/blob/4a27c00e09f4512d539dedbc5c26518e29b8dde5/lib/pact_broker/client/can_i_deploy.rb) check - which is a dynamic check on the pact broker - returned some `incompatible pacts` message as all of a sudden the pact broker had knowledge of this new consumer service so was expecting the new consumer service pact to be in the staging environment, but there was none. at this moment in time we can't get the "can-i-deploy" to ignore certain services. so be very careful when adding new services to the pact broker. - it's generally a bit more painful when updating pacts between services because we always use the "can-i-deploy" function before deploying a service so developers often have to think about the deploy cadence (i.e. what code changes on what services to deploy first)

oswald.quek

2019-02-21 16:59

but all in all the pain is worth it, otherwise we wouldn't be doing it :wink:

yousafn

2019-02-21 18:43

I have written up my first blog post about how we are utilising swagger & pact in our dev flow. Feel free to have a read https://you54f.wordpress.com

matt.fellows

2019-02-21 19:45

Great feedback! FWIW we?ll be addressing the workflow issues soon, I hope. This should make all but the first if not disappear, much easier to deal with

uglyog

2019-02-21 20:51

That is correct. Although some people have indicated they have used some of the libraries with Java 9+, you may have some issues that you?ll have to work around.

mike.key

2019-02-21 22:13

has joined #general

anmalik

2019-02-22 02:42

has joined #general

fil.calcutt

2019-02-22 07:59

has joined #general

martin.green

2019-02-22 09:10

Hey @simon.nizov I'd still be interested to hear any tips or experiences you've had. Regardless of the languages used. :slightly_smiling_face:

oswald.quek

2019-02-22 09:15

awesome!

oswald.quek

2019-02-22 09:22

:+1: we're actually going to try upgrading from Java 8 -> 11 and skip everything in between! will see how we get on.

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-22 09:48

Hi @oswald.quek I?m also using JS on consumer side and to address item #1 from your list I?m just setting `state` field as a JSON array (following the format from pact spec v3: `[{ name: 'statename', params: { foo: 'bar', bar: 'buzz' }}]` which is then also stored as json array in a contract file. But, on a side of provider, I?m also using JS and a custom http endpoint for /pactStateSetupUrl. The payload I get to /pactStateSetupUrl is the same JSON array, I?ve provided in `state` during interaction definition on a provider side?

simon.nizov

2019-02-22 10:24

@martin.green I only just started honestly. A couple of months ago I presented Pact to the dev teams in our company and got a positive response. Since then I've been sort of forcing them to write any new unit tests of our api client classes using pact instead of VCR. This accumulated into a decent amount of interactions spread over 2 pacts between 3 services. Actually our front end team should have been the 3rd pact but they had some troubles integrating pact-js into their react+redux codebase (though they gave up after less than an hour due to more pressing issues). This week I finally published the pacts to our self hosted Pact Broker. The next step is to create an endpoint on each provider to setup the provider state.

wnek.piotr

2019-02-22 11:20

has joined #general

wnek.piotr

2019-02-22 11:25

Hello

wnek.piotr

2019-02-22 11:25

Is there a way to secure somehow pact-broker?

wnek.piotr

2019-02-22 11:26

I wonder, if I can to secure it using LDAP users

supraja.kr

2019-02-22 12:33

has joined #general

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-22 13:16

here is where the fun part starts, @simon.nizov :slightly_smiling_face:

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-02-22 14:08

Hi everybody. I?m looking for a way to get better test reports on a provider verification side. Currently, https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-provider-verifier supports only a patched rspec formatter (default option), json and RspecJunitFormatter. We?re using default formatter and when 1 interaction out of 50 fails the output contains all the interactions, which is not very convenient. I?d like to have an option to see only failed interactions. Any suggestions?

m.r.green

2019-02-22 23:31

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-02-23 02:25

New Pact JS release out see https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9VBGLUM9/p1550887377013200 for more

soap6gal

2019-02-24 11:53

has joined #general

m.r.green

2019-02-25 08:57

Really interesting to see your pipeline @oswald.quek. I assumed git branches would allow us to navigate around the circular dependency issues you mention, perhaps naively.

matt.fellows

2019-02-25 09:01

As a brief aside, whilst you can't _ignore_ certain consumers, you can do the opposite - list the ones you care about

matt.fellows

2019-02-25 09:01

Soon we'll have the ability to ignore the verification result if a new consumer (whilst still verifying it, providing feedback to the consumer). This should make things less disruptive to the provider team

m.r.green

2019-02-25 09:01

@matt.fellows any clue as to the work flow solutions you mention above? I?m doing a presentation to my company about Pact so be great hear any new features

matt.fellows

2019-02-25 09:03

I'll dig up the draft blog article that was to be published, that should give you an indication of what's to come

pravera

2019-02-25 14:31

hi! in our team we?re looking forward to implement pact nirvana

pravera

2019-02-25 14:32

i was reading the following article @bethskurrie wrote https://www.rea-group.com/blog/enter-the-pact-matrix-or-how-to-decouple-the-release-cycles-of-your-microservices/

pravera

2019-02-25 14:32

very interesting btw!

pravera

2019-02-25 14:34

In our consumer build, we will need to check if it?s compatible with the production version of our provider. So the question is: as we do with the head versions, do we need to trigger a provider (production) build if the pact changes? So we can pact:verify and fill the matrix row for that Consumer-Provider?

kajan.siva

2019-02-25 14:49

has joined #general

nigel.hannam

2019-02-25 17:17

Hi all. In the pact spec 3 (https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/tree/version-3), the concept of generators was introduced. The spec document states: ?In some cases, dates and times may need to be relative to the current date and time?, but as far as I can tell, the Date related generators always use today rather than allowing for example today+1 . We have a provider endpoint that must be given a date in the future (i.e. AFTER today), and the generator concept seemed like a suitable way to handle it. Am I missing something in the generators, or is there some other recommended way to handle dates relative to today?

mboudreau

2019-02-25 22:58

Currently, the consumer is the one dictating the contract, hence you wouldn't be able to test your production provider on your consumer locally. We aim to change this behavior in pact to make it a lot more collaborative so that both sides should be testable at all times

mboudreau

2019-02-25 22:59

In your data, how is the date transferred as? a ISO8601 string? a unix timestamp?

abubics

2019-02-26 01:15

> do we need to trigger a provider (production) build if the pact changes? Not a build, but a verify (especially for consumer changes). And there's a webhook to trigger such verify CI processes :slightly_smiling_face:

uglyog

2019-02-26 05:56

The idea was to allow different types of generators, but only ones that generate dates based on the current clock have been implemented. It should not be hard to implement what you need.

nboyd

2019-02-26 09:32

has joined #general

nigel.hannam

2019-02-26 09:39

dates are indeed ISO8601 strings. The other approaches we have considered (but don?t particularly like) are: 1) Using a date that?s a long way in the future 2) Using a TargetRequestFilter on the provider side to override the date in the pact 3) Using a provider state to configure a fixed clock on the provider side (effectively overriding what date is ?today?

nigel.hannam

2019-02-26 09:40

Is it possible for us to add our own generators, or do they need to be provided as part of the pact libraries?

damien.castelltort

2019-02-26 16:36

has joined #general

franckxcode

2019-02-26 16:39

has joined #general

smridula2845

2019-02-26 19:37

has joined #general

smridula2845

2019-02-26 19:52

Hi .. I am a newcomer to the contract testing world and I am noticing an issue with my consumer test run. All my matching rules are ignored and the test fails by trying to match the exact value. Details Posted in the thread.

smridula2845

2019-02-26 19:53

```WARN: Ignoring unsupported matching rules {"$.entitlements"=>{"matchers"=>[{"match"=>"type", "min"=>2}], "combine"=>"AND"}, "$.entitlements[*].entitlementStartDate"=>{"matchers"=>[{"match"=>"type"}], "combine"=>"AND"}, "$.entitlements[*].entitlementEndDate"=>{"matchers"=>[{"match"=>"type"}], "combine"=>"AND"}, "$.entitlements[*].parentFeatureId"=>{"matchers"=>[{"match"=>"type"}], "combine"=>"AND"}, "$.entitlements[*].featureId"=>{"matchers"=>[{"match"=>"type"}], "combine"=>"AND"}, "$.entitlements[*].featureName"=>{"matchers"=>[{"match"=>"type"}], "combine"=>"AND"}, "$.entitlements[*].featureType"=>{"matchers"=>[{"match"=>"type"}], "combine"=>"AND"}, "$.entitlements[*].entitlementType"=>{"matchers"=>[{"match"=>"type"}], "combine"=>"AND"}, "$.entitlements[*].userType"=>{"matchers"=>[{"match"=>"type"}], "combine"=>"AND"}, "$.entitlements[*].meteringType"=>{"matchers"=>[{"match"=>"type"}], "combine"=>"AND"}, "$.entitlements[*].active"=>{"matchers"=>[{"match"=>"type"}], "combine"=>"AND"}, "$.entitlements[*].source"=>{"matchers"=>[{"match"=>"type"}], "combine"=>"AND"}, "$.entitlements[*].orderOrigin"=>{"matchers"=>[{"match"=>"type"}], "combine"=>"AND"}} for path ['body']```

smridula2845

2019-02-26 19:53

Json in pact file

smridula2845

2019-02-26 19:53

```"body": { "entitlements": [ { "entitlementEndDate": "string", "meteringType": "string", "parentFeatureId": "string", "featureName": "string", "featureType": "string", "orderOrigin": "string", "active": true, "userType": "string", "source": "string", "entitlementType": "string", "featureId": "string", "entitlementStartDate": "string" }```

smridula2845

2019-02-26 19:56

npm error log

smridula2845

2019-02-26 19:56

```4 verbose stack Error: e2e@1.0.0 test:provider: `mocha test/provider.spec.js` 14 verbose stack Exit status 1 14 verbose stack at EventEmitter.<anonymous> (/Users/sasikum/.nvm/versions/node/v6.10.3/lib/node_modules/npm/lib/utils/lifecycle.js:255:16) 14 verbose stack at emitTwo (events.js:106:13) 14 verbose stack at EventEmitter.emit (events.js:191:7) 14 verbose stack at ChildProcess.<anonymous> (/Users/sasikum/.nvm/versions/node/v6.10.3/lib/node_modules/npm/lib/utils/spawn.js:40:14) 14 verbose stack at emitTwo (events.js:106:13) 14 verbose stack at ChildProcess.emit (events.js:191:7) 14 verbose stack at maybeClose (internal/child_process.js:886:16) 14 verbose stack at Process.ChildProcess._handle.onexit (internal/child_process.js:226:5) 15 verbose pkgid e2e@1.0.0 16 verbose cwd /Users/ssss/Automation/contract-tests 17 error Darwin 17.7.0 18 error argv "/Users/sss/.nvm/versions/node/v6.10.3/bin/node" "/Users/sss/.nvm/versions/node/v6.10.3/bin/npm" "run" "test:provider" 19 error node v6.10.3 20 error npm v3.10.10 21 error code ELIFECYCLE 22 error e2e@1.0.0 test:provider: `mocha test/provider.spec.js` 22 error Exit status 1 23 error Failed at the e2e@1.0.0 test:provider script 'mocha test/provider.spec.js'. 23 error Make sure you have the latest version of node.js and npm installed. 23 error If you do, this is most likely a problem with the e2e package, 23 error not with npm itself. 23 error Tell the author that this fails on your system: 23 error mocha test/provider.spec.js 23 error You can get information on how to open an issue for this project with: 23 error npm bugs e2e 23 error Or if that isn't available, you can get their info via: 23 error npm owner ls e2e 23 error There is likely additional logging output above. 24 verbose exit [ 1, true ] ```

sthan

2019-02-26 20:23

Hi. I am also new to contract testing and trying to create a POC for our http://ASP.NET WebApi application. I've been following the code example in your PactNet repo. I've been able to create working Consumer tests, but I'm having a bit of trouble creating the Provider test. We have a Global.asax.cs which starts the Provider application like this: public class WebApiApplication : System.Web.HttpApplication { protected void Application_Start() { Common.NetworkingHelper.ConfigHttpTlsLevel(); DependencyConfig.Configure(GlobalConfiguration.Configuration); WebApiConfig.Register(GlobalConfiguration.Configuration); FilterConfig.RegisterGlobalFilters(GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.Filters); RouteConfig.RegisterRoutes(RouteTable.Routes); GlobalConfiguration.Configuration.Formatters.Add(new System.Net.Http.Formatting.XmlMediaTypeFormatter()); } } But the example code in PactNet uses OWIN Hosting to start the application. I'm not sure how to reconcide the difference. Can you provide some helpful documentation that will help. An example code would also be very useful.

uglyog

2019-02-26 22:28

It was designed to allow generators to be looked up, but the only implementation at the moment uses a hard coded package. This just needs to be extended so you can supply your own. Which implementation are you using?

matt.fellows

2019-02-26 23:47

Thanks @smridula2845, could you please share your code? That will probably help us understand why the matching rules aren?t working

matt.fellows

2019-02-26 23:48

hiya! Might be best asking in the .NET channel. This looks more of support about .NET than Pact itself, but I?m not sure as I?m not familiar with that language

sthan

2019-02-26 23:53

Thanks. didn't realize there was a separate channel.

smridula2845

2019-02-26 23:57

https://github.com/mrid18/Pact

matt.fellows

2019-02-27 00:01

Js doesn?t support v3 of the pact specification (assume you?re using Pact JVM as the consumer?)

matt.fellows

2019-02-27 00:02

So it doesn?t support the `combine` matchers

mboudreau

2019-02-27 00:03

did you create the JSON by hand?

smridula2845

2019-02-27 00:14

no i didnt create the Json by hand. I wrote consumer side code

smridula2845

2019-02-27 00:15

```@Pact(provider = "lemService",consumer = "portal") public RequestResponsePact createPact(PactDslWithProvider builder) { PactDslJsonBody body = (PactDslJsonBody) new PactDslJsonBody() .minArrayLike("entitlements",2) //.object() // Throws exception .stringType("entitlementStartDate") .stringType("entitlementEndDate") .stringType("parentFeatureId") .stringType("featureId") .stringType("featureName") .stringType("featureType") .stringType("entitlementType") .stringType("userType") .stringType("meteringType") .booleanType("active") .stringType("source") .stringType("orderOrigin") .closeObject() //.closeObject() .closeArray(); return builder .given("valid oxygenId ") .uponReceiving("get entitlement call") .path("/service/lem/v2/admin/aaaaa/entitlements") .method("GET") .matchQuery("includeRelationships", "true") .matchQuery("source","pelican,legacy") .matchQuery("guid","201606300402219") .willRespondWith() .status(200) .body(body) .toPact(); } ````

smridula2845

2019-02-27 00:15

this is the gist of the code i had to create the pact

smridula2845

2019-02-27 00:16

is there an example of JVM V2 pact specification i can use ?

mboudreau

2019-02-27 00:17

isn't your consumer javascript? Why is the DSL written in java?

smridula2845

2019-02-27 00:22

our consumer is java based not JS

smridula2845

2019-02-27 00:24

should we move the provider tests also to Java ?

smridula2845

2019-02-27 00:25

what is the recommendation

matt.fellows

2019-02-27 00:27

is the provider written in java or JS? If it?s written in JS that?s totall yfine

matt.fellows

2019-02-27 00:27

so you have a Java consumer and a JS provider?

matt.fellows

2019-02-27 00:28

You are fine to use the Java DSL for your java consumer, but you need to ensure that Pact JVM is serialising the pacts in v2 specification

smridula2845

2019-02-27 00:28

yes ..

smridula2845

2019-02-27 00:28

How do i serialise to v2 ?

matt.fellows

2019-02-27 00:29

see https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm#supported-jdk-and-specification-versions

matt.fellows

2019-02-27 00:29

You?ll need to use the 2.4.x version of Pact

smridula2845

2019-02-27 00:30

Thank you. I will change the version and get back .

smridula2845

2019-02-27 00:30

Thank you for spending time !

nigel.hannam

2019-02-27 12:13

Currently using a mixture of pact-js and pact-jvm for consumer side, and pact-jvm (spring) for provider side. If this were to be extended so that we could provide our own generators, would both the consumer and provider side need an implementation? It would add overhead if it needed to be implemented for all types of consumer, and it kinda seems like the consumer side only needs to allow the generator to be specified without necessarily needing to use an implementation of it

sgleadow

2019-02-27 21:47

I saw Pact mentioned in a Nordic APIs article this morning :slightly_smiling_face:, for websockets no less, I haven't tried it in that scenario https://nordicapis.com/functional-contract-testing-a-case-study/

matt.fellows

2019-02-27 22:43

It?s awesome to see this sort of blog, but if I?m honest, I?m not sure the message conveyed in it is very clear. Perhaps it?s a non-native English speaker/writer, but a lot of it didn?t make sense to me, so I?m sure it woudn?t make sense to others. I need to watch the video, i?m guessing the article is a summary of the video which perhaps hasn?t done a great job of distilling the key points.

bethskurrie

2019-02-27 22:44

@oswald.quek I've just been working on the "can't 'deploy the provider because the consumer isn't deployed to the environment' circular issue.

bethskurrie

2019-02-27 22:44

It should be fixed soon.

brendon.flanagan

2019-02-27 23:01

has joined #general

uglyog

2019-02-27 23:15

Pact-js only supports spec V2. Generators are V3. Generators can be applied to both the request and response. If you only care about applying them to the response, then what you have said is correct.

uglyog

2019-02-27 23:16

I'll have some time this weekend, I'll look to add the expression to them in pact-jvm

shekharsp27

2019-02-28 06:26

As per my understanding, the concept of PACT has been used to implement contract testing using 'Erlang'. And there is no use of PACT to implement contract testing. Please correct me if I am missing something here.

matt.fellows

2019-02-28 06:31

you may well be right

matt.fellows

2019-02-28 06:32

Perhaps that?s why it didn?t make sense to me, but I suspect otherwise

brendon.flanagan

2019-02-28 07:20

Hi there, does anyone who knows what Datapower is (IBM gateway devices), if you?ve successfully implemented a solution using Pact ? I?d be interested to know as I?m in the process of understanding pact now and from what I can tell thus far is that it?s currently not possible. Even though datapower runs nodejs under the covers, it?s not the complete implementation and you just can?t go installing node modules onto it and issue node commands. I think I might have a way to achieve this using datapower still but interested to know if anyone else has struck this.

punarjit.singh

2019-02-28 08:38

has joined #general

mboudreau

2019-02-28 09:07

Instead of using the node package, you could always just use the base Ruby binaries instead for all your pact testing

nigel.hannam

2019-02-28 09:10

:+1:

nigel.hannam

2019-02-28 09:11

Do we know if/when pact-js is likely to support V3?

matt.fellows

2019-02-28 10:51

I know of datapower (came across it working at Bank)

matt.fellows

2019-02-28 10:52

are you looking at it from a consumer/provider perspective?

matt.fellows

2019-02-28 10:53

As Michel said, even if you can?t run the unit tests integraated into Datapower, you can still write both consumer and provider tests and execute it remotely (via a ruby CLI toolo)

oswald.quek

2019-02-28 13:34

nice. let me know when there's a new version of the pact broker!

uglyog

2019-02-28 21:09

Depends on when someone implements it, probably in ruby. There is no plan that I?m aware of

me1

2019-02-28 22:50

has joined #general

punarjit.singh

2019-03-01 03:07

Hi there... how are we supposed to pass request parameters in Pact Verifier ? are there any opts or do we need to use requestFilters... ?

bethskurrie

2019-03-01 03:09

Hi @punarjit.singh. Welcome to the pact slack group. Please ask your question in the channel for the relevant language.

punarjit.singh

2019-03-01 03:09

Hi @bethskurrie sure... will join the channels .. thanks

brendon.flanagan

2019-03-01 06:12

Looking at it from a consumer perspective first. Didn?t know about ruby cli toolo so will look into that.

matt.fellows

2019-03-01 06:25

See https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service/blob/master/script/example.sh

matt.fellows

2019-03-01 06:25

That?s a very crude summary of what the wrapper libraries do

brendon.flanagan

2019-03-01 06:37

Not quite sure how datapower fits in here just yet. The train of thought I am having was a client tool that kicks off the tests under a pact control, the actual client request message goes to the datapower service, that service does xyz and sends to the provider endpoint which would be back to the pact client tool, which will validate against the pact file pulled from the pact broker (local to start off with) send back the pact response all the way back though the datapower service, thus confirming the success or failure against the pact. Note still yet to fully understand what pact does, but I think I?m close. This also means nothing extra has to be deployed with the service on datapower. As we already alias out our endpoints so in a lab environment, the endpoint would be to pact thing and not a real provider which typically doesn?t exist in a lab setup.

matt.fellows

2019-03-01 06:59

As data power is a bit of a proxy like service, it's worth reading https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/provider#only-stub-layers-beneath-where-contents-of-the-request-body-are-extracted

matt.fellows

2019-03-01 07:00

TL;DR You only want to test 2 layers at a time in a contract test.

lextiz

2019-03-01 09:15

has joined #general

kristoffer.bakkejord

2019-03-01 13:40

has joined #general

pltran875

2019-03-01 18:28

has joined #general

thirumal.net

2019-03-01 19:14

Hi All, we did poc on pact and it is going to work well in our system but unfortunately my dev teams are not ready to adopt it due to project dead lines ..etc so i am wondering is there any way i can do contract testing with out touching production code base. i know it defeats the purpose of pact if we are not writing unit test cases in production code but i am wondering is there any tool/approach i can use to get the same flavour of contract testing. i am from QA team and did poc on pact and understood the value of it . i would like to use the power of pact broker but dont have access to write unit test cases in production so searching for alternatives which will follow similar pact steps Thanks in advance

matt.fellows

2019-03-01 19:59

Is this for the consumer side, provider side or both?

thirumal.net

2019-03-01 22:39

Hi @matt.fellows - Thank you for looking into query, actually it is for both . i am still pushing hard to implement pact at least from one side(consumer or provider) to show the value of it , but not sure whether i will succeed or not . please guide me if there is any alternative if we implement one side(consumer or provider) vs not implementing both sides

mboudreau

2019-03-02 00:37

It's easy to start on the consumer side as the consumer often already needs a mock of some kind for testing, pact gives the added benefit of generating contracts based on those mocks which can be used to test the producer, but really soonest have to straight away

mboudreau

2019-03-02 00:38

On the producer side, you can do the same thing by creating a contract by hand or with a tool to test what's expected front the consumer

saiarunlak

2019-03-02 13:52

has joined #general

uglyog

2019-03-03 02:41

I've updated to Pact-JVM generators to be loaded from a configured package, so you should be able to add your own. I did not get enough time to add the expressions yet.

ngrigoriev

2019-03-03 20:16

has joined #general

sven

2019-03-03 22:28

has joined #general

nigel.hannam

2019-03-04 09:48

Thanks for looking at this. Unfortunately, without support for the generators in pact-js we can?t use them for our biggest consumer, so we will probably have to stick with one of existing workrounds for now

oswald.quek

2019-03-04 11:18

@uglyog is getting pact to work with Java 11 on your radar for the future? i guess with Java 8 and 9 not being supported many teams will be looking to upgrade

thirumal.net

2019-03-04 18:45

@mboudreau - Thank you for your response. how can i start from consumer side ,you mean to say create the json file(Contract ) from pact libraries or create json file(contract ) from any third party tools ? my scenario is i have swagger/API Blurprint , wondering how can i create contract file out of it so that i can publish the file to pact broker

bhoyt

2019-03-04 18:48

has joined #general

mboudreau

2019-03-04 21:16

Atlassian built a tool for that https://bitbucket.org/atlassian/swagger-mock-validator

yousafn

2019-03-04 21:16

You don?t need your actual consumer to exist to create a consumer test. You look at your swagger api, define a test ( what you expect to receive which might not be everything the response returns), register this interaction in your mock pact provider. Create the test in your unit test language of choice and run it. It creates a pact contract which you can publish to the broker

yousafn

2019-03-04 21:17

You can then use the tool suggested above to validate the pact contract is valid when compared to the swagger spec

yousafn

2019-03-04 21:19

I am using it to prove the case you are talking about, my provider still isn?t ready 5 months on. I wrote a blog post about it recently using swagger and pact https://you54f.wordpress.com/2019/02/19/protecting-your-api-development-workflows-with-swagger-openapi-pact-io/

thirumal.net

2019-03-04 21:39

@yousafn - Thank you very much for your help on this scenario . i will go through your blog and let you know if i have any questions. Thank you again for your help

yousafn

2019-03-04 23:36

Btw you can?t create pact contracts from a swagger api specification. It lists the operations a service can provide but doesn?t convey the expectations of a consumer, and you can?t infer those automatically. You can still use it as a testing tool even if you aren?t using as part of your development flow, but it offers many dev flow benefits. If only one side implements it, it can still protect you, to can run it against each new release of your dependencies or dependants, and see if the contract still holds water, if not sound the alarm bells. The pact broker still works well in that instance. I will implement the providers tests in my pipeline list against their developed service, the provider for me doesn?t really need to do anything, as long as I have agreed some test cases that have some defined data I can use.

yousafn

2019-03-04 23:37

But api development is much better with collaboration so get them all to feel the pact :heart:

thirumal.net

2019-03-04 23:46

@yousafn - Thank you, Yes, we can't create pact files from swagger specification . initially i was under impression that there might be tool available to convert swagger to pact contract but i don't think we can do that right now. between i like the idea of running one unit test project in isolated environment and generate pact file from expected request/expected response from consumer side . only thing missing here is we are not syncing with production code base and depending on some documentation

mboudreau

2019-03-05 00:02

@thirumal.net you wouldn't want to do that anyways since it would make pact useless if all it does is imitate swagger definitions since it doesn't actually precisely show the interactions between the consumer and the provider

mboudreau

2019-03-05 00:02

however, I feel like there's an opportunity to make it a bit easier to generate the pact contracts from a swagger definition file

brendon.flanagan

2019-03-05 09:51

Been doing some more reading and I'm pretty confident I think I know how I can make this work with Datapower involved to ensure the datapower service is doing what is expected where transformation is invovled, or is not altering what is expected where the service is a proxy. But theres one thing I don't fully understand. So as I understand, the consumer is the one that generates the pact file, which obviously can be shared with the provider, nominally via a pact broker. This is thus the contract. Meaning the provider is free to do what they want with their code, so long as it still passes against the published contract. Now what I don't understand is, if the consumer makes a change to their app, thus a new pact file is generated, with part of that change being what is expected by the provider, means, that once published to the broker, will break the provider. Meaning the consumer has now gone and dictated that the provider has to change ? So to me, the consumer controls the contract outright. Whereas I originally had thought that the consumer would also pull the pact file from the broker to validate against, just like the provider would. Does that sound right ? have I missed something (this being based on what I've read several times over where consumer generates and publishes a pact file to a broker, and where the provider pulls from the broker to validate against) ?

mboudreau

2019-03-05 10:09

That's correct, but only if the provider is testing on the latest contract all the time. The way we recommend you do it is that you tag your contacts based on the environment or the feature your working on, which is then tested based on the tag on the provider side

mboudreau

2019-03-05 10:11

For instance, you should test to make sure whatever you're changing to your provider needs to pass the "production" contract (what's currently deployed), but if you're working on a new feature and the contract is already created from the consumer but hasn't been deployed yet, you can test it based on the same tag

mboudreau

2019-03-05 10:11

Does that make sense?

khaled.hamlaoui

2019-03-05 12:22

has joined #general

thirumal.net

2019-03-05 21:47

@mboudreau -Thank you for your reply but i am still wondering how it is possible to generate pact file from swagger definition so that i can push the same pact file(json) to pact broker ? my assumption is , we can generate pact file from test project with the help of pact library so that it exactly looks like pact flow except calling real production code base . if there is already tool avilable to convert swagger file to pact file then i think no need to create test project to generate pact file . is my assumption correct ? Thank you in advance

matt.fellows

2019-03-05 22:22

See https://docs.pact.io/faq#can-i-generate-my-pact-file-from-something-like-swagger for the ?create pact from swagger?

matt.fellows

2019-03-05 22:22

this can?t be done

matt.fellows

2019-03-05 22:23

But we are exploring how we integrate swagger into the broker. If that?s of interest to you perhaps we can talk about that

yousafn

2019-03-06 01:13

That sounds like a great idea, as they compliment each other well. My 2p :) I think if you can allow the upload of a swagger api definition registered as a provider, each client that register that they use that api definition. On publish of a swagger file, you can run ?swagger-cli validate? to ensure the swagger is valid. On publish of a client pact contract, it can evaluated against the swagger spec with swagger-mock-validator On new publish of a swagger definition, it could be checked against existing contracts, and mark consumer versions as compatible, or provide a matrix of compatible consumer versions.

matt.fellows

2019-03-06 03:08

Your two cents are? very compatible with our thinking :smile:

asad

2019-03-06 12:23

has joined #general

steve.perkins

2019-03-06 15:46

has joined #general

krzysztof.stepniak

2019-03-07 10:30

has joined #general

stefan.deussen

2019-03-07 12:04

has joined #general

stefan.deussen

2019-03-07 12:22

Hello everybody! I was wondering what the best strategy for writing the tests on the provider side is. Currently we are mocking on the service layer. This makes the tests very robust and easy to write. One the other hand there is no guarantee, that the real implementation is returning the same response as the mock implementation. So what would you recommend? Mocking as much as possible to get small and robust tests or mocking as little as possible to have more confidence on the tests?

keetron

2019-03-07 12:31

mock as much as possible, you are testing the API, not the service behavior

aidamanna

2019-03-07 14:36

has joined #general

phil.a.herbert

2019-03-07 15:57

has joined #general

timepasstimepass1234

2019-03-08 12:33

has joined #general

timepasstimepass1234

2019-03-08 12:45

I am new to Java and to PACT I am getting an error while writing the provider test for an API 0) return BIOS Details returns a response which has a matching body comparison -> Expected a response type of 'application/json' but the actual type was 'text/plain' Verifying a pact between BiosProOnLoad_consumer and BiosProOnLoad_provider Given BIOS OnLoad return BIOS Details MockHttpServletRequest: HTTP Method = GET Request URI = /rest/v1/biospro/onload/component/1234 Parameters = {} Headers = {cid=[2], Accept=[application/json], } Body = <no character encoding set> Session Attrs = {} Async: Async started = true Async result = <200 OK,{"BIOS_Settings": "BIOS_Settings","duration" : 3},{}> Resolved Exception: Type = null ModelAndView: View name = null View = null Model = null FlashMap: Attributes = null MockHttpServletResponse: Status = 200 Error message = null Headers = {} Content type = null Body = Forwarded URL = null Redirected URL = null Cookies = [] [DEBUG] [main 08 Mar 2019 15:53:50] (IndyInterface.java:selectMethod:232) Received response: 200 [DEBUG] [main 08 Mar 2019 15:53:50] (IndyInterface.java:selectMethod:232) Response: [statusCode:200, headers:[:], contentType:application/json; charset=UTF-8, data:] returns a response which has status code 200 (OK) has a matching body (FAILED) Failures: 0) return BIOS Details returns a response which has a matching body comparison -> Expected a response type of 'application/json' but the actual type was 'text/plain'

timepasstimepass1234

2019-03-08 12:48

Can someone help me understand why this may be happening? I have sent the response headers for pact as application/json but it does not show up in pact file..Is that the problem?

timepasstimepass1234

2019-03-08 12:49

Or is it because the response body is null?

hamzahuk

2019-03-09 10:34

has joined #general

timepasstimepass1234

2019-03-10 19:55

My controller call is returning result in DeferredResult format. MockMvcTarget returns the result without waiting for async process. How to async option to pact through PactDslWithProvider builder in java?

matt.fellows

2019-03-10 21:29

The error message is pretty clear there, it was expecting json but didn't get it. Perhaps you could come share more of your code. The headers map looks empty too

matt.fellows

2019-03-10 21:29

Might want to ask in the #pact-jvm channel

thomas.koppensteiner

2019-03-11 14:57

has joined #general

luca.ippolito

2019-03-12 08:27

has joined #general

luca.ippolito

2019-03-12 08:50

Hi there! I've got a question regarding the execution order of provider states, couldn't find anything elsewhere about this. So, let's assume in a contract are the following states configured for a testcase: "providerStates": [ { "name": "service has student", "params": { "id": 1, "firstName": "John", "lastName": "Doe" } }, { "name": "student has grade", "params": { "subject": "Mathematics", "grade": "A" } } ] The expected result by the consumer for this testcase would be "student": { "id": 2, "firstName": "John", "lastName": "Doe", "grades": [ { "subject": "Mathematics", "grade": "A" } ] } When executing this testcase as a provider, I noticed that the execution order of the provider states is reversed, so instead of executing the provider states in this order on the provider side: 1. service has student 2. student has grade The states are getting executed like this: 1. student has grade 2. service has student Can anyone explain me, why the execution order is inverted? Because of that, on the provider side we are implementing something like a "reverse builder pattern" to setup the object that needs to be returned. What would be a better approach on this? I know, a possible answer would be "just use one provider state instead", but I would like to allow multiple consumers to use the same states and they should be able to create their own expected result value, so my key requirement is the usage of multiple paramterized states. Another possible solution would be to tell the consumer that he should invert the order of the provider states on his side, but that does not make that much sense to me. I think, it is more logical to set the provider states like this: .given("service has student", studentParameters).given("student has grade", gradeParameters) instead of setting the states up like this: .given("student has grade", gradeParameters).given("service has student", studentParameters) Thanks in advance for your feedback!

bethskurrie

2019-03-12 09:02

Hi Luca. You'll need to ask in the channel for your language

bethskurrie

2019-03-12 09:03

I would have expected them to be called in the other they were defined.

bethskurrie

2019-03-12 09:03

Petty sure the Ruby impl does, so I'm guessing you have a jvm implementation.

ghandour.jihad

2019-03-12 09:30

has joined #general

mestrez.matthieu

2019-03-12 09:42

has joined #general

luca.ippolito

2019-03-12 09:51

Hi Beth, thanks for your response. I'm using java, so #pact-jvm would be correct than?

matt.fellows

2019-03-12 10:10

yep

matt.fellows

2019-03-12 10:10

Is it always returning it that way, or just often? Might be implement as an unordered type under the hood

bethskurrie

2019-03-12 10:27

That would surprise me.

matt.fellows

2019-03-12 10:36

Indeed, I?m probably going into bug finding mode here

luca.ippolito

2019-03-12 11:56

It looks consistent to me, as far as i can tell. An interaction with the following provider states configured: "providerStates": [ { "name": "stateOrderExample", "params": { "order": "1" } }, { "name": "stateOrderExample", "params": { "order": "2" } }, { "name": "stateOrderExample", "params": { "order": "3" } }, { "name": "stateOrderExample", "params": { "order": "4" } }, { "name": "stateOrderExample", "params": { "order": "5" } } ] While the corresponding method in the provider implementation looks like this: @State("stateOrderExample") public void stateOrderExample(final Map<String, Object> params) { log.debug((String) params.get("order")); } Returns this consistently: 2019-03-12 12:52:57.450 DEBUG traceId= spanId= parentSpanId= reqId= clientId= [c.s.b.d.s.p.ProviderTest] (main) 5 2019-03-12 12:52:57.450 DEBUG traceId= spanId= parentSpanId= reqId= clientId= [c.s.b.d.s.p.ProviderTest] (main) 4 2019-03-12 12:52:57.450 DEBUG traceId= spanId= parentSpanId= reqId= clientId= [c.s.b.d.s.p.ProviderTest] (main) 3 2019-03-12 12:52:57.450 DEBUG traceId= spanId= parentSpanId= reqId= clientId= [c.s.b.d.s.p.ProviderTest] (main) 2 2019-03-12 12:52:57.450 DEBUG traceId= spanId= parentSpanId= reqId= clientId= [c.s.b.d.s.p.ProviderTest] (main) 1 I am using the following dependencies by the way: <dependency> <groupId>au.com.dius</groupId> <artifactId>pact-jvm-provider-junit_2.12</artifactId> <version>3.6.2</version> <scope>test</scope> </dependency> <dependency> <groupId>au.com.dius</groupId> <artifactId>pact-jvm-provider-spring_2.12</artifactId> <version>3.6.2</version> <scope>test</scope> </dependency> <dependency> <groupId>com.swisscom.cdc.pact</groupId> <artifactId>pact-jvm-provider-junit-spring-boot</artifactId> <version>3.6.0-rc.0.0</version> <scope>test</scope> </dependency>

aditya_pradeepkumar

2019-03-12 15:25

has joined #general

lauren.borodajko

2019-03-12 15:41

has joined #general

timepasstimepass1234

2019-03-12 19:20

Hi Matt Thanks for your reply.. My controller looks something like this DeferredResult<ResponseEntity<?>> deferredResult = new DeferredResult<>(deferredResultTimeout); CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> { try { return new ResponseEntity<String>(<some function call>), HttpStatus.OK); } catch (Exception exception) { return restResponseException.parse(exception);} }) .whenCompleteAsync((result, throwable) -> deferredResult.setResult(result)); return deferredResult; This Async call is what is failing the provider test for me... When I remove the async call and make the function call directly in controller Provider test will pass If you look at the response the body we are expecting is in asyncResult at the top..Is there a way to tell provider to assert/verify on asyncResult and not body OR bring the asyncResult into body

arian.maykon

2019-03-13 03:41

has joined #general

msc.consults

2019-03-13 09:31

Hi, I've been looking at writing a contract test that asserts a response when the provider service is unavailable. It ran on the provider side and failed as the service was in-fact up and running. Thinking about this, it doesn't feel like a valid test, as... when the service is unavailable, a `HTTP STATUS 503` is returned, therefore why would I need a contract test for this? I'm deciding to remove this test, however what were your thoughts on this?

matt.fellows

2019-03-13 09:34

I typically don't test 503s, because by definition they tend to be hard to produce in an actively deployed mode

matt.fellows

2019-03-13 09:34

I'm also keen to hear others thoughts

msc.consults

2019-03-13 10:05

I also have another thought *(up for debate)* if a consumer is planning to add restrictions to their service to ensure (let say a bad `POST` request cannot be made to the provider), is there still any value in a contract test being in place that exercises an invalid schema scenario?

abubics

2019-03-13 10:16

You really want to test the intended interactions that your API client exposes, that get marshalled/unmarshalled from/to domain entities. That's the highest value stuff. If you have other expected failures (e.g. re-deleting the same ID accidentally), they're lower value, but worth testing if you have had some real bugs that you want not to regress. Things like 503s may make sense for another kind of testing, not so much contact testing :)

abubics

2019-03-13 10:17

To your question, if you have an API client that doesn't let you send the wrong thing, then I wouldn't worry about forcing unhappy path tests.

oswald.quek

2019-03-13 10:28

hello, am needing some help on the pact broker! some slightly pressing questions. i posted in #pact-broker but didn't get a response. It's a bit of a bottleneck in our deployment pipeline as I think there is too much data in its database. I'm seeing the database used by the pact broker hitting 100% frequently. 1) i'm not sure how to tell which version of the pact broker I have - is there a way to do this? 2) will upgrading to version 2.18.0 help? i see from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md#v2180-2018-04-05 there is a feature to "add rake task to clean unused data to improve performance". that said v2.18.0 was released 2018/04/05 and that's approximately when the pact broker became a thing in our pipeline 3) is there an endpoint on the pact broker to delete old data?

oswald.quek

2019-03-13 10:34

@bethskurrie?

mboudreau

2019-03-13 11:03

if the pact broker DB is hitting 100%, there must be an issue with that DB. Is it out of storage? Memory? I mean, unless it's getting hit constantly by the broker, I don't see how this is possible

mboudreau

2019-03-13 11:03

and if it is being hit constantly, then are you getting DDoS'ed?

oswald.quek

2019-03-13 11:13

yes i guess we can upgrade the CPU. but we upgraded it just last week and i want to make sure it isn't anything to do with exponential pact verifications between services

oswald.quek

2019-03-13 11:13

no we aren't getting DDoS'ed

oswald.quek

2019-03-13 11:17

it's preferable to delete data. it's inconceivable we are going to have to deploy months-old versions of our services - we don't need those verifications anymore

msc.consults

2019-03-13 11:19

thanks @matt.fellows @abubics for both of your inputs

davidjgmendes

2019-03-13 11:38

has joined #general

mboudreau

2019-03-13 12:00

I mean, it could be. I haven't played around enough with the broker to know what it's doing behind the scene, just trying to think about it from the DB perspective

mboudreau

2019-03-13 12:01

I mean, if you were to go into the admin for the DB, it would become clear easily enough as to why it's hitting 100%

ghandour.jihad

2019-03-13 12:35

Hello Everyone :slightly_smiling_face: I am new to the PACT world and trying to explore it, looking great sofar :slightly_smiling_face:. I am trying to have a pact that expects as a return "body": [ { "firstName": "Emma", "familyName": "Smith" }, { "firstName": "Marc", "familyName": "Johnson" } ] The provider does return this body, but at times Marc would be before Emma. How can I for java ignore the order? https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/matching is Ruby DSL, and can't find the java version. Any help is very appreciated.

alisdaircole

2019-03-13 16:29

has joined #general

yousafn

2019-03-13 16:59

surely the ordering isn?t important if it can change request by request? In that case shouldn?t you just be checking that you get an array of objects with two key/value pairs, of which the value is a string? I assume if the ordering is important (ie you need it alphabetical order) you either get the provider to ensure that the endpoint is deterministic or your consumer takes the response and sorts it before doing something with it

pkuang

2019-03-13 19:41

Hi, does the pact verifier not automatically uncompress responses from the provider if it includes a 'content-encoding: gzip' header?

yousafn

2019-03-13 19:54

Here is our broker at work, there are 4 consumers and 2 providers, over a 30 minute period. it is very similar across a 3 month range.

yousafn

2019-03-13 19:55

It is a postgres instance exclusively for the pact-broker. Is your DB only for the broker?

bethskurrie

2019-03-13 20:45

@oswald.quek I would advise upgrading as there were some major improvements done to optimise the matrix queries.

bethskurrie

2019-03-13 20:45

It may well be responsible for the high usage you're seeing.

bethskurrie

2019-03-13 20:47

There is a clean task, but it is not currently working. The main problem when I was writing it is, knowing which data is safe to clean is dependent on how each company uses their broker (eg tags, verifications etc)

bethskurrie

2019-03-13 20:49

@oswald.quek you can see which version of the broker you have by looking at the response headers - there is an X-Pact-Broker-Version header.

abubics

2019-03-13 21:36

Pact isn't so much for checking specific content, but more for verifying content shape. If there's a material significance to the order, I'd suggest making that more apparent on the interface, or asserting it in unit tests on the provider side :) To ensure the content shape (in a Pact idiomatic way), use `eachLike` :ok_hand:

abubics

2019-03-13 21:37

Also, if you have JVM-specific questions, you can take them to #pact-jvm for better help ^^

mboudreau

2019-03-13 22:20

that's a good question...

matt.fellows

2019-03-13 22:42

I recall this coming up in a discussion somewhere on github (perhaps the pact specification repository) or pact js

matt.fellows

2019-03-13 22:43

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/93

ghandour.jihad

2019-03-14 08:37

thanks a lot guys!!!

ghandour.jihad

2019-03-14 11:03

I will continue this thread here, then any other jvm question will send it on the other channel :slightly_smiling_face: I tried to use eachLike, but it looks like it works only for children of a specific parent with name. My object: { "firstName": "Emma", "familyName": "Smith" } Is not the child of anything, so any use of eachLike(name , ...) will result in adding a parent to the object :confused: .willRespondWith() .body(new PactDslJsonBody() .eachLike(2) .stringType("firstName", "Emma") .stringType("familyName", "Smith") it didn't work, and when I use .eachLike("Any name",2) which is a supported form, I will have Any name the parent of my object :confused:

oswald.quek

2019-03-14 13:58

cool thanks. yeah our version is quite recent - 2.27.6. we've managed to resolve our issues by deleting data older than a certain date in the database.

pkuang

2019-03-14 14:47

Thanks, I saw the issue but was hoping support had been implemented since then but I guess not. I can understand the reasoning behind it though.

matt.fellows

2019-03-14 20:47

:+1:

abubics

2019-03-14 23:37

are you using Java or Kotlin? this DSL is very hard for me to read :stuck_out_tongue: I have examples of nicer object blocking with Kotlin in #pact-jvm

abubics

2019-03-14 23:40

e.g. https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9UN99H24/p1533184907000125?thread_ts=1533148601.000489&cid=C9UN99H24

abubics

2019-03-14 23:42

Aside from that, I'm not familiar with any `eachLike` or `minArrayLIke` that lets you specify multiple entities with different content.

abubics

2019-03-14 23:43

So, back to my original point, it's not really for verifying content. What is the interaction you're trying to test?

abubics

2019-03-14 23:44

maybe you want `minArrayLike` :slightly_smiling_face:

abubics

2019-03-14 23:44

it's listed with `eachLike` in the docs here: https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/pact-jvm-consumer

priyasilverback

2019-03-15 00:47

has joined #general

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-03-15 08:11

Hi everybody. What is the biggest argument against using pact for browser acceptance tests of a frontend application (in order to replace a real API server with pact mockserver)?

bethskurrie

2019-03-15 08:21

Maintainability of the provider verifications.

bethskurrie

2019-03-15 08:23

https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/consumer#use-pact-for-isolated-unit-tests

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-03-15 08:34

thanks! But we still need to have some kind of mocking of our API when we run browser tests for our front-ends. Any suggestions?

bethskurrie

2019-03-15 08:36

You can use the pact file to start up a mock server locally.

bethskurrie

2019-03-15 08:36

Stub server rather

bethskurrie

2019-03-15 08:36

It's a pretty dumb stub though.

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-03-15 08:37

ok, but in this case I need to make sure that my contract still contains all the interactions that I need for my tests to run.

bethskurrie

2019-03-15 08:37

Yes.

bethskurrie

2019-03-15 08:37

It's not ideal.

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-03-15 08:38

so, it is basically the same as using pact mockserver when running browser test for the frontend, except that I don?t need to explicitly define pact interactions in test cases.

bethskurrie

2019-03-15 08:38

Yes.

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-03-15 08:38

thanks for your answers!

bethskurrie

2019-03-15 08:39

It helps control the number of interactions, because you'll see more clearly if you start adding duplicate pact unit tests.

bethskurrie

2019-03-15 08:40

It's a bit easier to get carried away with a bajillion slightly different combinations if you're defining your interactions for your UI tests directly.

oswald.quek

2019-03-15 09:45

if anyone's interested, we've had the pact broker for nearly a year now and there were 10 million rows in the view `matrix`

oswald.quek

2019-03-15 09:45

we deleted 7 million rows

bethskurrie

2019-03-15 09:46

Impressive! No wonder your database was struggling!

sergiy

2019-03-15 10:48

has joined #general

james.carman

2019-03-15 10:52

Our fronted developers are using cypress for mocking/stubbing out backend services I believe.

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-03-15 10:53

well, cypress is not a tool we want to use.

james.carman

2019-03-15 10:54

Fair enough.

james.carman

2019-03-15 10:57

I definitely wouldn?t consider pact to be the right choice for functionality testing browser JS code. You certainly would want to have a pact test.

james.carman

2019-03-15 10:58

There has to be a better stubbing tool, though. I?m not a JS guy, so I don?t know the landscape well, though.

bethskurrie

2019-03-15 10:59

Yeah, I'm in the same boat.

james.carman

2019-03-15 11:01

Cypress is what I?ve heard our folks talk about, but it?s JS, so there have to be a bajillion options.

sergiy

2019-03-15 11:38

:wave: hi all, just a :heavy_plus_sign: to cypress, we've also started to use it in combination with PACT in our project. `@pact-foundation/pact-web` and `@pact-foundation/pact-node` good written JS libraries. For mocking on consumer side, even without cypress, use - `@pact-foundation/pact-node` or for non-Node environments - `@pact-foundation/pact-web`. You can read more here - https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js#consumer-side-testing

adb

2019-03-15 12:19

has joined #general

adb

2019-03-15 12:42

Hello ladies and gentlemen. I'm trying to run consumer unit test against pact-mock-service docker image in .NET. So I started container and tried to run consumer tests from https://github.com/tdshipley/pact-workshop-dotnet-core-v1#step-332---completing-your-first-consumer-test. But with no luck: ``` [Test Class Cleanup Failure (tests.ConsumerPactTests)]: PactNet.PactFailureException : {"message":"Error ocurred in mock service: JSON::ParserError - 765: unexpected token at ''","backtrace":["/usr/local/lib/ruby/2.5.0/json/common.rb:156:in `parse'","/usr/local/lib/ruby/2.5.0/json/common.rb:156:in `parse'","/usr/local/bundle/gems/pact-mock_service-2.1.0/lib/pact/mock_service/request_handlers/pact_post.rb:27:in `respond'","/usr/local/bundle/gems/pact-mock_service-2.1.0/lib/pact/mock_service/request_handlers/base_request_handler.rb:17:in `call'","/usr/local/bundle/gems/rack-2.0.3/lib/rack/cascade.rb:33:in `block in call'","/usr/local/bundle/gems/rack-2.0.3/lib/rack/cascade.rb:24:in `each'","/usr/local/bundle/gems/rack-2.0.3/lib/rack/cascade.rb:24:in `call'","/usr/local/bundle/gems/pact-mock_service-2.1.0/lib/pact/consumer/mock_service/cors_origin_header_middleware.rb:11:in `call'","/usr/local/bundle/gems/pact-mock_service-2.1.0/lib/pact/consumer/mock_service/error_handler.rb:13:in `call'","/usr/local/bundle/gems/pact-mock_service-2.1.0/lib/pact/mock_service/app.rb:32:in `call'","/usr/local/bundle/gems/pact-mock_service-2.1.0/lib/pact/consumer/mock_service/set_location.rb:14:in `call'","/usr/local/bundle/gems/rack-2.0.3/lib/rack/handler/webrick.rb:86:in `service'","/usr/local/bundle/gems/webrick-1.3.1/lib/webrick/httpserver.rb:138:in `service'","/usr/local/bundle/gems/webrick-1.3.1/lib/webrick/httpserver.rb:94:in `run'","/usr/local/bundle/gems/webrick-1.3.1/lib/webrick/server.rb:191:in `block in start_thread'"]} ``` Even most simple tests fails with this ParserError. There is no error when running tests without docker. Any ideas?

8surajsingh9

2019-03-15 12:58

has joined #general

ghandour.jihad

2019-03-15 13:26

it was solved by PactDslJsonArray and value.object().stringType. Thanks in all cases Boris!

pkuang

2019-03-15 17:18

Hi, can someone provide more details on this workflow: https://gist.github.com/bethesque/43eef1bf47afea4445c8b8bdebf28df0 I have consumer -provider chains that I'm having trouble finding a good way to stub out the rest of the chain while ensuring the "stub" is valid. I explored option #2 but came to the same conclusion as the first comment on the gist where this would cause coupling of tests and the necessity of loose matching requests doesn't seem appealing. Is there an example of option #1 that shows how the "linking" that verifies the stub would be implemented?

kapoor84pu

2019-03-16 20:07

has joined #general

simon.nizov

2019-03-17 10:39

Any tips for DRYing up complex provider state setup when using spec V2? Some ideas I had: 1) Using commas in the state description and splitting by comma in the provider state setup. For example the provider state `"User with email X exists, Post with id Y exists"` would be parsed to `["User with email X exists", "Post with id Y exists"]`. 2) Faking a V3 pact by passing JSON inside the string and parsing it. For example passing the following provider state: `"\[\"User with email X exists\", \"Post with id Y exists\"\]"` - very ugly but would make the move to V3 easier in the future. Is it even worth it to do any of this? What?s the current status for supporting V3 in Ruby?

uglyog

2019-03-17 20:32

I would go with option 1.

uglyog

2019-03-17 20:33

Nobody has put their hand up to implement V3 support in ruby, so it will still be a while.

zach.powell

2019-03-18 11:01

has joined #general

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-03-18 14:19

Hey Simon. I?m using JS implementation (which is a ruby wrapper) and I can pass a JSON array of objects to a provider state in v2. Not sure why, but it works

simon.nizov

2019-03-18 14:31

@vitaliy.grigoruk Interesting.. can you post a code snippet of how it looks?

ghandour.jihad

2019-03-18 15:16

I have a service that starts on a dynamic port. How can I start it, fetch its port, place it in @TestTarget, before @TestTarget is executed? In other words, is there anything cleaner than: @TestTarget public Target target = new HttpTarget(startServiceAndReturnPort()); private Integer startServiceAndReturnPort() { if (!started) { try { // code that starts the service and fetches servicePort } catch (Exception e) { e.printStackTrace(); fail(); } } return servicePort; }

hstene

2019-03-18 15:19

Why can?t you start it on a static port while testing?

ghandour.jihad

2019-03-18 15:20

I run several tests in parallel on the same machine as part of the CI. all the services (many) use dynamic ports so that non conflicts with another

hstene

2019-03-18 15:21

Are you using a framework for running your application? (Like Spring Boot?)

hstene

2019-03-18 15:22

(Untested by me) Example for Spring Boot ``` https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30312058/spring-boot-how-to-get-the-running-port ```

ghandour.jihad

2019-03-18 15:26

Unfortunately I am not using Spring Boot, and I can't for the moment. there is a complex piece of code that needs to be written to start the service. So my workaround was the one in the initial comment. I am checking if there is any kind of @before_everything where I can do things before the @TestTarget PS I checked and @Before_Class is not launched before @TestTarget :confused:

james.carman

@ghandour.jihad can you tell your service which port to use?

james.carman

From the outside?

james.carman

or does it choose a random port internally?

ghandour.jihad

https://twitter.com/liran_tal

No because it will create a race condition. The port I specify before the service starts, might be consumed by another service before my service is started

ghandour.jihad

2019-03-18 15:28

that's why we rely on the OS, by starting on 0 and getting an empty port

james.carman

2019-03-18 15:28

you can find a free port programmatically and hand that to the service rather than letting the OS do so

ghandour.jihad

2019-03-18 15:28

I edited it my reply. Choosing a free port will create a race condition as explained

james.carman

2019-03-18 15:31

what part of your test case starts the service?

hstene

2019-03-18 15:31

Well, why? If you programmatically look for a free port and take it if possible then it should be good?

ghandour.jihad

2019-03-18 15:35

Due to this: 1-You programmatically choose a port X. 2-You ask the service to start on that port X. 3-Service takes 30 seconds to start on that port X. 4-Service starts and the port X appears as busy if during 2 or 3, another service contacts the OS for an empty port, OS might give it X and step 4 will fail because port already in use

ghandour.jihad

2019-03-18 15:37

just to give you a scale, we are talking about thousands of services being started in parallel, and we always recommend using dynamic ports. I think many with such a scale would need a @before_everything or to at least let @before_class run before @TestTarget

james.carman

2019-03-18 21:42

are these thousands of services all downstream dependencies of whatever you?re trying to test?

jmcknight

2019-03-18 23:04

has joined #general

nikbarch

2019-03-19 02:03

has joined #general

nikbarch

2019-03-19 03:07

Hi everyone! Does anyone have a production-like example of pact test suite for python?

marko.justinek

2019-03-19 03:08

has joined #general

luca.ippolito

2019-03-19 06:29

Hey @matt.fellows Any updates on this? I was talking with others about this in the #pact-jvm channel. I was told that i should try to avoid using states that are dependent on each other. What's your opinion on this? Is the order of execution never guaranteed?

ghandour.jihad

2019-03-19 07:23

no no not at all :smile: I am talking about the amount of services being started in parallel and all counting on the OS to handle their port allocation

bethskurrie

2019-03-19 07:43

@uglyog is the author, and is the only one who can give you a definitive answer.

bethskurrie

2019-03-19 07:44

Have you tried in the #pact-python channel @nikbarch?

nikbarch

2019-03-19 10:16

I did. No one answered though

bethskurrie

2019-03-19 10:16

Try @richard.jones

ghandour.jihad

2019-03-19 10:35

Hi @bethskurrie :slightly_smiling_face: what do you think about @before_everything or to at least let @before_class run before @TestTarget ?

onebrianparker

2019-03-19 10:40

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2019-03-19 10:45

@ghandour.jihad I'm not familiar with the jvm implementation, sorry. @uglyog will have to answer your question (sorry to harass you Ron!)

bethskurrie

2019-03-19 10:46

Your use case is quite unusual, to have thousands of tests running in parallel.

bethskurrie

2019-03-19 10:46

Can you explain that more?

bethskurrie

2019-03-19 10:47

Sorry, it's late here, so I can't continue to respond now, but I'll put a reminder to follow up in the morning

uglyog

2019-03-19 11:23

@ghandour.jihad if you use the junit 5 version instead of junit 4 one, you can set the port for the Target.

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-03-19 14:01

Sorry for a delay, @simon.nizov. Sure I can

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-03-19 14:03

on a consumer side: ``` const interaction = { state: [ { name: 'session exists', params: { sessionId: 'session_id' } } ], uponReceiving: `a request for session information`, withRequest: { ... }, willRespondWith: { ... } } ```

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-03-19 14:05

then when contract is generated, I get the following inside it: ``` { "description": "a request for session information", "providerState": [ { "name": "session exists", "params": { "sessionId": "session_id" } } ], "request": { ... }, "response": { ... } } ```

ghandour.jihad

2019-03-19 14:07

@bethskurrie, we have a pool of machines where many developers run their tests in parallel, even one team might be running same test on different branches, that's why dynamic ports are needed @uglyog, interesting. indeed I am not currently using junit 5. Well at least now I know there is a cleaner solution than my workaround. thanks!

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-03-19 14:08

and on provider side, I?m running NodeJS express app for to handle http calls from pact verifier to /pactStateSetupUrl, which has the following middleware: ``` const express = require('express'); const bodyParser = require('body-const app = express(); app.use(setupUrl, bodyParser.json()); http://app.post(setupUrl, async (req, res) => { /* state handling goes here */ } ```

ots.indrek

2019-03-19 14:34

Found this thread via search. Seems to be an old one. @liran.tal how did you handle the feature toggle/flag use case?

wayofthepie

2019-03-19 20:54

has joined #general

james.carman

2019-03-19 21:35

We solved the port collision problem by using docker containers for our builds.

bethskurrie

2019-03-19 22:06

@adb can you set up a git repository with an executable example that demonstrates the problem, and raise an issue in the pact-mock-service-docker repository please.

bethskurrie

2019-03-19 22:07

Are you sure .net supports use of a standalone mock service, btw?

evan_l00

2019-03-20 00:45

has joined #general

marko.justinek

2019-03-20 02:19

I?m still here, just with my personal account now :slightly_smiling_face: Still keen to help out/support the swift side to the best of my time allowance(s)

matt.fellows

2019-03-20 02:35

:smile:

sdpoling

2019-03-20 02:36

has joined #general

sumanthbharan

2019-03-20 08:37

has joined #general

simon.nizov

2019-03-20 11:53

Hey @vitaliy.grigoruk, thanks for posting. From looking at your code and the pact generated, it seems like you *are* using V3.. https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/tree/version-3#allow-multiple-provider-states-with-parameters I?m using the ruby implementation and there is no way to pass an array as a state (the `given` method in ruby). If I pass in an array I just get `"providerState": "[\"foo", \"bar\"]"` in the pact file.

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-03-20 11:54

Well, I?m using v2

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-03-20 11:54

But I?m using pact-js

simon.nizov

2019-03-20 12:13

In the pact file, `providerState` takes an array (i.e `"providerState": []`) and at the bottom of the file it says `"version": "2.0.0"`? @vitaliy.grigoruk

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-03-20 13:12

yes, that?s exactly what I have.

simon.nizov

2019-03-20 13:16

Very strange :S @matt.fellows - Isn?t multiple provider states a version 3 feature?

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-03-20 13:35

it is, but in v3 the fields in contract is called ?poviderStates?, not ?providerState?

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-03-20 13:36

the fact that it works for me in v2 this way is kind of a ?bug?, which I consider as undocumented feature :slightly_smiling_face:

simon.nizov

2019-03-20 13:38

This has now become my only good reason for leaving ruby in favor of JS :smile:

luca.ippolito

2019-03-20 14:09

Looks like https://docs.pact.io/ is having trouble loading images currently

matt.fellows

2019-03-20 19:31

Looks to be ok now, still having issues @luca.ippolito? We use gitbook for hosting the docs

matt.fellows

2019-03-20 19:32

:laughing:

luca.ippolito

2019-03-21 06:01

@matt.fellows looks better now for me as well :slightly_smiling_face:

a.bokias

2019-03-21 08:17

has joined #general

joseiglesias

2019-03-21 12:46

has joined #general

arunkumarpoonia

2019-03-21 17:07

has joined #general

arunkumarpoonia

2019-03-21 17:11

I am unable to build interaction without given, more details - https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-php/issues/117

mboudreau

2019-03-21 22:13

please use our stackoverflow to ask questions, issues in github are for code issues: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/pact#

matt.fellows

2019-03-22 09:03

It looks like a real issue, tho

mboudreau

2019-03-22 09:19

Sorry, assumed that it would work like the other libraries :/

adb

2019-03-22 09:37

Hey, thanks for your reply. I'm not sure about that. It turned out that there is no need to use pact-mock-service image to run tests because .NET implementation uses pact-ruby-standalone. So I run .NET pact tests inside linux container like any other tests, without additional pact-mock-service container. Our devops complicated our life unnecessary :slightly_smiling_face:

upgundecha

2019-03-22 10:05

has joined #general

liran.tal

2019-03-22 19:39

Using something I call a pact manifest

liran.tal

2019-03-22 19:40

@ots.indrek ping me on twitter, I?m happy to share with you an article that I?m actually just about to publish next week on this whole setup

liran.tal

2019-03-22 19:40

mwroblewski

2019-03-24 13:35

has joined #general

venkata.uday24

2019-03-25 00:07

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2019-03-25 03:00

@oswald.quek @m.r.green the latest version of the broker has the corrected logic to allow you to deploy new providers without requiring the consumer to be deployed.

bethskurrie

2019-03-25 03:00

2.29.0. Please update and let me know how you go.

kataramoonlight

2019-03-25 08:55

has joined #general

dave.carrell

2019-03-25 14:07

has joined #general

lekocrod

2019-03-25 14:32

has joined #general

mmarcottulio

2019-03-25 18:21

has joined #general

vtambourine

2019-03-26 02:45

has joined #general

vtambourine

2019-03-26 02:51

Hi everyone, I'm not sure if this is the right channel for such questions. Please, guide me where should I seek help. I'm wondering about status of this issue ? https://github.com/uglyog/pact-stub-server/issues/19 ? Support for different provider states in pact-stub-service. This feature would be extremely useful in our project, where we actively use pacts. generated from unit tests and pact-mock, to run stub to fuel E2E tests and demo certain features in emulated environment

anliang2314

2019-03-26 03:58

has joined #general

uglyog

2019-03-26 04:09

It was released in version 0.2.2. I've added a comment to the issue.

mateusz.beczek

2019-03-26 07:21

has joined #general

mateusz.beczek

2019-03-26 07:29

hi there, I'm Mateusz and I've got some issues with Pact Broker/Pact Broker clients security - for JVM we need to secure communication between Pact clients and Pact Broker, as I see in sources there is by default "Basic" authentication type, is there an option to use Bearer with token with pact-jvm?

bethskurrie

2019-03-26 08:25

Can you explain why basic auth is any less secure than a bearer token @mateusz.beczek?

bethskurrie

2019-03-26 08:26

Both are sending a value in an http header over a secure channel. I can't see that one is any more or less secure than the other.

bethskurrie

2019-03-26 08:27

Having said that, we are currently adding token auth to the Dius hosted pact broker. It should be released in late April.

mateusz.beczek

2019-03-26 08:37

Hi, issue is that you need to place somewhere user/password (probably plaintext), so that is for us unacceptable

mateusz.beczek

2019-03-26 08:38

we thought that we can us i.e. Keycloak, i.e. call for token and then push pact to Broker

mateusz.beczek

2019-03-26 08:39

we cannot store user/password in repository or whatever because of legal regulations

gopinathlangote11

2019-03-26 09:03

Recently I talked about `confidently-releasing-microservices-with-consumer-driven-contracts`At `Agile India 2019` conference. The slides from the talk are here, (Might help for beginners to understand CDC) https://www.slideshare.net/GopinathLangote/confidently-releasing-microservices-with-consumer-driven-contracts-1

matt.fellows

2019-03-26 09:16

How would you authenticate to keycloak?

matt.fellows

2019-03-26 09:16

Or is that managed at the OS level?

matt.fellows

2019-03-26 09:18

Bearer token would still suffer the same issue. You'd need to call keycloak to get the token and then send. Can you not do the same with the user/pass?

matt.fellows

2019-03-26 09:18

And yes, as Beth mentioned we're adding to the Enterprise offering later next month. If you'd like to discuss feel free to DM one of us and we can chat further

mateusz.beczek

2019-03-26 09:21

With certificate/key stored with sources?

bethskurrie

2019-03-26 09:38

@mateusz.beczek I think what you're getting at is that the bearer token would be a jwt, and hence, able to be validated without any credential stored in the broker itself. It's the fact that the token value would be a jwt that would solve your problem, not the fact that your auth type would be bearer token in itself.

matt.fellows

2019-03-26 09:48

Storing certificate/key with sources is the same as storing a user/pass, is it not?

matt.fellows

2019-03-26 09:48

What I'm saying is no matter which approach you go for, you still have to get a credential (whatever type) before authenticating

vtambourine

2019-03-26 10:16

Thank you, Ronald!

vtambourine

2019-03-26 10:53

Since yesterday I learned that starting from version 0.2.2 _pact-stub-server_ supports declaring provider states, I want to ask what?s your opinion on using stub server for negative testing scenarios. Currently, we are using stub server in E2E tests to mock responses for different edge cases ? for instance, to mock API returning full set of value, part of values, no values, or 4xx error. We have to use special headers (X-Mock-Header) to specify which 2xx response we expect in each particular test case. But that solution doesn?t feel right because of necessity to add test logic in otherwise production code. Instead, would it be possible to launch new instance of stub server with different provider state on each of the ?mocked? test scenarios? What do yo think?

ben.scown

2019-03-26 22:23

has joined #general

paras.vora

2019-03-27 08:29

has joined #general

skirankumars31

2019-03-27 22:50

has joined #general

skirankumars31

2019-03-27 22:58

Im a beginner to pact. We have some mocks for our microservices run with wiremock. Is it possible to keep them in sync with the provider using pact ?

bethskurrie

2019-03-27 23:00

Hi @skirankumars31. Welcome. No, you can't use wiremock with pact, as you need to use the pact mocking framework to generate the contract that is verified with the provider.

skirankumars31

2019-03-27 23:08

Thanks for the reply @bethskurrie. Can pact can help me keep the wiremock services in sync with production service ?

bethskurrie

2019-03-27 23:08

When you say " wiremock services", do you mean, your providers?

bethskurrie

2019-03-27 23:09

Pact will help you keep your dev/prod consumer and provider versions in sync with each other.

skirankumars31

2019-03-27 23:16

We use wiremock to mock all these services in our dev environment, but sometimes they get out of sync with production. So i was wondering if pact could help us run some tests to check if the mocks are not up to date with production

james.carman

2019-03-27 23:21

If you don?t have any state requirements, you may be able to run your pacts against the mocks.

skirankumars31

2019-03-27 23:47

Should i use pact-stub-server or wiremock ?. If i use pact stub server i can be sure that my mocks will be up to date. How can i make sure my wiremock mocks and providers have the same contract ?

yousafn

2019-03-27 23:57

which side are you on? consumer / provider or both? who owns the mocks? If you are the consumer, and you are using wiremock to mock your provider Then you could setup pact consumer tests that describe the behaviour you expect from your wiremock service. You then call the pact broker via pact, and pass it the provider endpoint of your wiremock service and verify it is acting as expected. You would then, in your example run then against your real (non wiremocked) provider to check for drift. However, the real question is the value of your wiremock representations, if they are drifting out of sync with production service. Why is it not being picked up earlier than production? Surely this could be determined much earlier in your workflow. I am currently working in a team where we have pact implemented on our consuming services, they have published contracts to the pact broker. Our provider has given us wiremock representations of their services, and we have validated them against consumer-provider contracts and they are all green now. The hope is that when they finish their first provider service, they will run validate the contracts and again we will see nice green builds. If not, something will have gone amiss, but this would be caught in an integration environment. For protecting production services, we will run the same tests against a staging enviroment (basically pre-prod) which should protect us from having any production incidents due to contractual problems :metal:

yousafn

2019-03-28 00:02

if you guys use swagger, there are some tools to help check drift between swagger & wiremock (https://github.com/telegraph/wiremock-swagger)

skirankumars31

2019-03-28 00:11

Im on the consumer side

uglyog

2019-03-28 04:21

@skirankumars31 pact came about based on consumer tests precisely to keep the mocks in sync. It was designed as a feature. But you can use pact mock servers instead of wiremock. There is nothing to verify the wiremock responses.

uglyog

2019-03-28 04:26

However, you could write provider pact tests against wiremock, assuming you can share the wiremock config.

uglyog

2019-03-28 05:49

Sounds like an ok approach to me

vtambourine

2019-03-28 17:25

Hi everyone! Can someone help me understand ? which pact-stub-service implementation is used in pact-node package? Is it Ruby or Rust?

mboudreau

2019-03-28 22:15

Ruby for the moment

vtambourine

2019-03-29 00:53

Hm? Does it mean, that option to provide regexp for provider state (as in rust cli) is not available yet?

mboudreau

2019-03-29 00:55

It does not

chakra.yadavalli

2019-03-29 01:42

has joined #general

chakra.yadavalli

2019-03-29 01:43

Hi I am looking for information on using pact with grpc proto3

bethskurrie

2019-03-29 03:39

Try the #protobufs channel?

matt.fellows

2019-03-29 10:25

Short answer is that it?s not officially supported? yet. It might be possible, but I?ve not heard of anyone doing it

matt.fellows

2019-03-29 10:25

We?d love support to make it happen

lextiz

2019-03-29 13:24

Hi guys, I have created a Docker image that wraps Pact Ruby CLI (all executables), in case some of you are interested: https://github.com/lextiz/pact-docker.

joseph.s.egan

2019-03-30 18:43

has joined #general

franklin.huynh

2019-04-01 02:59

has joined #general

skirankumars31

2019-04-01 10:43

Hi, Can anyone point me to a example usage of regex matchers in Pact-jvm ?

mboudreau

2019-04-01 11:13

https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/pact-jvm-consumer#building-json-bodies-with-pactdsljsonbody-dsl

mboudreau

2019-04-01 11:14

with the dsl, you should be able to do `.stringMatcher("property", "^regex$", "generated value")`

mboudreau

2019-04-01 11:14

for an example https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/blob/1a701e81acbe67d67c63ad43ce04d3c31bb1f297/pact-jvm-consumer/src/test/java/au/com/dius/pact/consumer/MatchingTest.java#L34

skirankumars31

2019-04-01 12:22

Thanks @mboudreau :slightly_smiling_face:

skirankumars31

2019-04-01 12:38

Can i also have regex on numbers ?

skirankumars31

2019-04-01 12:38

Sorry got that one too

skirankumars31

2019-04-01 12:38

stringMatcher("FNR","\\d{11}","19048634263")

skirankumars31

2019-04-01 12:41

Hi guys, Is it possible to show the pact plugin in Intellij maven panel ?. I have pact plugin in pom.xml but it does not show in intelliJ maven panel

richard.jones

2019-04-01 23:15

Pact V3/V4 question: in pact V3 the ?match? element was replaced with ?matchers? allowing multiple matchers to be specified with a ?combine?, allowing things like ?match the type or a null?. In the V4 spec, the example at the bottom reverts back to the singular ?match? element. Is that indicative of a move away from the multiple matchers model? I note that V4 also includes a reference to ?matcher defintions like or(decimal, nullValue)?, so I?m pretty sure it?s not - just checking :slightly_smiling_face:

richard.jones

2019-04-01 23:27

I?d be interested to know whether anyone?s done anything in the space of multiple matchers. In terms of specifying the rules in our code (Python in this case) we?re thinking that it could be `Any(Like('string'), None)` which would allow the verifier to match a string OR null (the Like could also be an exact value, or a regex `Term()` or whatever). `Any()` would accept 2+ arguments and the concrete value (for mocking) is the first element. I?d also add `All()` at the same time which would generate an AND combiner. The functions could be called `Or` and `And` but I think `Any` and `All` read better.

abubics

2019-04-01 23:32

I think that's a powerful (and relatively complex) feature to provide, but does it give much value? I find (usually) when people start trying to match complex optionals, they really should just have more concrete, explicit test cases :thinking_face:

richard.jones

2019-04-01 23:35

Yeah, it?s a thought. We?ve not jumped yet :slightly_smiling_face:

abubics

2019-04-01 23:38

(I'm not a maintainer, just a frequent user, fwiw)

richard.jones

2019-04-01 23:43

the specific use case we have here derives good benefits from being able to have the representative data set (which includes values and nulls) in the pact, rather than splitting it into two artificial payloads.

uglyog

2019-04-02 01:05

V4 is incomplete, and only a work in progress

pkuang

2019-04-02 01:29

Does Pactjs (or pact in general) have support for request matching MIME types?

richard.jones

2019-04-02 02:52

yep, cool

matt.fellows

2019-04-02 07:03

Search for "optional types" on the pact specification , I believe there is a discussion there on this problem. Also there is a QandA dedicated to it on the pact website. Tldr we explicitly don't currently support it

qatrera

2019-04-02 13:54

has joined #general

pkuang

2019-04-02 15:03

more specifically a application/pdf body

bheemreddy181

2019-04-02 15:07

has joined #general

bheemreddy181

2019-04-02 15:09

Is there a ruby-channel around ?

rjmcguinness

2019-04-02 15:31

#pact-ruby

acooper106

2019-04-02 20:23

Can pact be used for Mobile Applications (Swift and Android)?

acooper106

2019-04-02 20:35

I see this announcement for swift https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/swift Please confirm this the recommendation

acooper106

2019-04-02 20:35

And do you have a recommendation for android?

marko.justinek

2019-04-02 21:19

@acooper106 yes, it can be used for Swift consumer side, and Android with JVM and/or Kotlin.

marko.justinek

2019-04-02 21:20

are you looking for something specific? @acooper106

matt.fellows

2019-04-02 21:30

So there's nothing specific to Android, it's just the JVM so you can use pact JVM for that purpose

richard.jones

2019-04-02 21:43

Yep, definitely bleeding edge. I think we might experiment with it and see how it goes? We?ll only be generating/verifying the pacts within pactman space, so having other implementation support it isn?t an issue.

2019-04-03 05:45

@matt.fellows has sent a survey for you!

matt.fellows

2019-04-03 10:12

apologies but I?m going to have to replace the Polly survey with an old-fashioned Google form. There are some restrictions on the Slack integration that weren?t obvious until after the results started coming through. I was hoping that the Slack integration would be more convenient, but not at the $$ it?s asking? Please instead complete the following.

matt.fellows

2019-04-03 10:13

Could we ask you answer a few quick questions on your usage of Pact? Your answers to these really help us understand how we can continue to improve the product. It shouldn?t take more than 1 minute, I promise! https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeLNdSSTP6eUHeJWnqMiJoD9Trib2Kw-fDarc3SzUM6cB-Bew/viewform?usp=sf_link (only new respondants)

thadir

2019-04-03 10:14

Then you should also set the permisions correct :wink: its now only set to owner organisation

matt.fellows

2019-04-03 10:15

I can?t believe how quick you must have gone to that link!! should be open now, I did both almost at the same time :slightly_smiling_face:

000sps97

2019-04-03 11:55

has joined #general

acooper106

2019-04-03 11:57

@marko.justinek @matt.fellows Thanks for you response. I'm not using it, I will pass along your answers.

laxmi.somni

2019-04-03 14:06

has joined #general

laxmi.somni

2019-04-03 14:07

laxmi.somni

2019-04-03 14:09

Do we have a good simple easy-to-follow example on PACT- using js? I just need a simple bare-bone example using any 3rd party public API (with clear insturactions to follow) ? Thanks in advane

simon.nizov

2019-04-03 14:11

@laxmi.somni https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/tree/master/examples/e2e

vinod.baradwaj

2019-04-03 14:13

have u published that article ?

laxmi.somni

2019-04-03 14:19

Cool.

laxmi.somni

2019-04-03 14:19

Thanks a lot

laxmi.somni

2019-04-03 14:20

Its running all fine

laxmi.somni

2019-04-03 14:38

But I need a lighter version of this framework, which I can rewire & use it to create a small working model for our project

laxmi.somni

2019-04-03 14:39

i.e. to propose PACT framework to seniors

simon.nizov

2019-04-03 14:42

:man-shrugging:

simon.nizov

2019-04-03 14:51

Best way IMO is to actually do it yourself on an existing consumer and provider in your company

simon.nizov

2019-04-03 14:51

Check out the first 3 steps https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/pact_nirvana

laxmi.somni

2019-04-03 15:08

sure. let me go through it

simon.nizov

2019-04-03 15:08

More specifically step #3

laxmi.somni

2019-04-03 15:08

Thanks

laxmi.somni

2019-04-03 15:09

I think Step-1 - implementing it on your own API is going to be a big milestone

laxmi.somni

2019-04-03 15:09

I've worked on RestAssured so, I'm sure will be able to work on this as well!:+1:

dagarwal

2019-04-03 18:29

I agree as well, it would be better if you demonstrate on existing services in http://company.it will help your seniors to understand use of pact in a better way

marko.justinek

2019-04-03 22:58

note, if you're using `pact-ruby-standalone` and would like to install it using Homebrew (https://brew.sh) you can use the following tap: ``` brew tap surpher/pact-ruby-standalone brew install pact-ruby-standalone ```

bethskurrie

2019-04-03 23:18

Woot! Thanks @marko.justinek!

bethskurrie

You interested in moving it to the pact-foundation org?

marko.justinek

sure

bethskurrie

Pretty sure you're in the org already

bethskurrie

Let me know if I need to add you.

marko.justinek

am I?

bethskurrie

When I get in front of my laptop I'll check and add you if not.

marko.justinek

We'll sort it out np. Maybe over the weekend. Got _things_ to do now

bethskurrie

How could anything be more important?! ;-)

marko.justinek

https://docs.pact.io/faq#why-pact-may-not-be-the-best-tool-for-public-testing-apis

Yah, i know �\_(?)_/�

bethskurrie

2019-04-03 23:21

Pact is not the best tool for testing 3rd party APIs.

bethskurrie

2019-04-03 23:21

Let me find the FAQ.

bethskurrie

2019-04-03 23:36

nathan.wilson

2019-04-04 02:49

has joined #general

ghandour.jihad

2019-04-04 07:08

I am really sorry for the following question but well :smile: is there a plan for a c++ version of pact? :eyes:

matt.fellows

2019-04-04 07:25

No worries

matt.fellows

2019-04-04 07:25

Are you planning on creating one?

ghandour.jihad

2019-04-04 07:48

Wasn't planning on creating it, was just checking if there is plan to do it, that way I can use that as a good argument while trying to convince my company to use Pact :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2019-04-04 07:49

Shouldn't be too hard to make one with the c bindings from @uglyog's rust impl

ghandour.jihad

2019-04-04 07:52

sounds good thanks!

bethskurrie

2019-04-04 07:53

Sorry, I'm not volunteering - I haven't written any c++ since uni! Just saying it wouldn't be too much work if someone who knew the language was interested. The hard work (the matching logic) is done.

ghandour.jihad

2019-04-04 08:00

oh no worries I got you correctly :slightly_smiling_face: the good news for me is that it is not hard to make since we already have these c bindings, and that is the argument I was looking for.

matt.fellows

2019-04-04 08:11

Hehe

matt.fellows

2019-04-04 08:11

We're definitely happy for it to be created and would support however we can. Let us know if you need help convincing bosses :grinning:

neelofer.tamboli

2019-04-04 10:49

has joined #general

neelofer.tamboli

2019-04-04 11:10

Hi everyone. Can someone help me with fixing this error through the pact broker UI rather than the DB? On the UI everything is looking fine, but our webhook is not getting triggered and we see the following error in logs: ```App 373 output: E, [2019-04-04T10:17:37.341770 #373] ERROR -- : PG::ForeignKeyViolation: ERROR: update or delete on table "pact_publications" violates foreign key constraint "triggered_webhooks_pact_publication_id_fkey" on table "triggered_webhooks" App 373 output: DETAIL: Key (id)=(1172) is still referenced from table "triggered_webhooks".: DELETE FROM "pact_publications" WHERE ("consumer_version_id" = 755) App 373 output: E, [2019-04-04T10:17:37.342049 #373] ERROR -- : PG::ForeignKeyViolation: ERROR: update or delete on table "pact_publications" violates foreign key constraint "triggered_webhooks_pact_publication_id_fkey" on table "triggered_webhooks" App 373 output: DETAIL: Key (id)=(1172) is still referenced from table "triggered_webhooks".```

shutchin

2019-04-04 21:51

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-04-04 23:06

Do you know what was done to get it into this state?

matt.fellows

2019-04-04 23:06

Did you do anything manually via the DB?

neelofer.tamboli

2019-04-05 05:53

Nothing via DB. We deleted the webhook and a specific pact version through the `Non-Get` requests from the Browser and then created a new Webhook when this was observed. All this was done for the same Provider and Consumer.

neelofer.tamboli

2019-04-05 05:54

Also when I checked the DB last night, and queried the problematic row, `SELECT FROM "pact_publications" WHERE ("consumer_version_id" = 755)`, there was no record in DB for it.

vaso.giamarelou

2019-04-05 08:46

has joined #general

thadir

2019-04-05 09:54

some cool reading stuff folks

thadir

2019-04-05 09:54

https://kreuzwerker.de/blog/integrating-contract-tests-into-build-pipelines-with-pact-broker-and

neelofer.tamboli

2019-04-05 10:19

Please ignore my last comment, was looking at the pre-prod data.

neelofer.tamboli

2019-04-05 10:22

The issue is fixed now. The problem was as follows and the fix is also here. To repro: 1. Consumer `C` has two providers, `P1` and `P2`. 2. Pacts and contract content change webhooks are created for both C-P1 and C-P2 combinations. 3. Delete the webhook and latest pact version between `C` and `P1`. 4. Recreate the webhook between `C` and `P1`. 5. Publish a contract with contract change. 6. The webhook is not triggered, the issue we were facing. To fix this: Delete webhooks between `C` and `P1` and between `C` and `P2`. And then do the action required. The webhook then created will be triggered.

k.kaskavelis

2019-04-05 12:17

has joined #general

ghandour.jihad

2019-04-05 15:59

Hello fellow Pacters, I need convincing arguments to help me convince people :slightly_smiling_face: What is your best answer to the below skepticism: If the consumer calls a provider endpoint, using a client interface built by provider team, and places the response in an object built by the provider team, what would be the use of pact? In the consumer test, the consumer team will have to ?re-build? the provider object as a set of .stringType ... body response, just so that the mockedServer returns something that correctly fits in the provider object. Thus the consumer will have to specify all the parts of the response object, which deprives us from the use of Pact, which is specify only what you need. Is pact only for consumers calling providers directly, and parsing the json themselves to fill their own object? (unfortunately that rarely happens in my company :/)

matt.fellows

2019-04-05 21:22

Ho do you _guarantee_ that the client library stays in sync with the provider?

matt.fellows

2019-04-05 21:25

This reminds me of the old days with soap. Yes, we guarantee the client library is compatible with the provider (e.g. it was generated) but it's very brittle because you are coupled to each other. you now have to release all components together (painful) and roll backs aren't gonna be easy

matt.fellows

2019-04-05 21:26

The whole point of contract testing is to enable independent releases of components and continuous delivery. Coupling this way prevents this and scales poorly as you add more teams and components

james.carman

2019-04-06 20:24

We usually keep the service interface as a separate project

james.carman

2019-04-06 20:24

Cuts down on the churn.

matt.fellows

2019-04-06 22:42

https://stackoverflow.com/q/55535845/1008568

matt.fellows

2019-04-06 22:42

Good question if anyone has a moment to answer. I'll look at responding later today when in front of a computer

simon.nizov

2019-04-07 11:17

Gave my 2 cents https://stackoverflow.com/a/55558384/889345

mo.balghonaim

2019-04-08 00:41

has joined #general

nathan.deamer

2019-04-08 10:51

has joined #general

nathan.deamer

2019-04-08 10:55

Hey, Is anyone able to help with an intermittent 409 conflict from our hosted pact broker? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Troubleshooting I?ve checked the name and it is unique and not similar from any other names

nathan.deamer

2019-04-08 10:56

I?ve ran a curl script manually from my machine - always fine. But when it runs as part our of circleCI pipeline from an apple build we see 409s.

bethskurrie

2019-04-08 11:03

Are these new consumers or providers?

bethskurrie

2019-04-08 11:04

Do you have the body of the response in your output?

bethskurrie

2019-04-08 11:05

There are a couple of reasons you might get a 409.

bethskurrie

2019-04-08 11:07

Are you sure it's the naming reason?

nathan.deamer

2019-04-08 11:16

Hi Beth, Its an existing consumer and an existing provider - just an update - possibly without any changes other than version number. I don?t have the body of the response, from iOS we only get `HTTP Error 409: Conflict` ```except urllib2.HTTPError as e: print e``` I am not sure if it is the naming reason?. that is the only documentation I could find for why.

nathan.deamer

2019-04-08 11:16

Currently adding more logging :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2019-04-08 11:34

The other cause of a conflict is when multiple pact files are merged into one resource using a PATCH request.

bethskurrie

2019-04-08 11:35

Which implementation are you using to publish the files?

nathan.deamer

2019-04-08 12:19

It could be that one?. Our iOS implementation of pact: 1. Starts a mock service . 2. Creates a pact for the next provider 3. Exports the json files etc. 4. Calls flush on the mock service. 5. Repeat for next microservice. Then at the end we use some custom python scripts against the rest apis

liran.tal

2019-04-08 21:30

YES! :slightly_smiling_face: https://medium.com/@liran.tal/a-comprehensive-guide-to-contract-testing-apis-in-a-service-oriented-architecture-5695ccf9ac5a

bethskurrie

2019-04-08 23:38

@nathan.deamer what are you using to *publish* the pact files to the broker?

bethskurrie

2019-04-08 23:40

Can you copy paste the code for me?

bethskurrie

2019-04-08 23:41

@neelofer.tamboli can you raise an issue for this in the pact_broker repository, with an explanation of how to recreate the issue?

dglaubman600

2019-04-09 04:34

has joined #general

neelofer.tamboli

2019-04-09 07:13

Sure, done: https://github.com/DiUS/pact_broker-docker/issues/88

neelofer.tamboli

2019-04-09 07:13

Thank you

maximkugatov

2019-04-09 08:20

has joined #general

nathan.deamer

2019-04-09 09:50

@bethskurrie I think the issue was our side and hopefully got to the bottom of it? iOS was outputting 2 x json files for the same consumer / provider. Would be interesting to know if you have any documentation on iOS and microservices.

bethskurrie

2019-04-09 09:54

What in particular about ios and microservices? I'd try asking in the #pact-swift channel.

jon.pascoe

2019-04-09 11:16

has joined #general

nschmuter

2019-04-09 12:49

has joined #general

bheemreddy181

2019-04-09 18:51

I completely agree with this and Clients are so much to maintain

florian

2019-04-09 20:37

has joined #general

harshal.kulkarni

2019-04-10 00:57

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-04-10 00:59

does this resonate with you @ghandour.jihad?

ghandour.jihad

2019-04-10 06:35

it completely resonates :slightly_smiling_face: thanks a lot! that was the argument I needed

matt.fellows

2019-04-10 07:03

OK, let us know how you get on with the team - it will be great feedback for us (and perhaps could move it to the FAQs)

ghandour.jihad

2019-04-10 07:07

sure!

oswald.quek

2019-04-10 09:15

@bethskurrie apologies for only getting back to you now. i'm about to deploy the latest pact-broker soon but will it break the way the pact broker client is used? we currently use it like its done at https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker-client/blob/master/spec/lib/pact_broker/client/can_i_deploy_spec.rb#L25

oswald.quek

2019-04-10 09:16

can we instruct the pact broker to ignore a consumer via the pact broker client?

bethskurrie

2019-04-10 09:17

it won't break any existing commands.

bethskurrie

2019-04-10 09:18

hopefully you shouldn't need to tell it to ignore the consumer

bethskurrie

2019-04-10 09:19

let me know if you have issues

oswald.quek

2019-04-10 09:27

great, thanks. we actually did a work around to get our provider deployed (think it was something to do skipping the pact compatibility check) so it might not be a while till we add a new consumer so we can actually test this.

vinod.baradwaj

2019-04-10 10:00

thanks @liran.tal

gnana_margoschis

2019-04-10 16:26

has joined #general

bhollister

2019-04-10 18:05

has joined #general

bheemreddy181

2019-04-11 13:58

@matt.fellows do you suggest to have own interactor on the consumer side for provider or just open the connection where ever need and close it off ?

matt.fellows

2019-04-11 20:25

Sorry I don't know what that means, can you please elaborate?

bethskurrie

2019-04-12 00:08

Yo. If you're using the pact-ruby-standalone for anything (publishing, verifying) you can now run it via docker using `pactfoundation/pact-cli`. Eg. publishing pacts, can-i-deploy ``` export PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL="https://test.pact.dius.com.au" export PACT_BROKER_USERNAME="dXfltyFMgNOFZAxr8io9wJ37iUpY42M" export PACT_BROKER_PASSWORD="O5AIZWxelWbLvqMd8PkAVycBJh2Psyg1" docker run --rm \ -e PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL \ -e PACT_BROKER_USERNAME \ -e PACT_BROKER_PASSWORD \ pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest \ broker can-i-deploy \ --pacticipant Foo \ --latest ``` Try it now just for funsies!

bethskurrie

2019-04-12 00:09

Btw, if you're using can-i-deploy, it's worth upgrading to the latest version of the broker, because the error explanations when you can't deploy are much more helpful.

bethskurrie

2019-04-12 00:10

I've also fixed the 'provider can't deploy without the consumer' issue.

bheemreddy181

2019-04-12 03:46

Is it a good idea to host a own pact broker or use the one registered on http://dius.com @bethskurrie if you have any documentation for setting it up can you please share the same

bheemreddy181

2019-04-12 03:47

Is there a way to set up Auto upgrades on pact broker

matt.fellows

2019-04-12 03:47

As it stands, the documentation for setting it up is on the github page for the pact broker.

bethskurrie

2019-04-12 03:48

I am part of the team at DiUS that runs the hosted broker. If you're interested in having one, you can sign up at http://pact.dius.com.au. It saves you the hassle of managing your own infrastructure, and we've been working hard on it for the last couple of months to add some new features like social login, and a fancy new UI. They're set to be released at the end of April.

matt.fellows

2019-04-12 03:48

Upgrades would require a backup of the DB, re-deployment to your servers with the latest Ruby code base etc. It should migrate without breaking things, unless of course we release a ?breaking change? (signalled by a major version bump in the semver)

matt.fellows

2019-04-12 03:48

I can recommend the hosted service, but then again, I am one of the maintainers of that product :slightly_smiling_face:

bheemreddy181

What I mean most of the Ruby on Rails built api are habituated to use Client gems for communication between consumer and provider

bethskurrie

If you're using the docker image, you just upgrade the docker image.

bethskurrie

The data will be automatically upgraded for you when you start up the broker again.

bheemreddy181

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/blob/master/UPGRADING.md

I was asking is it recommended to open a HTTP connection where ever required or have provider specific interactor to communicate?

bethskurrie

2019-04-12 03:50

There is an upgrades section in the documentation where any necessary information for upgrading will be noted.

bethskurrie

2019-04-12 03:50

bethskurrie

2019-04-12 03:51

@bheemreddy181 here is the documentation for setting up your own if you're interested in doing that https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker#for-reals

matt.fellows

2019-04-12 03:52

Oh. I don?t have specific opinions about this, other than the ones shared above. Gems like that can be useful, and if it speeds up your development and you can still guarantee the contract will be satisfied (e.g. as described above), then I?d say go for it

steve

2019-04-12 10:39

has joined #general

slack1949

2019-04-12 12:03

has joined #general

david.edwards

2019-04-12 12:29

has joined #general

m.balghonaim

2019-04-12 13:09

has joined #general

m.balghonaim

2019-04-12 13:30

Hello, I have the following questions: 1) Based on what I understood, a pact's interactions are replayed against the actual server when they're verified for the provider. However, how do I work around the scenario where the interaction has hard-coded data in the query params that might not exist in the future (e.g., querying for a deleted user account)? Is that not a recommended usage of pacts? 2) Why must the consumer unit test the interaction against mock server?

thomas.stock

2019-04-12 13:53

has joined #general

bheemreddy181

2019-04-12 13:53

How about the security concerns and downtime support and all other maintenance?

bheemreddy181

2019-04-12 13:55

@matt.fellows ^

thomas.stock

2019-04-12 14:04

@m.balghonaim I'll try to answer, someone correct me if I'm wrong. 1) you're supposed to set up state on your server specifically for the pact interactions. Otherwise you can never make 2 interactions "I have employees in my company" and "I have no employees in my company" succeed because they are mututually exclusive. Here is a (dirty) example of setting up states for 2 interactions.

thomas.stock

2019-04-12 14:10

2) not sure I fully understand your question, but you're supposed to write a test in your consumer that somehow triggers the API call to the mockserver, which will then return the instructed response. This interaction is then recorded into your pact file. So basically you use pact's mockserver as provider in your unit test. The mockserver records the interactions into a file which your real provider can validate against. The unit test guarantees that the API interaction is actually one that is needed by your consumer. if you refactor the consumer code and delete "api.getEmployees()", you will also remove the unit test for getEmployees(), causing the GET to '/employees/all' to disappear from your pact file, so that the provider knows it must no longer provide/maintain this endpoint.

mo.balghonaim

2019-04-12 17:23

Gotcha, thanks! :bulb:

mo.balghonaim

2019-04-12 17:26

But in this case, wouldn't I be hard-coding responses from the actual provider?

matt.fellows

2019-04-12 22:59

The free tier as it stands today comes with email support and automatic upgrades. See my recent post where we enabled a WAF, we have a number of security measures in place.

bethskurrie

2019-04-12 23:03

@bheemreddy181 as a tool that needs to support CI, we are well aware of the need for the service to be as stable as possible, and this was in the forefront of our minds when we rearchitected the platform recently.

bethskurrie

2019-04-12 23:05

I maintain both the open source and the hosted projects, so the hosted platform always has the latest code.

michaelzaporozhets

2019-04-14 04:54

has joined #general

alexplusm

2019-04-14 14:44

has joined #general

mdsucgang

2019-04-15 01:05

has joined #general

thomas.stock

2019-04-15 10:07

Not really, you are preparing your provider's database to be able to respond to the specific interaction. For example: You prove that there is an endpoint GET /employees/all and that, given 'there are no employees', the endpoint will return an empty array. In order to prove this, you set up a database with an empty employees table. For the next interaction 'given there is an employee called Joan, I can find the employee' you insert an employee called Joan in the database and calling /employees?name=joan endpoint should now return that employee. etc

thomas.stock

2019-04-15 10:09

if you look at my screenshot, you see I'm not hardcoding API responses, I'm just inserting stuff in a database. This proves to me (as provider) that my API is able to return the expected/inserted data.

asite-rshah

2019-04-15 11:21

has joined #general

bheemreddy181

2019-04-15 18:51

1. PACT generally comes into picture for syntax for the API response, not for the semantics( what value will I have the particular field ) of the response. You can handle such cases (/DELETE) with having the Provider States where you can populate or mock the response of the database object or populate the DB and perform cleanup at the end. 2. Consumer interaction against the mock server would help Consumer to talk to real service so that we can reply the same interaction on the provider side - @bethskurrie Can you give you a better answer than me

kyle

2019-04-15 20:54

has joined #general

m.balghonaim

2019-04-16 03:35

That makes sense, thanks Thomas :thumbsup:

handa.manik

2019-04-16 06:31

has joined #general

iruben91

2019-04-16 14:32

has joined #general

ian.mcwilliams

2019-04-16 14:46

has joined #general

gopinathlangote11

2019-04-17 08:55

Who is maintainer from pact foundation here? We at our company want to introduce pact broker in our infrastructure. For the same we have some questionaries to get answer from the pact foundation organisation. please DM me, I will continue discussion there.

bethskurrie

2019-04-17 08:55

mboudreau

2019-04-17 09:21

@gopinathlangote11 there's a few of us here, just ask.

iruben91

2019-04-17 10:12

Hello everyone. My company is currently replatforming all its existing systems into a microservices architecture hosted with a cloud provider and is considering adopting Pact for contract testing between our services. At this time we're using C# and .NET Core and we don't have Ruby developers, so we would be using Pact-Net. Some questions that have been raised are: - Could Pact be used to test contracts between queues and consumers (i.e. non-HTTPlike AMQP)? I came across this Gist (https://gist.github.com/bethesque/0ee446a9f93db4dd0697) and thread (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pact-support/4QVTdecls9s/3-cJQh1TUTgJ), but I'm trying to understand whether this would be achievable with the Pact-Net library or if it would need plugging into the underlying Ruby implementation. - Are there any future plans for implementing Protobuf testing in Pact? - Is it possible to use Pact-Net's mock server for additional test cases for component testing within the consumer without including all of them in the Pact. I understand that the mock and stub service used by Pact is accessible for additional uses, but I'm unsure whether it is accessible through the Pact-Net library.

matt.fellows

2019-04-17 10:44

Short answer is yes to all 3. For messaging support there is a caveat as the message provider work is currently in flight for .NET. it looks like there is a working branch close to completion, so you might like to check our the GH issues to follow that work

matt.fellows

2019-04-17 10:44

Also, sounds exciting!

matt.fellows

2019-04-17 10:45

I'll try to answer more a bit later once I've finished with dinner etc :laughing:

murphy.meng

2019-04-17 12:06

has joined #general

murphy.meng

2019-04-17 12:08

Great! People are alive here

murphy.meng

2019-04-17 12:10

@beth Sorry I dropped you an email seeking some help before I get in the slack.

murphy.meng

2019-04-17 12:11

I am attempting to implement v3 spec to pact-python. Who is the best contact there to seek help and discuss?

matt.fellows

2019-04-17 12:19

@matthew.balvanz @jose and @richard.jones (pactman) are worth chatting to

matt.fellows

2019-04-17 12:19

Also #pact-python

neil

2019-04-17 12:38

@iruben91 What @matt.fellows said. Have a look at the `message-pact` branch. You can build a nuget package from that branch if you?d like to use it.

neil

2019-04-17 12:41

For question 3, you can always run another instance of the mock service and just ignore the pact file. Otherwise if you don?t call `.Build()` on the `PactBuilder` the pact file won?t even be written.

iruben91

2019-04-17 13:16

Thank you for your help! So, I understand that AMQP support is nearing completion, and that the mock and stub Pact server can be used separately for other non-contract tests. So, are you saying that the Protobuf support may be being considered for future iterations of Pact?

neil

2019-04-17 13:23

Yeah message support is getting close, we just need to put in some time to cleanup the api and finish things off. I just haven?t had the time lately. Yes it should be, however I?d recommend you run some PoC to see if it works for what your are trying to do. I?m not sure on the status of Protobufs TBH. Check out #protobufs for the conversations.

marc

2019-04-17 13:27

has joined #general

000sps97

2019-04-17 13:45

Hello everyone,

000sps97

2019-04-17 13:48

i am using Pact Provider Verification for verifying pacts using CLI i want to use multiple tags so that i can verify all the pacts containing the tags, like i have 2 pacts, one with tag as "develop" version 1.2 and other with "abcd" version 1.0 i want to run all the interactions in for given two tags at the same time (for checking backward compatibility )

000sps97

2019-04-17 13:49

this the command i am running `./pact-provider-verifier --provider=ApiGatewayProvider --consumer-version-tag=develop --provider=ApiGatewayProvider --consumer-version-tag=abcd --provider-base-url http://localhost:4000 --pact-broker-base-url=http://localhost:9292` it was written in documentation that we can use --consumer-version-tag multiple time

000sps97

2019-04-17 13:52

but its overwriting the tag and searching for only tag abcd instead of both

murphy.meng

2019-04-17 14:11

@matt.fellows pact-mock_service claims it support spec v3, does it support mocking messaging? If yes, any chance I have some examples? If no, how jvm and golang client claim they do asynchronous api? (I did assume all impls relies on pact-mock_service the ruby impl)

nodkane12

2019-04-17 14:22

has joined #general

nodkane12

2019-04-17 14:27

Hi everyone! I'm using Pact for Node.JS and Mocha and I've been using the example provided in the mocha examples section of the Pact-JS repo; I want to validate the pact generated from the local pact server against some external API that is for all intents and purposes a black box. there doesn't seem to be any documentation on how I can go about doing this, (I appreciate this is probably not the right channel, but I'm not sure which one to post this in)

ariel

2019-04-17 15:12

has joined #general

simon.nizov

2019-04-17 16:03

Looking for implementation details regarding tagging pacts when using feature *toggles*, not branches. I?m implementing step 5 of the pact nirvana guide https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/pact_nirvana#5-allow-contracts-to-change-without-breaking-your-builds. Trying to figure out what?s the best way to pass the feature toggles to my CI build which publishes the pact with `pact-broker publish`. Anyone willing to share?

tmok01

2019-04-17 21:41

hey all - quick question for you all. When a consumer publishes a pact to pact-broker which is the same as the last pact it published, is it supposed to require the provider to verify it again? (It looks to me as though it does)

matt.fellows

2019-04-17 22:08

No, if the contract hasn?t changed the previous verification result still applies.

matt.fellows

2019-04-17 22:08

The caveat to this is that if you are generating random values in the contract, the broker will detect this as a change and expect a new verification

matt.fellows

2019-04-17 22:09

Can you please elaborate further by ?mock? in this context?

matt.fellows

2019-04-17 22:10

In short, it supports messaging, but we work at a different layer of abstraction. Rather than implementing the thousands of various messaging protocols, we expect you to separate out the bit that creates the _message_ from the bits that send that message over a wire format. The bit that generates (and on the other side, consumes) the message is the bit we test in Pact

matt.fellows

2019-04-17 22:10

Have you looked at the examples?

matt.fellows

2019-04-17 22:11

Might be worth chatting in #pact-js

matt.fellows

2019-04-17 22:12

It isn?t ideal, but it is doable. There is no reason why you couldn?t just point the provider verification at the external service (rather than a local one). What have you tried so far?

matt.fellows

2019-04-17 22:12

And what issues have you encountered?

mboudreau

2019-04-17 22:15

is this front-end or backend feature toggles?

simon.nizov

2019-04-17 22:35

@mboudreau backend

tmok01

2019-04-17 22:53

Thanks for that Matt. But I seem to have a situation in my pact broker matrix that contradicts that ....

tmok01

2019-04-17 22:55

What would be the process to get some help with this?

mboudreau

2019-04-17 23:25

Right, so you want your feature toggle backend to have a contract with an API? I need more context here :P

ylin

2019-04-18 03:13

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-04-18 03:39

Ideally an isolated reproducable test that we can use to identify the cause. There is a test pact broker you can publish to if you need

murphy.meng

2019-04-18 07:04

Yes. @matt.fellows, had gone through all examples (groovy and go impl) but I did not feel myself understood. I don?t see a single example that shows how it actually works with a actually messaging broker. True I know pact does abstraction for messaging recv/produce, but the integration part (make it work with activemq, kafaka) is the bit I am after.

murphy.meng

2019-04-18 07:09

By ?mock? in my question, I mean in a consumer testing for async api, do you expect a real message client (stomp, openwire transport) integrated with pact client, and in the test code, it is the messaging client which sends out the messages __generated__ by pact client? If the answer is yes. I definitely expect the pact mock server should be able to receive the message, read out and parse the body before it generates the pact. However the pact mock server does not have the ability to receive messages (abstraction remember?), then what extra work we need do to help the mock server to consume real messages? I dont see any option to do so in pact-mock_service cli.

murphy.meng

2019-04-18 07:11

(I did not make it clear enough perhaps, when I say mock in my question, I though concept-wise, pact could even mock the message recv/produce with normal http transport, thus it is not actually testing asyn api under the hood)

nodkane12

2019-04-18 07:56

```It isn?t ideal, but it is doable. There is no reason why you couldn?t just point the provider verification at the external service (rather than a local one). What have you tried so far?``` I tried that, I changed the provider verification to the dummy API I am using as a proof of concept, but got an error to the tune of: ``` Pact verification failed! Actual interactions do not match expected interactions for mock MockService. Missing requests: GET /api/v1/employees ```

simon.nizov

2019-04-18 08:02

@mboudreau I want to be able to make changes to my ?main branch? pact, without breaking the consumer build. My understanding is that this should be done by tagging the pact with some kind of indication, ideally derived from a feature toggle.

matt.fellows

2019-04-18 08:08

that?s the consumer side verification.

matt.fellows

2019-04-18 08:08

you definitely can?t point at another API endpoint during consumer verification - you _must_ point at the mock service. On the provider side verification you can do this

nodkane12

2019-04-18 08:17

Ah. There's nothing in the example about how to set up the provider side verification for js & mocha

matt.fellows

2019-04-18 08:24

which example?

matt.fellows

2019-04-18 08:27

the end-to-end example has one

matt.fellows

2019-04-18 08:27

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/#provider-api-testing is the docs

matt.fellows

2019-04-18 08:27

here is the e2e provider https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/master/examples/e2e/test/provider.spec.js

nodkane12

2019-04-18 08:30

Ah, I was looking at the Node.JS Mocha example folder in the Github Repo

nodkane12

2019-04-18 08:30

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/tree/master/examples/mocha

matt.fellows

2019-04-18 08:39

matt.fellows

2019-04-18 08:39

Did that help? The framework you use is largely irrelevant

nodkane12

2019-04-18 08:52

In a sense, yes. I'd have liked to use mocha framework in that example, but it looks like that's a no-go.

nodkane12

2019-04-18 08:52

Thanks

matt.fellows

2019-04-18 08:55

It is mocha

matt.fellows

2019-04-18 08:57

What do you mean?

nodkane12

2019-04-18 08:59

I meant the framework example in the repo folder

nodkane12

2019-04-18 08:59

it seemed simpler

matt.fellows

2019-04-18 09:17

Oh ok. Yes the e2e is more fully features to show the capabilities. You won't need them all in most cases

nodkane12

2019-04-18 09:20

Cool, thanks again

matt.fellows

2019-04-18 11:34

Sorry was out at a family thing. Ping me if things aren't clear

murphy.meng

2019-04-18 13:01

@matt.fellows, does it make sense?

murphy.meng

2019-04-18 13:13

Can someone point me to examples of what provider tests SHOULD cover apart from validating the replay of contracts? I thought I read through all documents of pact general, pact go impl, pact python impl and pactman impl, but I did not find answer. For example, provider provides endpoint /user/some_name for GET and the response is json about the user. The consumer testing is apparently about whether the response contains all mandatory fields and if they are in proper format/content and write it to contract. What is left to provider tests? What the provider team should test out of the scope of contracts provided by its client? Why it does not do such testing in normal unit framework, but under pact?

chris.empson

2019-04-18 14:26

has joined #general

simon.nizov

2019-04-18 15:02

https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/consumer#use-pact-for-contract-testing-not-functional-testing-of-the-provider https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/consumer/contract_tests_not_functional_tests These two parts of the docs should answer your questions. Basically Pact provider verification is just an additional layer to your provider tests. You should continue writing functional unit and integration tests for you provider service as you did before.

albertot

2019-04-18 16:31

has joined #general

albertot

2019-04-18 17:15

I'm hoping to find a solution or workaround for my problem. The provider returns something like this: ``` "ratings": [ { "id": 12, "count": 4 "average": 3.75 }, { "id": 37, "count": 1 "average": 4 }, { "id": 143, "count": 0 "average": 0 }, { "id": 574, "count": 6 "average": 4.333333 }, ] ``` My matcher is ``` ratings: eachLike({ id: like(15), count: like(20), average: like(4.5) }) ``` When I validate the provider, I get `Expected a Float (like 4.5) but got a Fixnum (0)`. It looks like this is by design. Any way around it?

murphy.meng

2019-04-18 21:09

Exactly, exactly! These two references are totally on my side, thanks Simon.

murphy.meng

2019-04-18 21:14

I should rephrase my question to be, APART FROM consumer side tests, and scenarios that should be covered by functional testing, what should be covered in provider side testing? (My current confusing is, I can imagine NONE, note in the useful article https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/consumer/contract_tests_not_functional_tests it discussed consumer testing, rather than provider testing)

matt.fellows

2019-04-18 23:25

Hmm I'm not sure actually

matt.fellows

2019-04-18 23:26

As an aside, you don't need to nested `like` in the `eachLike` (superfluous) and this probably should have been asked in the js channel.

matt.fellows

2019-04-18 23:29

I think so. The mock service only talks http at this point and not any of the messaging protocols at this stage (we are experimenting with protobufs atm). For now, you can't use it to mock directly an async service

murphy.meng

2019-04-19 07:28

How consumer tests for asny api are performed then? like jvm and go impl?

matt.fellows

2019-04-19 07:45

Have a read of this https://dius.com.au/2017/09/22/contract-testing-serverless-and-asynchronous-applications/

matt.fellows

2019-04-19 07:45

And then look at the example tests in those repos (pact js too)

jadedevin13

2019-04-19 09:05

has joined #general

vivek.thangathurai

2019-04-19 11:21

has joined #general

vivek.thangathurai

2019-04-19 11:27

Hello

vivek.thangathurai

2019-04-19 11:29

I want to pass the tags to provider tests with @PactBroker(tags ="${pactbroker.tags}") as a system/environment varaible using gradle.. but even if I pass the variable to the test in gradle it is not being picked up by the provider.. it says `java.lang.RuntimeException: Could not resolve property "pactbroker.tags" in the system properties or environment variables and no default value is supplied`

vivek.thangathurai

2019-04-19 11:31

`systemProperty "pactbroker.tags", System.getProperty("pactbroker.tags")` passing the value to gradle task as -Dpactbroker.tags=latest,1.00

albertot

2019-04-19 13:16

I did ask this in the JS channel, but this is not a JS channel exclusively. I tried your hint of removing the `like`s inside and I still get the same errors. The provider validation fails any time a whole number is returned without a decimal component (that is, `0.0` or `4.0` in this case). I understand failing when I expect an integer and I receive a float. But failing when I expect a float and I receive an integer is an bug in my book (and in math books too). So far we have been impressed with Pact and want to adopt it, but this bug is a show-stopper for us.

albertot

2019-04-19 14:13

:point_up: s/JS channel/JS issue/

matt.fellows

2019-04-20 00:48

Can you please raise an issue? Seems worth investigating

matt.fellows

2019-04-20 00:49

The hint was just to DRY up your code, the outcome is the same (matchers Cascade)

mpglover

2019-04-22 02:11

has joined #general

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-04-22 12:14

I guess you can do something like ?feature A is enabled? in providerState for interactions affected by a specific toggle

simon.nizov

2019-04-22 12:22

@vitaliy.grigoruk How will that make my provider verification process skip that updated pact?

mvpatel1982

2019-04-22 13:26

has joined #general

albertot

2019-04-22 14:53

Is there a particular repo I should raise this in? After some investigating, this is in the Ruby core. Would `pact-ruby` be the best project?

matt.fellows

2019-04-22 23:28

That would work I think

2019-04-23 02:41

has joined #general

mitchell.davis

2019-04-23 06:50

has joined #general

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-04-23 09:23

it looks like I didn?t understand your question correctly, @simon.nizov.

2019-04-24 13:38

has joined #general

gavrie

2019-04-24 14:52

has joined #general

audun.halland

2019-04-24 19:08

has joined #general

audun.halland

2019-04-24 19:34

Hi all. I recently noticed the `pact-reference` Rust project, and got the impression that this will somehow maybe some day act as replacement for `pact-ruby`. Background is that I've been having some problems with `pact-js` and pact spec 3. So this has spawned my curiosity a bit and I'm just wondering how to be of any help contributing to the stabilization of that project. The roadmap states that it's Alpha. I did not find a (public) slack channel devoted to that project.

audun.halland

2019-04-24 19:35

I'm just a big fan of the pact framework, my team and project gets great value out of it, and I'm interested in helping if it's wanted.

matt.fellows

2019-04-24 22:28

Thank you and yes, help is always wanted.

matt.fellows

2019-04-24 22:29

The tldr is that we've been busy with lots of things and whilst this hasn't been forgotten it's probably pushed back in terms of priority

matt.fellows

2019-04-24 22:29

That being said, how can we help you help us? :laughing:

mboudreau

2019-04-25 02:51

@audun.halland ^ What he said. I'm personally committed in getting the rust binary done so we can stop having to spin up another binary in ruby, which is a pain, and then having to manage it all. Problem is time and that so many are already using what we have and we're constantly trying to fix issues and help those get started with Pact

uglyog

2019-04-25 04:32

@audun.halland I wrote the rust library to be a DLL that can be loaded into any language implementation. It is V3 compliant, and has the same features as Pact-JVM. It is ready to be used, but there may need to be some integration work to be done. The best way to help would be to try use it with another language (i.e. JS)

uglyog

2019-04-25 04:33

There is the #pact-rust channel

uglyog

2019-04-25 04:34

The roadmap has not been updated for a long time

audun.halland

2019-04-25 06:00

Thanks, I joined that channel. Can continue discussion there.

audun.halland

2019-04-25 06:12

I'm working with a node.js provider for the first time and then I noticed the problems with pact spec 3 with the ruby verfier CLI. So if pact-ruby is not going to be prioritized in the future, pact-node should probably use rust verifier-CLI/mock-server instead (ASAP?). But the rust DLL didn't appear very stable to me, hence the bug I reported about https pact broker. So two things I can contribute some time to: 1. Fix rust "DLL". 2. Rewrite pact-node to use that instead of ruby

matt.fellows

2019-04-25 08:09

I would suggest pact node stay as is (as it has utility separate to what the dll will provide) and it moves straight into Pact JS. We also don't really need another CLI for pact stuff and want to reduce the number of packages we need to maintain.

matt.fellows

2019-04-25 08:10

There are other gaps in the rust impl which I'll try to draw up later (and share my previous notes on the matter)

s1apped

2019-04-25 09:47

has joined #general

s1apped

2019-04-25 09:58

hello. Maybe you will be able to help. So I setup pact broker with jenkins and can-i-deploy and added webhook

s1apped

2019-04-25 09:58

contract_content_changed

s1apped

2019-04-25 09:58

but unfortunetally

s1apped

2019-04-25 09:59

provider build is being triggered everytime eventhough pact didn't change

bethskurrie

2019-04-25 09:59

Open the pact

bethskurrie

2019-04-25 10:00

In the browser. Click on the "view in api browser" button.

bethskurrie

2019-04-25 10:01

You'll find a relation in the api browser that says something like "diff previous distinct version". Click on the button to follow that relation.

bethskurrie

2019-04-25 10:01

You'll see what's changed.

matt.fellows

2019-04-25 10:03

@s1apped just check that if your consumer code is falling back on the test library (e.g. Pact JVM) to generate values for code, things like dates etc. might change - this will result in a contract changed event

s1apped

2019-04-25 10:04

I checked diff and it doesn't make sense it showed some old differences

s1apped

2019-04-25 10:04

I will investigate further than

s1apped

2019-04-25 10:04

thank you :slightly_smiling_face:

s1apped

2019-04-25 18:33

I made some investigation

s1apped

2019-04-25 18:33

there is no diff

s1apped

i cleaned up everything and started from scratch

s1apped

the pact file looks ok

s1apped

the webhook and build is only triggered when

s1apped

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/issues/270

there is new commit on consumer side

s1apped

2019-04-25 18:35

when i run consumer build without a change nothing happens

s1apped

2019-04-25 18:35

to be hones I'm out of ideas..

joelbyler

2019-04-25 18:50

has joined #general

1490665859

2019-04-26 03:32

has joined #general

ashish.dubey91

2019-04-26 07:26

what?s the recommended way of doing provider verification when the provider may be aggregating responses from more upstream services (its providers?)?

bethskurrie

2019-04-26 07:27

this one is tricky to be honest

ashish.dubey91

2019-04-26 07:27

1. do you run instances of all the services in an environment and do a verification against them? 2. or run the provider against the mocks of the upstreams?

bethskurrie

2019-04-26 07:28

you can write pacts between the intermediate service and the downstreams and use them to verify the pact with the upstream... BUT it gets quite fiddly

bethskurrie

2019-04-26 07:29

tbh (and I say this as one of the main authors of pact) this is one of the hardest scenarios to use pact in.

ashish.dubey91

2019-04-26 07:29

yeah especially when we end up in a scenario, where we want to verify a pact that a consumer has written and to do that we have to write a pact between all services in the chain

ashish.dubey91

2019-04-26 07:30

I?m trying to figure out if we can ease this somehow for our teams

bethskurrie

2019-04-26 07:36

What languages are you using?

ashish.dubey91

2019-04-26 07:40

python mostly

ashish.dubey91

2019-04-26 07:40

and Java for one consumer

bethskurrie

2019-04-26 08:10

Which python impl?

ashish.dubey91

2019-04-26 08:30

pact-python https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-python

bethskurrie

2019-04-26 08:52

So, here's one technique I've used, but it would require a little addition to the python code.

bethskurrie

2019-04-26 08:54

In the ruby code, you can create a pact request or response object outside of the dsl that is used to set up the mock. You make a fixture (not sure if the same term is used in python). Then, you use the same fixture to generate the downstream pact, and response to the upstream pact.

bethskurrie

2019-04-26 08:56

You have to "reify" the response object (turn it from the pact object with likes and matchers into a concrete example) to use it, and this bit of functionality isn't available yet in the python lib

ashish.dubey91

2019-04-26 09:01

do you have this as an example somewhere?

bethskurrie

2019-04-26 09:02

No, unfortunately it was for a client years ago.

bethskurrie

2019-04-26 09:02

If I get time, I'll see if I can recreate a simple example.

ashish.dubey91

2019-04-26 09:03

thanks a lot. I can imagine this a little bit, infact we tried something similar, but I want to sure it?s the same thing. I?ll share something from my end as well in a bit

ryan.wicken

2019-04-26 09:10

has joined #general

s1apped

2019-04-26 09:44

@bethskurrie @matt.fellows I created an issue and added some details

s1apped

2019-04-26 09:44

bethskurrie

2019-04-26 09:47

@s1apped do you have access to the logs?

bethskurrie

2019-04-26 09:47

If I put in some extra logging so that it indicated what it thought had changed would you be able to get to those logs?

s1apped

2019-04-26 09:47

I think I might be able to get it

s1apped

2019-04-26 09:48

I'm running the pact broker docker

bethskurrie

2019-04-26 09:50

Cool. I'll add the logging and let you know when it's out.

s1apped

2019-04-26 09:51

awesome

s1apped

2019-04-26 09:51

thank you

mokhtar.neifer

2019-04-26 10:32

has joined #general

joelbyler

2019-04-26 14:25

question, is it possible to use a standalone mock server to stand in and develop against?

joelbyler

2019-04-26 14:25

(in addition to running tests against)

yousafn

2019-04-26 14:46

It is, we run it in a docker container and load in a pact file. The container is then uploaded to ecr and run in ecs ( on AWS ) None of our dependencies are ready yet so this is the only way we can test our journies e2e through our ui

bethskurrie

2019-04-27 00:40

Pact peeps of all unit testing frameworks (just normal ones, not pact ones) - if you mark a test as pending, and it passes, does your test fail or pass? Please let me know in this thread.

bethskurrie

2019-04-27 00:40

In rspec, a pending test that passes, fails.

matt.fellows

2019-04-27 01:01

Skipped tests cause a suite to pass in most JS frameworks

matt.fellows

2019-04-27 01:11

What is a pending test that passes, exactly?

bethskurrie

2019-04-27 01:18

In rspec, you mark a test with "pending: true" in the metadata. It still runs, but if it fails, the test overall does not fail - it's like saying, I expect this to fail

kgrabowski

2019-04-27 09:02

has joined #general

joelbyler

2019-04-27 16:03

Ok, is there a good resource for learning how this can be done? The docker / aws part isn?t necessary. Just trying to do this locally for now. Also preferably with ruby.

joelbyler

2019-04-27 16:03

I see some instructions in the wiki for the ruby gem but I?m having trouble following. And it says no interactions match

joelbyler

2019-04-27 17:25

Oh, maybe the pact-mock_service gem?

yousafn

2019-04-27 19:40

Yeah chap, that is what we load into our containers. Pass it a pact file and it will mock the provider. You can use matchers to make the interactions less restrictive :ok_hand:

abubics

2019-04-28 03:52

In most frameworks I've used, pending tests don't get run :thinking_face:

bethskurrie

2019-04-28 03:53

interesting. rspec may be the outlier then.

bethskurrie

2019-04-28 03:53

you use "skip" or xdescribe if you don't want it to run at all.

abubics

2019-04-28 03:57

Ah... In that case, I think most frameworks don't have a distinction between pending and disabled :upside_down_face:

matt.fellows

2019-04-28 04:02

Yeah. It seems unusual, or at least, I?ve not come across it / needed it. I can see why a passing pending test would fail a suite in this case though

biaofu

2019-04-28 06:07

hi guys, in the past a few months, I saw several pots/discussions talked about "should it replaces e2e integration test with contract test?". We have some documents describes this topic, e.g. https://docs.pact.io/faq. I know the consideration to answer this question could be emanative, it depends on lots of uncertain factors, e.g. service environments, risk tolerance, even teams coordination. Some of my points are that both e2e integration tests and contract tests have their own pros & cons, usually, in common situations, I don't think one can or should be "replaced" with another. So, how do you guys personal feel about this question? Would like to hear any opinions from you. :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2019-04-28 06:29

They replace a certain class of integration tests (eg the ones you do to make sure that you're using the API right). They don't replace the tests that ensure that the core business logic of your services is working.

bethskurrie

2019-04-28 06:30

Ideally, they should allow you to write fewer integration tests.

biaofu

2019-04-28 06:37

yes, the same opinion with you.

bethskurrie

2019-04-28 06:37

Do we say otherwise in the FAQ? Maybe it needs clarification.

biaofu

2019-04-28 06:43

I?m not so clearly understanding your ?otherwise? here, but we do mentioned the ?core business? in the FAQ, just not as straightforward as we chat here, haha

bethskurrie

2019-04-28 06:47

I'll have another look at the text.

biaofu

2019-04-28 06:48

Another thing people always talks about but never makes it clear is that when we talk about ?integration test?, whose integration tests are we pointing to? The consumer?s integration test or the provider?s integration test?

bethskurrie

2019-04-28 06:49

Either, I guess. Anything when the two systems are both up and running and calling each other.

biaofu

2019-04-28 07:17

let?s say, service A calls C constructing contract ?a2c?, service B calls C constructing contract ?b2c?, and whenever C is called, it will call its own dependence service D, then there is a contract ?c2d?. So, when we talk about ?should contract test for ?a2c? or ?b2c? replace their integration tests??, it?s not quite clear the ?integration test? is pointing to which services, A,B,C,D? Since the contracts ?a2c? and ?b2c? could have totally no overlap at all, then, we say, contract ?a2c? could replace some parts of ?the? integration test, let?s say it integration-test-a2c, the same, we have the integration-test-b2c, due to there is no overlap between these two collections of integration tests, both of them together construct a full collection of service C?s integration tests, which will call service D as well. So, in this cases, if we don?t point out whose integration test we are talking, it could be confusing. My understanding is, to a single service (it could be consumer or provider in different context), contract test is only Consumer concerned but Provider independent, while integration test is only Provider concerned but Consumer independent.

bethskurrie

2019-04-28 07:19

I'm afraid I got lost there!

biaofu

2019-04-28 07:19

I guess you will :sweat_smile:

simon.nizov

2019-04-28 08:20

@ashish.dubey91 @bethskurrie I would love to see those examples as well

joelbyler

2019-04-28 12:19

Thanks for the advice, I?m very new to this but excited to give it a go. Will try it out this week. :yay:

luchillo17

2019-04-28 16:39

has joined #general

luchillo17

2019-04-28 16:45

Hi, i'm trying Pact and i can't grasp yet how to test properly in the backend, say if i have a DB, should i just input the data the contract expects in my DB before the Pact contract verification?

hstene

2019-04-28 16:58

Yes, this is what states are for! :smile:

hstene

2019-04-28 16:59

https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/provider/using_provider_states_effectively

abubics

2019-04-28 23:56

ideally, stub out the DB, so you have fewer moving parts . . . but second choice is to seed the database :slightly_smiling_face:

abubics

2019-04-28 23:59

Diagrams to help this explanation :ok_hand: ``` A B \ / C | D ```

abubics

2019-04-29 00:01

there are 2 main categories of integrat*ed* tests . . . ones that make sure the real deployed services are talking to each other (smoke tests), and ones that make sure the "core business logic of your services is working", regardless of where they're deployed (integration)

abubics

2019-04-29 00:02

Pact doesn't intend to replace smoke tests, but it can/should mostly replace other integrated tests :slightly_smiling_face:

franklin.huynh

2019-04-29 01:06

Hi, I'm trying to apply can-i-deploy to our service using bitbucket pipeline. A bit of context, as our QA owns a container where we installed all the required packages/tools. In this, QA will easily enable/disable if it fails in the contract test. Our pipeline looks like this ``` branches: master: - parallel: - step: *unit-test - step: *security-test - step: *contract-test - step: *deploy-to-dev - step: *can-i-deploy-staging - step: *deploy-to-staging - step: *tag-staging - step: *can-i-deploy-production - step: *deploy-to-production - step: *tag-production ``` There is a 10 steps limitation in the pipeline that make me think about I should reduce the steps of contract test (there are 5 steps occupied in the above script). My question is do we have any best practise or recommendation to apply can-i-deploy?

biaofu

2019-04-29 02:17

@abubics, your opinion is quite clear, I like that. But I think the point, that to replace ?the other integrated tests which checking the core business logic?, is against to what @bethskurrie mentioned above, and our FAQ also.

biaofu

2019-04-29 02:29

Personally, I agree that Pact shouldn?t focus too much on the ?core business logic?, but only focus on ensuring Provider is responding to its Consumers correctly. To checking the core business logic, it?s the duty of those integration tests, no mater they are integrat*ed* (e2e) or not.

bethskurrie

2019-04-29 02:32

It's the duty of the provider's functional tests to make sure that its doing what it should. One mistake that often gets made is using the consumer as a test harness for the provider.

biaofu

2019-04-29 02:33

Yes, that?s definitely correct!:handshake:

bethskurrie

2019-04-29 02:33

Eg. It's not the consumer's job to make sure that when you do a post to a collection resource, that the new resource is properly created and then available in the collection

luchillo17

2019-04-29 03:35

I'm working with Neo4j, a graph based DB, i want to test with the DB to ensure the graph model is actually constructed correctly so i think i should seed the DB, hopefully it's faster (the DB is supposed to be 100x faster than RDBMS)

abubics

2019-04-29 03:54

yarr . . . contract tests are for the communication interface between systems (i.e. consumer and provider), not for actual business logic testing. That's what functional tests are for :ok_hand:

abubics

2019-04-29 03:56

so, I mean, you can :slightly_smiling_face: no one will stop you :stuck_out_tongue:

abubics

2019-04-29 03:57

but if you need a very large fixture, it's likely that your domain model is wonky

abubics

2019-04-29 03:58

if you want to assert things about content, rather than content shape, the contract is likely not what you're testing :slightly_smiling_face:

myao

2019-04-29 04:14

has joined #general

s1apped

2019-04-29 07:43

and contract didn't change

s1apped

2019-04-29 08:48

@bethskurrie I went through your response on github

s1apped

2019-04-29 08:48

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

s1apped

2019-04-29 08:48

In my case consumer is tagged with branch name, there is a previous version

s1apped

2019-04-29 08:49

but contract didn't change

s1apped

2019-04-29 08:49

so if I understand correctly webhook shouldn't be triggered

andfadeev

2019-04-29 09:57

has joined #general

jonathan.ruckwood

2019-04-29 11:48

has joined #general

luchillo17

2019-04-29 16:10

I do want to test the content shape, but there's data that depends on other data, which is used in the query but not sent back to client, that's why i think i need to seed the DB

luchillo17

2019-04-29 16:11

Hey i know Pact is Consumer Contract Testing, is there a way to make it work as Producer Contract Testing?, like defining the Contracts from the Provider instead of the Consumer?

hstene

2019-04-29 16:41

I am not sure of what you are thinking of here? What is the end goal? What are you trying to test?

bheemreddy181

2019-04-29 17:29

Maybe like Generate a Schema from Provider API and validate each time the schema changes @luchillo17 ?

bheemreddy181

2019-04-29 17:32

@bethskurrie @matt.fellows similar to the above question - I felt like PACT does give a provision of breaking contracts if none of your consumers is using few fields from your API or not bothered if the type is changed? yet all ?

bheemreddy181

2019-04-29 17:33

What if I generated a schema from Provider side once I create my API and validate my API each time I do a change?

luchillo17

2019-04-29 17:39

I want the contract to be generated in the server & the client consumes that contract in their testing

luchillo17

2019-04-29 17:41

I want the server to dictate the shape of the data, generate the contract, upload it to the broker and then use it in the client, possibly even publishing the contract so external API's or third parties can develop with the contracts

bheemreddy181

2019-04-29 18:32

@luchillo17 what if you are changing the contract - that is something which is expected by the consumer then you generate it but the consumer expectations fails and you still want to release it

bheemreddy181

2019-04-29 18:33

the main reason of PACT is to have Integration to happen earlier get the feedback faster on each PR itself if the are changing some expectations of Consumer

bheemreddy181

2019-04-29 18:34

Syntactically - than Semantics of what the value is and how the values is generated

luchillo17

2019-04-29 18:35

I would expect the contract to change only when the API changes, and the Client would adapt to that change, our app is DB heavy so most business logic would go in the Back End

bheemreddy181

2019-04-29 18:37

How does you expect client to adapt the changes untill unless you know what client uses

bheemreddy181

2019-04-29 18:39

which might also lead to having just one version of the API unless needed

luchillo17

2019-04-29 18:40

Let me see if i understand correctly how PACT is supposed to work (as far as i've read): Client defines it's test along with the expected request & response, generating a Contract, then API would load the Contract in it's test and use that to assert the expected request & response If the client changes the expected request/response then the contract changes & the API test could fail, in such case the API is expected to make changes to comply with new contract Somethink like that?

bheemreddy181

2019-04-29 18:41

it is two way not only from the Client ( Consumer ) Side

bheemreddy181

2019-04-29 18:42

even if the providers changes the API - he would know he is breaking a consumers expectations on a particular or set of fields

bheemreddy181

2019-04-29 18:44

Probably this is good read : https://reflectoring.io/7-reasons-for-consumer-driven-contracts/ @luchillo17

pascal.wilbrink

2019-04-29 20:33

has joined #general

pascal.wilbrink

2019-04-29 20:34

Hi all

biaofu

2019-04-30 01:56

hi @luchillo17, if you really want to define the contracts at provider side and use the contracts to test your provider service, then, you are probably duplicating the functional test, not contract test to the provider. Actually, the quintessence of contract test is ?customer driven?, if you can?t manage to achieve that due to some reality reasons, e.g. team communication, network boundary, Pact won?t bring you more benefits than functional tests. Or, another option is, maybe, you can look at Spring Cloud Contract, another implementation of contract test, which create the contracts from provider side.

kevin.meiresonne

2019-04-30 07:57

I'd say "consumer driven" rather than "customer driven"

biaofu

2019-04-30 08:24

yes, consumer driven :sweat_smile:

abubics

2019-04-30 08:27

when you say > data that depends on other data it sounds like you might be testing behaviour through concurrent calls :thinking_face: if that's not what you mean, please explain your use case a bit more :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2019-04-30 10:00

Exactly

bethskurrie

2019-04-30 10:02

consumer contracts remove the need to version an API. API versioning is a "work around" because you don't want to break backwards compatibility, and you don't know who is using your API. It's the best technique for a public API. When you know all your consumers, and you know exactly what they're using, you know the impact of changing, and hence, you should be able to avoid versioning the API.

bheemreddy181

2019-04-30 12:28

@bethskurrie ^

bheemreddy181

2019-04-30 13:40

Completely agree :)

bheemreddy181

2019-04-30 13:41

What I meant is documentation driven contract testing

bheemreddy181

2019-04-30 13:41

Where you create a base schema and validate the change against it

bheemreddy181

2019-04-30 13:42

I think this would be again good for public api where you don?t know the consumers

luchillo17

2019-04-30 16:20

Hey @bheemreddy181 I've looked at the document you sent and it makes a lot of sense, i wanted the contract to be defined in the Producer (API) because my back end devs are way more knowledgeable about the business logic, guess i'll have them help the front guys with the tests. thanks.

bheemreddy181

2019-04-30 16:21

Cool - have a great contract testing

qatrera

2019-04-30 16:32

If I understood Contract testing correctly, we shouldn't use this kind of testing to test the business logic but to verify the interfaces of your application

qatrera

2019-04-30 16:32

to test your business logic you have unit/integration tests

luchillo17

2019-04-30 16:50

Yes, i just wanted to have the same guys that know the backend to design the contract for the interfaces

bheemreddy181

2019-04-30 17:18

@qatrera Unit and Functional Tests -- Shift left to decrease the level of Integration tests - The main intention of having PACT is to release micro-services independently

luchillo17

2019-04-30 19:11

Yeah sorry my english isn't the best, let me try with an example, to test 1 of the end points i need to have an user, have data in the DB, the user is related to a set of the data, and the data i need is related to that set, say for example a teacher who has courses and each course for that teacher has students, if i need the students for a teacher i have to go through the course, while ensuring students of other courses are not returned (Btw this is an example, not my actual application)

matt.fellows

2019-04-30 22:07

@luchillo17 we?re looking at how we introduce Swagger/provider-driven testing into our Pact broker offering (http://pactflow.io). Stay tuned :slightly_smiling_face:

evgone

2019-04-30 22:57

has joined #general

bheemreddy181

2019-04-30 23:20

@matt.fellows can you explain that ?

bheemreddy181

2019-04-30 23:21

Swagger or provider driven testing mean generating a schema from provider and keep testing against that each time there is a change ?

stipud

2019-05-01 00:17

has joined #general

biaofu

2019-05-01 02:53

I?m also doubting what the benefits it will bring from the Swagger/Provider-driven testing? Test which service? provider or consumer? If it helps to test the provider, then it would just be a functional (integration, maybe) testing at the provider side, if it helps to test the consumer, then the contract from Swagger could only be used as a stub to a mock service, then consumer can talk to such mock service to do an integration test, is that the purpose? If so, that?s what Spring Cloud Contract exactly doing.

biaofu

2019-05-01 02:53

That is not contract testing, but ?integration testing based on contract?.

matt.fellows

2019-05-01 03:05

I'll explain later, but rest assured we wouldn't suggest it if it wasn't possible to validate both sides of the contract (in this case the OAS spec)

bheemreddy181

2019-05-01 03:44

your inputs on this will be appreciated @bethskurrie - i am still learning so making basics strong

abubics

2019-05-01 04:15

So, in this example, you want to test one API endpoint (provider) that makes 3 db requests, and transforms them into a response?

abubics

2019-05-01 04:16

It's not the contract test's job to ensure data integrity between calls (in the "while ensuring students of other courses are not returned" example)

abubics

2019-05-01 04:16

That's more of a functional or unit test responsibility :slightly_smiling_face:

luchillo17

2019-05-01 18:24

Hmm has Pact some plugin to make it work with Apollo-Client?

uglyog

2019-05-01 23:27

There has been some discussion about whether you need something like Pact for GraphQL. But there is probably no direct support for it.

bethskurrie

2019-05-01 23:55

@luchillo17 re getting your back end and front end teams working together - absolutely! Pact is not meant to be a replacement for good communication between teams. It's meant to help facilitate it. Never stop talking! Tests don't replace talking.

joostvanwollingen

2019-05-02 11:45

has joined #general

luchillo17

2019-05-02 16:00

Thansk guys, this thread is an eye opener for me.

drewbailey5

2019-05-02 17:10

has joined #general

drewbailey5

2019-05-02 17:32

cross posting from #pact-go, Hello! has anyone ever worked with building query params to allow for the rails flavor of arrays in params? `names[]=ENV1&names[]=ENV2`

audun.halland

2019-05-02 18:32

I?ve used it with the client, and I?m able to create contracts with it. Requires no plugin.

audun.halland

2019-05-02 18:36

Although I had to turn off typenames from the query in order to make it work the way I wanted to

matt.fellows

2019-05-03 01:33

:slightly_smiling_face:

detert

2019-05-03 13:13

has joined #general

felipe.faust

2019-05-03 14:43

has joined #general

zach.the.hammer

2019-05-05 01:28

Congrats to @bethskurrie, @matt.fellows and the rest on the pactflow launch! I havent posted here in a while but have been seeing all the pactflow tweets- seems awesome

jonathanparkeremail

2019-05-05 03:39

has joined #general

simon.nizov

2019-05-05 08:53

Do you mean registering an interaction that has these types of query params?

matt.fellows

2019-05-05 10:35

Much thanks @zach.the.hammer - as you?ll have noted, we haven?t announced here properly yet, but it?s coming :slightly_smiling_face:. Appreciate this though!!

zach.the.hammer

2019-05-05 14:29

Ahhh ok. I just have been seeing the tweets

zach.the.hammer

2019-05-05 14:29

Hope i didnt jump the gun

matt.fellows

2019-05-05 20:55

Not at all. I think publicly tweeting about something probably counts for an announcement of sorts :grinning:

s1apped

2019-05-06 07:19

@bethskurrie I run pact broker in debug mode and did some more troubleshooting. I wonder if you can could take a look what I found and if it's not a problem point me to right direction since the log message doesn't make much sense to me unless I'm missing something..

bethskurrie

2019-05-06 07:19

Hi Matthew. I had a quick look at your logs the other day, but haven't had a chance to debug the code.

bethskurrie

2019-05-06 07:20

It does seem like it's doing something unexpected.

s1apped

2019-05-06 07:25

Hi. thanks :slightly_smiling_face: let me know if I could be of any help

simon.nizov

2019-05-06 12:10

Quoting from https://medium.com/@dius_au/closing-the-loop-with-pact-verifications-a7d590ab2f5c > The Pact Broker is smart enough to work out whether the pact content has changed or not, so if a pact is published with the same content as a previous one, it will inherit the same verification results???we call this being ?pre-verified? For some reason my verification results aren?t inherited from previous builds like described. They don?t automatically appear in the matrix on lines of new-but-unchanged pact versions, resulting in ?holes? in the matrix on the provider side. The results appear only after I?ve manually triggered the provider build. I don?t have the webhook enabled yet, is that the issue?

matt.fellows

2019-05-06 12:30

It shouldn?t do. If the contract itself hasn?t changed and has previously been verified, then new consumer versions should also be safe.

matt.fellows

2019-05-06 12:31

There was a thread in pact broker about this issue recently that might be worth having a look at, where @s1apped was running into issues. Might be worth getting across just in case

simon.nizov

2019-05-06 12:41

This one? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/issues/270

matt.fellows

2019-05-06 12:58

That?s the issue that was a result, but a lot of conetxt was in the convo

294simon

2019-05-06 13:20

has joined #general

simon.nizov

2019-05-06 13:25

Followed Beth?s suggestion to check `diff-previous-distinct` - didn?t even know this exists. Turns out my consumer?s test suite includes a couple of dynamically generated ID?s in one of the pact interactions, hence the ?change? in the pact. Thanks! :smile:

simon.nizov

2019-05-06 13:25

This is a nice ?gotcha? I think. Is it documented anywhere?

matt.fellows

2019-05-06 13:27

awesome to hear you got to the bottom

matt.fellows

2019-05-06 13:27

Umm, it probably is, but if you didn?t find itt readily I?m sure others wouldn?t have either

christopher.f.almanza

2019-05-06 20:08

has joined #general

christopher.f.almanza

2019-05-06 20:10

Hey guys

christopher.f.almanza

2019-05-06 20:13

Is there any documentation or threads about polymorphic endpoints?

christopher.f.almanza

2019-05-06 20:14

Maybe that's not the correct words. I suppose an example would be better: a `GET /favorites` where you have 2 or 3 different entities that you can favorite

christopher.f.almanza

2019-05-06 21:07

I opened an SO question for this too: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/56012382/how-to-handle-polymorphic-endpoints-on-pact

matt.fellows

2019-05-06 21:14

Responded just now. TL;DR - provider states

christopher.f.almanza

2019-05-06 21:15

@matt.fellows Hmm, maybe the example I gave was a bit misleading.

christopher.f.almanza

2019-05-06 21:16

What I meant to say was that both Books and Movies have completely different JSON properties

christopher.f.almanza

2019-05-06 21:16

Would provider states still be the solution? I can think of making provider states like: - `when it returns books` - `when it returns movies`

christopher.f.almanza

2019-05-06 21:17

But can I really trust that when it returns both books and movies, the schema will still be good...

christopher.f.almanza

2019-05-06 21:17

Not sure what to do here

matt.fellows

2019-05-06 21:19

sorry yes, I?ve updated the SO to reflect that

matt.fellows

2019-05-06 21:19

And yes, I believe they would

christopher.f.almanza

2019-05-06 21:20

thank you!

matt.fellows

2019-05-06 21:20

Another alternative (which is possibly more brittle) is that you expect the specific payload response which has one of every example

matt.fellows

it means you can?t use a top-level matcher to say _all_ of the objects look like _this_, but instead the response needs to be more exacting. This means you can be sure your code can handle both simultaneously

christopher.f.almanza

kind of harcoding the exact response instead of `somethingLike()` ?

matt.fellows

exactly

christopher.f.almanza

That also makes sense

christopher.f.almanza

I'll go for the first approach since it's easier to explain to teammates

matt.fellows

you can still use the like matchers at the field level, but in your case you?d need exactly 2 objects in the favourites array (assuming only two types)

matt.fellows

And this https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Publishing-and-retrieving-pacts

i think so

vipin.gaba

2019-05-07 05:25

has joined #general

rune

2019-05-07 07:29

has joined #general

stephane.colson

2019-05-07 09:14

has joined #general

kevin.meiresonne

2019-05-07 12:20

Hi all, Recently I got the following request: "Given we have a UI (Consumer) and an API (Provider), which are deployed/released independently. A new feature in the Consumer requires calling a new endpoint on the API. However, because the release schedules of the Consumer and Provider are vastly different, they want to release the Consumer before the Provider. The Consumer would then check at runtime if its Provider already exposes the new endpoint. Once it does, it would expose the new feature, if not, it would hide it." Although I kind of understand this request, I don't see how we could fit this into the Pact "workflow", that would disallow shipping the Consumer since its contract with the Provider would not be fulfilled (because Provider changes would be released later). Did someone ever come across a similar request?

detert

2019-05-07 12:55

Hi all, what is the best practice to transfer pact files from my `https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service` to `https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker`? What I understand that `POST /pact` writes the pact file somewhere in the mock service, but what is the best way to publish that file to the broker?

simon.nizov

2019-05-07 12:56

What language are you using?

detert

2019-05-07 12:57

php currently

detert

2019-05-07 12:57

But a general example with curl or something will help as well

simon.nizov

2019-05-07 12:59

Generally speaking, after running your consumer test suite, a pact json file should be created. You can then use: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker-client ?to publish that pact file to the broker

simon.nizov

2019-05-07 13:00

In some implementations there are other ways of publishing the pact, not sure about PHP

detert

2019-05-07 13:01

What I do not understand at this point: I run the consumer test with the pact-mock-service. I think that the mock-service should provide the pact file which I have to transfer to the pact broker. Is that correct?

nick.karamaniolas

2019-05-07 13:05

has joined #general

qatrera

2019-05-07 13:08

If the tests run successfully the pact file would be autogenerated locally (I am assuming there is a configuration in the PHP Pact version to set the local path to store the files). After that, you have to share this file with the Pact Broker. I'm not sure about the Pact tooling in PHP but I guess that a `scp` to your Pact Broker server should work

detert

2019-05-07 13:22

Well, I understand the idea. However I have no idea how to retrieve the pact file. The only way I found so far is POST /pact to the pact-mock-service, but that writes the pact file on disk. That does not sound very promising, as I have to grep that file from disk and send it to the pact-broker. Maybe I do miss something important here.

simon.nizov

2019-05-07 13:25

You are going to need to get it from the disk anyway, as part of your CI process.

simon.nizov

2019-05-07 13:25

Regarding the PHP side, you should ask in #pact-php

detert

2019-05-07 13:26

Alright. I hoped that there is a way to fetch the pact file via GET request

detert

2019-05-07 13:26

Thank you very much for your help. Both of you

matt.fellows

2019-05-07 13:40

The pact broker is completely API driven, so you can definitely use curl etc to fetch it

matt.fellows

2019-05-07 13:41

You could also use these CLI tool https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases

matt.fellows

2019-05-07 13:41

matt.fellows

2019-05-07 13:42

Basically there are a tonne of options and it's fairly trivial work

matt.fellows

2019-05-07 13:44

Hmm will have to think about this. A bit like a feature toggle

detert

2019-05-07 13:45

Well I struggle with the mock service. I am not able to retrieve the pact file nor find it in the docker container

detert

2019-05-07 13:46

the pact-broker is the next step I think

matt.fellows

2019-05-07 13:48

Why are you dealing with the mock service directly? Doesn't php provide an interface over it? It should basically be hidden to you

detert

2019-05-07 13:50

The documentation states "This library contains a wrapper for the Ruby Standalone Mock Service.", that is "https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service" and so I started the available docker container "https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock-service-docker". I guess that is as told

matt.fellows

2019-05-07 13:54

Where in the php docs does it say you need to install the mock service yourself? And if so, you shouldn't have to interact with it directly

matt.fellows

2019-05-07 13:55

It is the wrapper for it, that's the whole point! :laughing:

detert

2019-05-07 13:58

Well that might be the mistake. In that case, I do not really understand the section "Start and Stop the Mock Server"

detert

2019-05-07 13:59

But as you write this, maybe I just have to try `$server = new MockServer($config);` and ` $server->start();`

detert

2019-05-07 14:36

Alright that works well. Thank you :slightly_smiling_face:

kevin.meiresonne

2019-05-07 14:48

Yeah, it is pretty much

bheemreddy181

2019-05-07 16:20

Team , Here is the use case - if my consumer is consuming a field as Int and the provider now wants to do the change the UUID type - So can some one help me with the workflow using pact like who should go first ?

detert

2019-05-07 16:38

As far as I understood the documentation: Should the consumer care about the id format at all?

bheemreddy181

2019-05-07 18:16

they should in this particular case

bheemreddy181

2019-05-07 18:20

Given if the consumer is assuming that it is always Integer but provider wants it to change the same to UUID

matt.fellows

2019-05-07 21:58

I would follow the flexible schema strategy. The provider should first add the new field and deploy it (without removing existing field, it should have a ney key) The consumer should then transition to using the new field The provider can then remove the old

matt.fellows

2019-05-07 21:58

Contracts aside, this is how you do it.

matt.fellows

2019-05-07 21:59

Haha np

matt.fellows

2019-05-07 22:00

It all sounded too hard. Perhaps we need a note in there to say the it manages it for you. Or just remove it altogether as it's implementaion detail

ivan.cherkashnev

2019-05-07 23:07

has joined #general

bheemreddy181

2019-05-08 00:17

doesn't consumer start consuming both types and once provider changes to UUID type then modify tests to accept only UUID type ?

matt.fellows

2019-05-08 00:22

Well, once the provider is in production with the new field, the consumer can safely transition straight to the new field - no need for it to consume both. But there may be important context I?m missing here, and if it makes sense to have both then I don?t see an issue with that

bheemreddy181

2019-05-08 02:43

Naming the field would be pain again here

matt.fellows

2019-05-08 02:48

what do you mean? Because you?d like to use the same field name?

bheemreddy181

2019-05-08 03:04

@bethskurrie your thoughts on this ?

biaofu

2019-05-08 03:26

some thoughts from mine: given provider already has the pact test against the contract between that consumer, usually, this kind of contract testing should always runs on some lower environment. Let?s say, provider has multiple environments, env-dev, env-test, env-contract, env-pre-production, env-production, env-dev for provider development, env-test for provider functional test, env-contract for running pact test, env-pre-production for internal share with other consumers, and lastly, env-production for real production. Then, provider could firstly complete their change and functional test in dev and test env, then, deploy to contract env to run pact test, and obviously, failed, then communicate with consumer team about the new change, the two teams need discuss when their change would be deployed together, this is most important, depends on the teams, neither Pact nor any kinds of testing.

biaofu

2019-05-08 03:29

and in real practice, another better way is that provider could have more envs, which contains two different versions of the provider( Int and UUID), then, it?s more easier for provider and consumers to switch their works independently.

bethskurrie

2019-05-08 06:45

Bheem, it depends if you want to take Matt's recommended approach (which I would also recommend) or whether you want to make a breaking change. I'd recommend changing the id field to "uuid" so that you can have both at the same time. Much easier to handle.

bethskurrie

2019-05-08 06:48

If you really want to change the field, you'll need to deploy to prod a version of the consumer that knows how to handle both the int and the string id.

bethskurrie

2019-05-08 07:10

> What if I generated a schema from Provider side once I create my API and validate my API each time I do a change? If you generate a swagger document, you can verify your pact against it using Atlassian swagger validator tool. You can ask about it in the #swagger-validator channel

detert

2019-05-08 07:25

Well. The statement "This library contains a wrapper for the Ruby Standalone Mock Service." confused me, because I assumed that I need to start that service myself. What is missing is a simple example that creates a pact files and publishes that pact file to the broker, however I found a solution for that for the first trial run

stein

2019-05-08 08:04

At sainsburys we do what Matt suggests. We prefer to evolve the schema by adding new fields against versioning (most of the time) which typically involves multiple deployments - for us it's important to provide a backwards compatibility guarantee to consumers - you don't want to be synchronising releases across consumer/provider. It gets a bit trickier when you have mobile app consumers - users might have old versions of the app and you'd need to force upgrade to roll out the old field. We have duplicate fields running in prod and we are fine with that. It just takes some diligence to keep on top of it.

biaofu

2019-05-08 08:20

yes, that?s a good approach

cmcgowan-smyth

2019-05-08 09:07

has joined #general

braddle

2019-05-08 10:08

has joined #general

bheemreddy181

2019-05-08 13:51

Yes @matt.fellows Same field name , sorry i missed your message

noel.yap_slack.pact.i

2019-05-08 16:41

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-05-08 22:14

I would recommend against the re-using field approach because of the need to couple deploys between systems that use it. The evolutionary approach is the generally accepted way to do this sort of change. In my experience, changing a field name / definition is rarely an urgent thing that needs to be rushed

james.prescott

2019-05-09 09:09

has joined #general

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-05-09 11:11

has joined #general

mindy.or

2019-05-09 16:44

has joined #general

anton.taranovskyi

2019-05-10 08:15

has joined #general

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-05-10 11:10

Not sure if this has been asked before if someone could point me in the right direction of an answer. Is it possible to do partial response matching in the `willRespondWith: { field1, field3} `. The api actually returns 3 fields, but I'm only interested in 1 and 3... I've had my provider pacts fail because of this... is this possible or do I have to specify the whole response but using `like(...)` for the fields I'm not interested in?

matt.fellows

2019-05-10 11:39

yes it?s been asked and yes you can definitely do that

matt.fellows

2019-05-10 11:39

in fact, that is the _right_ way of writing Pact tests. You should only test and specify the fields you actually use - not all of the possible fields of the Provider

matt.fellows

2019-05-10 11:40

See Postel?s Law:https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/matching/gotchas#pact-follows-postels-law

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-05-10 11:44

cool, what's does this have a name? I've read all the docs on flexible matching etc?

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-05-10 11:44

are there any repos with examples of it?

matt.fellows

2019-05-10 11:46

ummm, I?m not sure. You just specify the subset of fields you need in the consumer tests and on the provider side, if there are more fields they are simply ignored

matt.fellows

2019-05-10 11:46

You could fairly easily modify any of the pact js examples to return more fields and they should continue to pass

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-05-10 11:47

ah right, I'll take another look then, I was pretty sure the provider tests failed because it returned more then the consumer was asking for...

matt.fellows

2019-05-10 11:48

if it did, there is either a serious bug in Pact or something else misconfigured

james.carman

2019-05-10 11:48

Maybe it?s a different failure

matt.fellows

If you have the pact-js repo about, just add some more fieldss to https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/master/examples/e2e/data/animalData.json and run the tests

james.hattersley-dyke

i'll have another look - most likely I'm doing something wrong

james.carman

Be sure you?re asserting types , not values

matt.fellows

:point_up:

james.hattersley-dyke

yeah I will, cheers chaps

james.hattersley-dyke

I've only been playing with Pact a week so likely user error :slightly_smiling_face:

james.carman

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Using-tags

The values provided are for the mocks

james.carman

2019-05-10 11:50

That was confusing to me at first

matt.fellows

2019-05-10 11:52

?user error? is usually ?poor docs? - so now is the time to articulate all of the things we didn?t make clear before it becomes ?normal?

matt.fellows

2019-05-10 11:52

thanks for sharing / asking, many will just move on - this is good feedback

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-05-10 11:53

cool, ok - i'll take another look at my tests and see if I'm doing something wrong

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-05-10 11:53

I'm using a nodeJS consumer calling a Spring Boot provider..

erkan.deveci

2019-05-10 20:43

has joined #general

brwhaley

2019-05-11 01:25

has joined #general

elvis.uagbor

2019-05-11 23:02

has joined #general

s1apped

2019-05-13 07:02

Hi @bethskurrie did you have time to look into this issue?:)

amaano.dev

2019-05-13 09:14

has joined #general

mark.smith

2019-05-13 13:07

has joined #general

phall

2019-05-13 17:19

has joined #general

scott.riley111

2019-05-13 17:33

has joined #general

kristofer.landgren

2019-05-14 07:39

has joined #general

asite-rshah

2019-05-14 09:45

if pact provider side build is failure then how to push latest pact file to pact brocker ?

oswald.quek

2019-05-14 09:48

hello. for our consumer builds I've upgraded the `pact-jvm-consumer-junit_2.12` library to version 3.6.7. This seems to have the effect of not publishing "null" values. for example, we have a pact at https://github.com/alphagov/pay-publicapi/blob/master/src/test/resources/pacts/publicapi-connector-get-payment-with-gateway-transaction-id.json#L63-L64 but what actually now gets published is ```"settlement_summary": {}``` This is :ok_hand: except that the provider tests now fail because our provider endpoint actually returns ``` "settlement_summary": { "capture_submit_time": null, "captured_date": null }``` so the matching fails. however they're actually equivalent. is there a way to relax this matching? from https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/matching/gotchas, it seems the behaviour now doesn't follow Postel's Law: ```Be liberal in what you accept - when verifying a pact in the provider project, the response body and headers may contain fields that were not defined in the expectations, on the assumption that any extra field will be ignored by your consumer. This allows a provider to evolve without breaking existing consumers.```

oswald.quek

2019-05-14 09:54

I suppose I could always fix my provider to never include null values

oswald.quek

2019-05-14 09:56

actually that's what I'll do. no response required!

matt.fellows

2019-05-14 10:11

I'm confused, the pact file should he pushed after a consumer build, not a providers

matt.fellows

2019-05-14 10:12

Can you pls elaborate?

bethskurrie

2019-05-14 10:13

@oswald.quek that change in behaviour sounds like a bug. Can you raise it please?

oswald.quek

2019-05-14 10:19

sure. I've just raised at https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/issues/877.

bethskurrie

2019-05-14 10:41

Thanks.

rafael.anachoreta

2019-05-14 13:44

Hey! I?m interested in opening a new feature request, but I?m not entirely sure how to proceed. This is something that I can see being added to potentially every pact implementation, so I?m not sure where to open an issue for it. Details can be found on this thread: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9VBGLUM9/p1549448375093500?thread_ts=1549377207.091900&cid=C9VBGLUM9 Can anyone point me on the right direction? Thanks! :slightly_smiling_face:

christophe.leray

2019-05-14 15:42

has joined #general

blyman

2019-05-14 18:52

has joined #general

tyoder

2019-05-14 19:00

has joined #general

konrad.winkler

2019-05-14 19:16

has joined #general

eran.bergman

2019-05-14 22:05

has joined #general

jhoag

2019-05-14 22:52

has joined #general

bheemreddy181

2019-05-15 03:19

Does Publish_Verification_results when contract is verified should happen only when the verification is triggered from Consumer end - because we run the verification against master of provider ? @matt.fellows

matt.fellows

2019-05-15 03:47

No, verification results are published only on the provider side when the provider tests are run, only when the pacts are fetched from the broker and only when the relevant flag is set to do so

matt.fellows

2019-05-15 03:47

can you elaborate?

bheemreddy181

2019-05-15 03:49

If the pact is verified from the provider PR this will result in ambiguity I feel because the Provider PR will verify the results and the consumer when says can I deploy he will get a true but provider didn?t merge the PR yet

bheemreddy181

2019-05-15 03:54

@matt.fellows ^

matt.fellows

2019-05-15 04:00

Well, that?s where tags come in Bheem

matt.fellows

2019-05-15 04:01

You should set it up so that features aren?t tagged ?master? (or whatever tagging scheme you go with). When you release, you query can I deploy using tags, rather than latest (which could be any branch/feature)

matt.fellows

2019-05-15 04:02

See the relevanat sections on the wiki e.g. https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Using-tagshttps://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Using-tags

bheemreddy181

2019-05-15 04:02

Page is broken

matt.fellows

2019-05-15 04:03

Ah no, my stupid keyboard (repeats)

matt.fellows

2019-05-15 04:03

the.trav

2019-05-15 04:58

has joined #general

the.trav

2019-05-15 05:00

@matthew.balvanz and Co, thanks for pact-python. I just got it going in less than 10 minutes. It's super fast and I didn't have to change my test framework :thumbsup:

matt.fellows

2019-05-15 05:04

Thanks for the feedback @the.trav!

davidmolinero.com

2019-05-15 08:06

has joined #general

davidmolinero.com

2019-05-15 09:07

Hello, in which languages is V3 PACT specification for async messaging working fully E2E?

bethskurrie

2019-05-15 09:07

bethskurrie

2019-05-15 09:07

jvm

bethskurrie

2019-05-15 09:08

ruby consumer

bethskurrie

2019-05-15 09:08

I think that's all

davidmolinero.com

2019-05-15 09:08

even the bit of publishing the verification results back to the broker in js & jvm?

davidmolinero.com

2019-05-15 09:11

I've tried without too much success in ruby using this library https://github.com/reevoo/pact-messages/ but it is using V2 under the covers and I am struggling to get the verifications results published to the covers

bethskurrie

2019-05-15 09:11

it's not the same one

bethskurrie

2019-05-15 09:11

not an official version.

davidmolinero.com

yes I know, I became aware of it after doing a spike

bethskurrie

in js the verification publishing is the same codepath as the http verificaiton publishing.

bethskurrie

so yes, it should work.

bethskurrie

@matt.fellows?

davidmolinero.com

2019-05-15 09:13

I also took at the code for the js implementation and I saw some references to directories for fetching the json contracts so I am not sure if it will work with the broker

bethskurrie

2019-05-15 09:13

What languages do you want? The ruby one is actually implemented end to end, however, there isn't a DSL to expose it verification step because nobody uses Ruby anymore

davidmolinero.com

2019-05-15 09:14

we would like to use it with python & ruby at the moment (I know in python it is not supported)

bethskurrie

2019-05-15 09:14

JS message pact definitely works with the broker.

matt.fellows

Yep. Pact JS and Pact Go definitely implement the messaging interface. I believe Pact PHP does also

matt.fellows

Verifications should work consistently across HTTP or messaging

jon.pascoe

I disagree that ?nobody uses ruby anymore? :stuck_out_tongue:

davidmolinero.com

most likely we will workaround it using HTTP under the covers for the time being...

davidmolinero.com

2019-05-15 09:16

I'll take a look T the JS implementation then

davidmolinero.com

2019-05-15 09:16

thank you

bethskurrie

2019-05-15 09:16

I use Ruby! But I am assured by all around me that it is effectively COBOL.

davidmolinero.com

2019-05-15 09:17

most of ruby folks are moving to elixir nowadays :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2019-05-15 09:18

I have heard that.

heymega

2019-05-15 09:19

I'm just looking at PactFlow and I'm a little confused Is PactFlow just a managed broker? If so, how does it differ from the existing broker we've come to know and love?

matt.fellows

2019-05-15 09:19

Hey @heymega, let?s chat over in #pact-broker if that?s OK?

jon.pascoe

2019-05-15 09:20

Stay strong @bethskurrie - Ruby FTW

heymega

2019-05-15 09:20

Sure!

bethskurrie

2019-05-15 09:20

Well, the broker is written in ruby, and that's not going anywhere.

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-05-15 12:45

if a provider has multiple consumers (I've not got this far yet) but does running `can-i-deploy --pacticipant my-provider` verify all the pacts with all consumers?

matt.fellows

2019-05-15 13:00

by default it will, yes

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-05-15 13:04

brilliant, I've only got 1 consumer and 1 provider right now so wasn't sure.

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-05-15 13:07

What happens then, when the provider team think 'oh these fields might be useful let's add them..' and release a new version of their API with no one consuming it? I'm assuming this _shouldn't_ happen given we're supposed to be following Consumer driven design?

bart.schotten

2019-05-15 13:09

Adding fields should always be allowed

james.carman

2019-05-15 13:10

Yep, new stuff should not impact your existing consumer pacts.

james.carman

2019-05-15 13:11

That?s why it?s very important not to do ?schema? type tests in your consumers and only focus on exactly what you need or care about

james.carman

2019-05-15 13:11

No ?this and only this? type tests.

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-05-15 13:11

right, cool. I'm preparing a demo from a spike I've worked on so swotting up on likely questions...

james.carman

2019-05-15 13:12

I gave a talk a while back and did the same thing. These folks were super helpful!

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-05-15 13:13

would you mind looking over my slides when I'm done - Make sure I'm talking sense?

james.carman

2019-05-15 13:14

Sure. I?m giving a talk at our company today (not on pact in particular), so I?m busy this morning, but I?d be glad to give you a second pair of eyes. Fair warning, I would not consider myself an ?expert? by any means (there are far smarter folks here than me). :slightly_smiling_face:

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-05-15 13:14

so, the api team add a load of new fields to a particular response but no-one is using them, providers build don't generate new contracts, right? It's just a new version of the API and no changes to contracts?

james.carman

2019-05-15 13:14

Providers don?t generate new ?pacts?, is what you mean?

james.hattersley-dyke

yeah exactly that

james.carman

Providers don?t generate pacts

james.carman

Only consumers

james.hattersley-dyke

yeah - thought so

james.carman

Providers *verify* the pacts generated by the consumers

james.hattersley-dyke

yep

james.carman

hence the ?consumer-driven? part of it.

james.carman

It?s a bit of a mind shift (it was for me)

james.hattersley-dyke

there's a lot of moving parts and the docs are great, but yeah... mind shift like you say

james.carman

I believe Spring Cloud Contract does take the opposite approach, IIRC

james.carman

The provider publishes its contract and consumers test against it.

james.hattersley-dyke

what blockers did you guys find to getting this part of the dev process?

james.hattersley-dyke

ahh was maybe gonna look at Spring Contracts

james.carman

The big roadblock for us was hosting the thing. We aren?t a ruby shop and our ops folks weren?t jazzed about hosting it. Luckily, the fine folks here do have a hosted offering! Problem solved. We?re happily pact brokering now.

james.carman

this is not a paid endorsement

james.carman

:slightly_smiling_face:

james.carman

Just a happy customer

james.hattersley-dyke

haha

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-05-15 13:18

I imagine we'll end up going down the broker container route

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-05-15 13:18

although I'll totally push for hosted

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-05-15 13:18

it's so much easier

bethskurrie

2019-05-15 23:48

I do recommend the hosted version (as I'm part of the team that runs it!) but there is a docker container for the OSS version, so you don't need to know Ruby.

james.carman

2019-05-16 00:24

I don?t think it was about knowing it per se, but caring and feeding for a ruby app isn?t something our folks do.

james.carman

2019-05-16 00:27

Our engineers have taken a liking to running the broker on their machines. I find it unnecessary, but they find it comforting I suppose

james.carman

2019-05-16 00:28

Whatever floats their boat

bethskurrie

2019-05-16 00:28

Really? Tell me how that works.

james.carman

2019-05-16 00:28

They just run it so they can see their stuff publish I guess

james.carman

:man-shrugging:

bethskurrie

I'm confused! But hey, whatever works for them.

james.carman

This particular group is writing the consumer and the provider, so I guess they wanted to be able to verify

bethskurrie

Oh, I just use the local files when I'm doing that.

bethskurrie

No broker required.

bethskurrie

2019-05-16 00:30

But I guess it saves having a completely different task. Can just make the broker location configurable.

james.carman

2019-05-16 00:30

I?m going to create a maven profile that sets up properties for local brokers

james.carman

2019-05-16 00:31

It might be nice for us to share our configuration, in case it helps other people

bethskurrie

2019-05-16 00:31

Surw

bethskurrie

2019-05-16 00:31

Sure, even

james.carman

2019-05-16 00:32

It took me a while to get all the ducks in a row

luchillo17

2019-05-16 01:34

Hey little question, when using create react app, i was looking to the docs and i see they separate the tests for Pact from regular ones, why's that?

tjones

2019-05-16 01:34

Which docs is this?

matt.fellows

2019-05-16 03:42

I have been thinking about the concept of ?sandboxes? (or something similar) for a little bit. Probably not an easy thing to do. Often times people want to test out webhooks, tagging approaches etc. and not impact the main broker. I wonder if what you?re describing above also feeds into this sort of thinking?

matt.fellows

2019-05-16 03:43

i.e. each team member could create a sandbox to muck around in, and potentially even have scoped to their user (or a group of users)

luchillo17

2019-05-16 03:43

Here: https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/javascript Specifically the pactTest script which uses a custom regex for the match of test files: ``` { scripts: { ... "pactTest": "export NODE_ENV=pactTest && jest --testRegex \"/*(.test.pact.js)\" --runInBand --setupFiles ./pactSetup.js --setupTestFrameworkScriptFile ./pactTestWrapper.js" } } ```

matt.fellows

2019-05-16 03:53

It?s completely up to you as to where/how you structure your tests. I tend to separate my unit tests from my contract tests from my perf ? etc.

matt.fellows

2019-05-16 03:53

I can?t recall why these were setup that way (I believe this came in via a PR so possibly residue from a project where it came from)

matt.fellows

2019-05-16 03:53

I wouldn?t read into it too much!

david.darrell

2019-05-16 06:04

has joined #general

david.darrell

2019-05-16 06:25

@christophe.leray hi Chris - thanks for invite

vk.regs

2019-05-16 10:44

I am trying to stub some api using pact stub (I use pact file from pact broker by URL). By pact stub cannot match my api URL with stub. Could somebody help.

vk.regs

2019-05-16 10:45

*Error from Pact stub*: 10:39:01 [INFO] comparing to expected Request ( method: GET, path: /api/user/tracking, query: None, headers: Some({"Accept": "text/plain"}), body: Missing ) 10:39:01 [DEBUG] pact_matching: body: '' 10:39:01 [DEBUG] pact_matching: matching_rules: MatchingRules { rules: {"path": Category { name: "path", rules: {"": RuleList { rules: [Regex("(?i)(\\/api\\/user\\/tracking)")], rule_logic: And }} }} } 10:39:01 [DEBUG] pact_matching: generators: Generators { categories: {} } 10:39:01 [DEBUG] pact_matching::matchers: String -> String: comparing '/api/user/tracking' to '/api/user/tracking' using Regex("(?i)(\\/api\\/user\\/tracking)") 10:39:01 [DEBUG] pact_matching: expected content type = 'text/plain', actual content type = 'text/plain' 10:39:01 [DEBUG] pact_matching: --> Mismatches: [PathMismatch { expected: "/api/user/tracking", actual: "/api/user/tracking", mismatch: "\'(?i)(\\/api\\/user\\/tracking)\' is not a valid regular expression - regex parse error:\n (?i)(\\/api\\/user\\/tracking)\n ^^\nerror: unrecognized escape sequence" }] 10:39:01 [WARN] No matching request found, sending 404 Not Found 10:39:01 [INFO] <=== Sending Response ( status: 404, headers: None, body: Missing ) 10:39:01 [DEBUG] pact_stub_server::pact_support: body: '' 10:39:01 [DEBUG] pact_stub_server::pact_support: matching_rules: MatchingRules { rules: {} } 10:39:01 [DEBUG] pact_stub_server::pact_support: generators: Generators { categories: {} } 10:39:01 [DEBUG] hyper::proto::h1::io: flushed 114 bytes 10:39:01 [DEBUG] tokio_reactor: dropping I/O source: 1 *Pact file from pact Broker*: { "consumer": { "name": "SearchHistory" }, "provider": { "name": "Settings" }, "interactions": [{ "description": "Get Tracking Status", "request": { "method": "get", "path": "/api/user/tracking", "headers": { "Accept": "text/plain" }, "matchingRules": { "$.path": { "match": "regex", "regex": "(?i)(\\/api\\/user\\/tracking)" } } }, "response": { "status": 200, "headers": { "Content-Type": "text/plain; charset=utf-8" }, "body": "true", "matchingRules": { "$.body": { "match": "regex", "regex": "(?i)(true)" } } } } ], "metadata": { "pactSpecification": { "version": "2.0.0" } } }

matt.fellows

2019-05-16 11:01

the error appears to be in those logs

shalygai.a

2019-05-16 11:46

has joined #general

vk.regs

2019-05-16 13:06

As I understand Pact stab cannot parse regex from pact file. Is issue of regexp or pact stab?

matt.fellows

2019-05-16 13:14

What have you tested to see which of those answers is most likely? Looks like maybe the regex is wrong but perhaps it's valid for the code that generated it. What's the consumer language that generated it?

vk.regs

2019-05-16 13:17

C# .net

vk.regs

2019-05-16 13:18

[Fact] public async Task SearchHistoryAndSettingsController_TrackingStatus_ReturnedTrue() { const string path = "/api/user/tracking"; _mockProviderService.UponReceiving("Get Tracking Status") .With(new ProviderServiceRequest { Method = HttpVerb.Get, Path = Match.Regex(path, $"(?i)({path})"), Headers = new Dictionary<string, object> { { "Accept", "text/plain" } }, }) .WillRespondWith(new ProviderServiceResponse { Status = StatusCodes.Status200OK, Headers = new Dictionary<string, object> { { "Content-Type", "text/plain; charset=utf-8" } }, Body = Match.Regex("true", "(?i)(true)") }); var request = new AccessHistoryItemRequest() { Unique = "testUnique" }; await _settingsHelper.AccessHistoryRepository.AddAccessHistory(request).ConfigureAwait(false); } }

vk.regs

2019-05-16 13:18

looks like issue with double \

vk.regs

2019-05-16 13:18

"regex": "(?i)(\\/api\\/user\\/tracking)"

matt.fellows

2019-05-16 13:19

Yeah

matt.fellows

2019-05-16 13:20

Also why bother with that path matcher at all? Is the path dynamic?

vk.regs

2019-05-16 15:20

with need to match path and ignore case

koji

2019-05-16 15:52

has joined #general

edwin.tye

2019-05-16 21:21

has joined #general

mickehl

2019-05-17 08:39

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-05-17 09:07

why is your client code sending messages to paths with different cases? This seems unusuall

matt.fellows

2019-05-17 09:08

As in, why do you need a regex at all - does the path the client send ever actually change?

vk.regs

2019-05-17 13:12

This is requirement from dev that we should ignore case because sometimes dev change case for api and test became failed, may be it is not good. Also in some cases we use regex for example for body matching (it will be the same error) - it is usual case.

christopher.f.almanza

2019-05-17 14:04

Are query params mandatory on Pact?

christopher.f.almanza

2019-05-17 14:05

I mean, in order for my endpoint to receive optional query params, do I need to make 2 provider states?

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-05-17 14:46

does the API do different things in response to these params?

christopher.f.almanza

functionally speaking, yes. it will sort or limit the results (pagination)

christopher.f.almanza

but from the contract perspective, it shouldn't

christopher.f.almanza

the json response structure is the same

christopher.f.almanza

I'm asking causse the docs doesn't explicitly mentions whether query params can be optional

christopher.f.almanza

2019-05-17 15:22

it just explain why response json props can't (which makes sense)

mboudreau

2019-05-17 23:43

They can be 2 different interactions, one without and one with, to test both scenarios

matt.fellows

2019-05-18 03:05

The general rule we follow here is postel?s law - be conservative in what you send and liberal and what you receive.

matt.fellows

2019-05-18 03:07

In the case of query strings, I can?t recall the specific rule, but if you specify query strings in the actual request, but don?t specify them in the Pact test setup, when the verification happens later on they won?t be sent through. I?m not 100% sure if this will cause a failure in the consumer test though, because you are actually providing more detail than you?ve expected.

matt.fellows

2019-05-18 03:07

But as Michel mentions, you might need to tests. If all of your requests always contain a query string, then you won?t need to test without it

przemek.sech

2019-05-20 00:10

has joined #general

monch1962

2019-05-20 04:05

has joined #general

gordon.barrs

2019-05-20 08:53

has joined #general

vk.regs

2019-05-20 10:12

Looks like it is pact stub issue. Is it possible to fix it?

matt.fellows

2019-05-20 10:36

Just raise an issue on the GitHub repo and somebody will take a look

christopher.f.almanza

2019-05-20 17:46

I can assume a conclusion can be to have a request with the query params, and one without the query params

vk.regs

2019-05-20 19:27

ok, thanks I created issue https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-stub-server/issues/13

mboudreau

2019-05-20 23:28

yep, then you test both interactions to make sure they work and are valid :slightly_smiling_face:

sankalan13

2019-05-21 05:16

has joined #general

jinal

2019-05-21 05:33

has joined #general

vadimk0133

2019-05-21 10:21

has joined #general

dimapasko

2019-05-21 14:55

has joined #general

anabalfun

2019-05-22 09:12

has joined #general

martynnevers

2019-05-22 09:34

has joined #general

tylerkron

2019-05-22 18:20

has joined #general

przemek.sech

2019-05-23 06:47

Hi @matt.fellows, This is Przemek from Ansarada. I'm about to purchase a small (5) team plan. Although CC is an acceptable payment method, we (finance) would prefer regular invoicing. Do you provide such a payment method?

matt.fellows

2019-05-23 06:49

Hi @przemek.sech at this stage we can only accept online payments via credit card I?m afraid

matt.fellows

2019-05-23 06:49

We are looking at it down the track - but we don?t have the team to support it just yet

przemek.sech

2019-05-23 06:49

I like `at this stage` :slightly_smiling_face:

przemek.sech

2019-05-23 06:50

When you have such a capability we'd like to change. At this stage CC is ok

matt.fellows

2019-05-23 06:51

no problem, I can?t give you any timelines yet but I can say that we?ve had a few customers ask the same (to be honest, most companies don?t like paying with credit cards as ubiquitous as it is!)

przemek.sech

2019-05-23 06:59

@matt.fellows I need a hand. I cannot create the account as ansarada subdomain is already taken, by our trial

bethskurrie

2019-05-23 07:00

If you sign up with a different domain, I can swap it over for you afterwards.

matt.fellows

2019-05-23 07:02

I?m chatting with him offline Beth, thanks

bethskurrie

2019-05-23 07:03

:+1:

botalov.andrey

2019-05-23 12:08

has joined #general

sebastian.kowalski85

2019-05-23 13:33

has joined #general

miiiiauu

2019-05-24 15:57

has joined #general

florian

Hi I am running into problems while trying to build pact-jvm The error message is: No value has been specified for property 'destinationDir'.

florian

Sorry here is the full error message:

florian

* What went wrong: A problem was found with the configuration of task ':pact-jvm-provider-lein_2.12:compileClojure'. > No value has been specified for property 'destinationDir'.

florian

http://blog.pact.io/2019/05/29/provider-state-params-support-added-to-pact-ruby/

Has anyone faced this before?

uglyog

2019-05-27 03:36

This is an issue after upgrading Gradle. If you try using Gradle 4.10 and JDK 1.8 it will work.

void.alexey

2019-05-27 22:03

has joined #general

wei.feng

2019-05-27 22:43

has joined #general

diandra

2019-05-28 00:15

has joined #general

simone.dicola

2019-05-28 08:32

has joined #general

daniel.tattan.birch

2019-05-28 15:03

has joined #general

pact.io

2019-05-28 16:31

has joined #general

2019-05-29 02:56

pdunn

2019-05-29 06:15

has joined #general

zaharovrv

2019-05-29 13:16

has joined #general

oswald.quek

2019-05-29 13:40

Hello, are there any jvm examples of asynchronous contract testing (for message queues)?

borsuk.artem034

2019-05-29 13:51

hi, https://github.com/thombergs/code-examples/tree/master/pact

oswald.quek

2019-05-29 15:51

thanks, will have a look!

ben

2019-05-29 19:04

has joined #general

cocosanti

2019-05-29 21:58

has joined #general

dperez

2019-05-30 01:57

has joined #general

dperez

2019-05-30 04:26

Hi, I'm looking implementations in .Net, so far I found pact-net https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-net But it looks they are Version 2 compliant, and we are looking to do Contract Test on our messaging infrastructure (Introduced in Version 3) as well our GraphQL endpoints. (All of this in .Net environment) Is somebody dealing with a similar scenario, I will really appreciate any help. I have searched all available source like stackOverFlow tag pact but no luck. Again thanks.

matt.fellows

There is a PR on that project to implement message pact. It?s worth jumping on there and seeing how far along it has progressed and how far away it is from mainline

matt.fellows

I believe a few people here are using it

matt.fellows

jump into #pact-net for more

dperez

Thanks a lot @matt.fellows

matt.fellows

neil

2019-05-30 04:40

@dperez The `message-pact` branch is what you want to look at. You could build a nuget package locally from there and use it if you like.

dperez

2019-05-30 04:41

great help, thanks a lot, will try it

neil

2019-05-30 04:41

The PR is really just a conversation placeholder at the moment.

russell.blandamer

2019-05-30 10:42

has joined #general

pat.vongphrachanh

2019-05-30 13:54

has joined #general

acooper106

2019-05-30 15:56

our pact broker server keeps crashing on its own. Are there any logs that we can check?

laverya

2019-05-30 17:31

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2019-05-30 23:54

Hi @acooper106 Here are some logs you can check https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-broker-docker/wiki/Troubleshooting

bethskurrie

2019-05-30 23:55

There are so many factors when it comes to deploying an application that aren't actually to do with the application itself, that I'm not sure we'll be able to give you any specific advise on what might be the problem.

bethskurrie

2019-05-30 23:58

Pactflow (the hosted Pact Broker) runs in a "highly available architecture", and the fact that it is "highly available" is not much to do with the underlying Ruby application, and mostly to do with the way it is run and deployed (multiple ec2 instances, no downtime deployments, monitoring, auto scaling etc).

bethskurrie

2019-05-31 00:02

What version are you running? There are some versions that have quite intensive data processing before I optimised the "matrix" query. The latest versions do not have this issue.

gopinathlangote11

2019-05-31 08:00

Ok.

matt.fellows

2019-05-31 12:55

@bernardo.guerreiro Thanks for your great post and kind words, these truly mean a lot to us maintainers https://medium.com/dazn-tech/pact-contract-testing-dealing-with-authentication-on-the-provider-51fd46fdaa78 :pray:

matt.fellows

2019-05-31 12:56

And thanks for asking for what you need, without feedback it?s hard to make Pact more awesome!

phall

2019-05-31 13:18

I don?t think :pray: is part of the url :simple_smile:. It?s https://medium.com/dazn-tech/pact-contract-testing-dealing-with-authentication-on-the-provider-51fd46fdaa78, and is a great read. Thanks for sharing!

matt.fellows

2019-05-31 13:23

thx, yes corrected.

matt.fellows

2019-05-31 13:23

my thank you hands ruined it!

acooper106

2019-05-31 13:45

please add Oruganti,Venkata Rao <venkata_oruganti@vanguard.com>; Pickering,Jason <jason_pickering@vanguard.com> to slack channel

acooper106

2019-05-31 13:47

Chigurupati,Vanaja <vanaja_chigurupati@vanguard.com>

acooper106

2019-05-31 13:51

Patel,Rakesh <rakesh_patel@vanguard.com>

yousafn

2019-05-31 14:41

@bernardo.guerreiro great article, thanks for your reply on my issue too, I?ll try out your suggestions. My initial idea to get me over the hump was just overwrite all the headers with the authenticated headers in the request filter as that has access to the body and path.

bernardo.guerreiro

2019-05-31 16:10

No worries Matt! I meant every word, as you guys really are a great community :slightly_smiling_face:

bernardo.guerreiro

2019-05-31 16:59

thanks @yousafn . but the request filter doesn't have access to the states does it? So you wouldn't be able to do for example: if (state === 'authenticated') ADD HEADER; else DO NOTHING.

bernardo.guerreiro

2019-05-31 16:59

meaning you'd only be able to test the happy path, not the 403?

acooper106

2019-05-31 17:03

ruby 2.6.1p33 (2019-01-30 revision 66950) [x86_64-linux]

yousafn

2019-05-31 17:03

I think it does - the req logs are from inside the request filter and the created/creating log comes from inside the state handler. req.path /_pactSetup req.body { consumer: 'consumer-service', state: 'Is authenticated', states: [ 'Is authenticated' ], params: {} } creating AWS signed headers created AWS signed headers req.path /path/that/the/pact/test/is/calling req.body undefined It would be a compromise at being only able to test happy paths. I?m pretty confident that if we don?t send the with headers, the request will fail with a 403. I will try out your blog suggestions when I next get your computer time, as your solution looks much slicker,

yousafn

2019-05-31 17:04

Btw are you at dazn in Leeds?

bernardo.guerreiro

2019-05-31 17:05

oh then if it does, then it's kinda the same. you just defer the state handling to the request filter, in this case haha, and don't send the header when you want a 403

bernardo.guerreiro

2019-05-31 17:05

both would work really !

bernardo.guerreiro

2019-05-31 17:05

nope, I'm in the London branch, although we sync regularly with the other offices. By the way, thanks for all the contributions to the community, you've done some really cool stuff :slightly_smiling_face:

bernardo.guerreiro

2019-05-31 17:06

(join DAZN in Leeds! :P)

yousafn

2019-05-31 17:27

A few of my mates work there, I moved onto a consultancy after Sky and my pals moved over ( rich McIntyre, Costa G and Mo al nuami), I was asked but I wanted to branch out from just testing into a consultancy based role. You never know what the future holds. If you get up to Leeds with work, give me a shout and we can grab a beer!

acooper106

2019-05-31 17:30

docker 2.0.1 or 1.17.2

bernardo.guerreiro

2019-05-31 17:32

Ah yeah! Costa is a blast , we went to a conference in February together :slightly_smiling_face:, and I know Mo too! I know Rich, but haven't really interacted too much with him Sure , sounds good! :slightly_smiling_face:

yousafn

2019-05-31 17:35

Costa is mad Hahahaha, we worked together for about three months before I left Sky. Mo I worked with for about 18 months. Miss them both! I?ll let you know I get on and I?ll be sure to post back my solution

ckaptan

2019-05-31 18:02

has joined #general

acooper106

2019-05-31 18:17

pg 1.1.4

acooper106

2019-05-31 18:18

17:48:48 2019-05-31 13:48:48,059 P4358 [INFO] *************Start Pact Broker Server************* ? 17:48:48 2019-05-31 13:48:48,059 P4358 [INFO] % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current ? 17:48:48 2019-05-31 13:48:48,059 P4358 [INFO] Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed ? 17:48:48 2019-05-31 13:48:48,059 P4358 [INFO] ? 17:48:48 2019-05-31 13:48:48,059 P4358 [INFO] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0 ? 17:48:48 2019-05-31 13:48:48,059 P4358 [INFO] 100 11 100 11 0 0 1059 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 1100 ? 17:48:48 2019-05-31 13:48:48,060 P4358 [INFO] /usr/lib64/ruby/gems/2.6.0/gems/sequel-5.20.0/lib/sequel/adapters/postgres.rb:206:in `initialize': PG::ConnectionBad: timeout expired (Sequel::DatabaseConnectionError)

yousafn

2019-06-01 00:56

has anyone had any luck using the `pact-stub-service` which lives with `pact-mock_service`, in getting it to be flexible in matching query parameters? One of my dev?s was attempting this at work and got nowhere, so I started to take a look. I can get `pact-js` to use the matchers properly, but `pact-stub-service` ignores these and leaves me with a rigid mock that will only accept a single query param. I have stuck a full description of my issue here - https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service/issues/80#issuecomment-497898603 along with a reproducible example in a repo (see issue comment for link and steps to run)

bethskurrie

2019-06-01 01:07

That shouldn't be the case.

bethskurrie

2019-06-01 01:07

It's the same matching code.

bethskurrie

2019-06-01 01:10

Ah.... yes, I know what you're talking about. It's because the v2 spec doesn't support a query hash in the serialisation.

bethskurrie

2019-06-01 01:10

This has bitten me in a few places.

bethskurrie

2019-06-01 01:10

I'll have a think about what I can do about it.

bethskurrie

2019-06-01 01:11

When v2 was written, the matching info wasn't even included in the pact, because the stub wasn't invented, so we didn't think we'd need it.

yousafn

2019-06-01 01:12

doh :disappointed: our dev did mention about the spec versions. let me try setting the pact version to 3 in the pact provider options and i?ll see what happens. If you can point me in the right direction of the code, I will happily have a stab at a change. No rush on this, the wiremock stuff will get us over the hump for now whilst we have a think

bethskurrie

2019-06-01 01:12

Only the "reified" (concrete) example was stored.

bethskurrie

2019-06-01 01:12

I don't think writing v3 pacts works yet, only reading them. But you can try.

yousafn

2019-06-01 01:17

ahh yeah, just tried it, the only diff in the pact was the version number, ` "version": "3.0.0"` cheers for the answer though, it has saved me chasing my tail! Looking forward to hearing your suggestions and what we can do in the future to support this (if this is indeed a case that pact wants to support)

bethskurrie

2019-06-01 01:17

I want it to work

bethskurrie

2019-06-01 01:18

because using the stub server for larger scale integration tests is one of its purposes

bethskurrie

2019-06-01 01:18

I'll see if I can re-parse the query string back into the hash to apply the matching rules.

yousafn

2019-06-01 01:19

we adore it for that very purpose :heart: Thanks duck, appreciate it. Feel free to leave me some breadcrumbs to work with, and I will have a go (or give it to one of my insanely clever devs and see what he can come up with) as I know you are insanely busy with the pactflow work

bethskurrie

2019-06-01 01:20

we are! I can point you to the code if someone is brave enough to wade in.

yousafn

2019-06-01 01:21

Well I?ve got 3 days off work next week, playing nurse for my wife who is having an op, so I imagine she will be sleeping alot, which means lots of laptop time for me

bethskurrie

2019-06-01 01:21

party time!

bethskurrie

2019-06-01 01:22

I'll put some notes on the issue

yousafn

2019-06-01 01:23

thank you very much mucker, right I should probably hit the sack as it is an ungodly hour here but I will catch up with your notes tomorrow or when you get round to it, again no rush on our side!

matt.fellows

2019-06-01 03:23

thanks for getting involved (and good luck with your wife next week!)

bethskurrie

2019-06-01 03:23

I was wondering how on earth you were chatting to us at this time of your day!

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-01 09:55

has joined #general

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-01 11:27

@bernardo.guerreiro this is indeed a brilliant post, exactly what I was looking for! Only thing is my provider is a django app. I don?t think the `requestFilter` has been implemented in pact-python yet. @matt.fellows is this feature in pipeline for pact-python? Would be so awesome if it is!

matt.fellows

2019-06-01 13:14

I'm not sure if it's in Python yet, but the best way is to get an issue raised on the repo and some votes - community is what drives this stuff

matt.fellows

2019-06-01 13:14

Love that the world is with a small place and little projects like this can bring ppl together!

matt.fellows

2019-06-01 13:15

I'll look into Pact JS to see how we might be able to simplify the workflow

matt.fellows

2019-06-01 13:15

I would still use the state handlers but then setup local state to instruct the request filter how to behave. Otherwise the request filter could get quite large in and if itself

matt.fellows

2019-06-01 13:15

I.e. use them together

yusuke1.sato9.reg

2019-06-03 06:49

has joined #general

sankalan13

2019-06-03 09:20

Hey guys. We have our provider in python django and our consumer in Angular in a separate repo. We are running our provider verifier using the pact ruby standalone. We are having some problem with authentication. Our provider states sets up the user in the backend directly. This can cause 3 cases: 1) We hardcode our passwords and emails and basic auth and use the --custom-headers in provider verifier for each type of tests. (our tests pass but its difficult to scale the hardcoding. This can cause a lot more issues later on) 2) We remove auth altogether and then test the contracts without auth, then test auth separately. (I fairly like this idea, very low effort and easily doable. But it changes the production state of my backend which we should avoid if we can) 3) We write a custom middle ware that generates a random email and password and the related basic auth token and inject the email and password in my provider states setup and the basic auth in my provider verifier. (we need to figure this one out but its interesting and scalable. I think the --custom-middleware flag in pact-ruby standalone would be the place to insert the custom middleware. You have used something as requestFilters to solve this in js. Is there something similar in pact-ruby-standalone? If not, which of the above three would you suggest we use during implementation?

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 09:22

All are perfectly acceptable. I say, which ever one you can all agree on!

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 09:25

The contract testing part is most useful for stuff that is likely to change. The auth is not likely to change, so the benefit of including it is low. And there are generally things you have to test outside a contract anyway, so if you're comfortable in testing that in another place, I don't think it's bad to turn it off for the contract tests

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 09:26

You generally have to modify the provider in some way to do the verifications, like stub a downstream service. The trade-offs are usually worth it.

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 09:29

You could write your own proxy that adds the credentials dynamically by the way. Point the verification at the proxy instead of your real service. Most frameworks have a reverse proxy library that allows you to modify the request on the way through.

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 09:30

Or, your own middleware.

hanumanth.abhilash

2019-06-03 09:54

has joined #general

sankalan13

2019-06-03 10:00

Oh this one is interesting. Will explore this more. Thanks Beth!!

sankalan13

2019-06-03 10:03

Haha thanks Beth, I can see your suggestions have a pattern, the one you like came first. I'm also inclined towards switching off the auth and testing that in another place. :smile:

uri.goldstein

2019-06-03 12:36

has joined #general

uri.goldstein

2019-06-03 12:40

Hello.

uri.goldstein

2019-06-03 12:41

I'm considering Pact for a .net project only the web service are good old fashioned SOAP services. Does PactNet support these, or is it strictly JSON at the moment?

bheemreddy181

2019-06-03 15:12

mock auth to return true you mean on provider ?

matt.fellows

2019-06-03 22:21

Not to my knowledge, but you might be bests checking in #pact-net or on the repo issues.

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:13

@ckaptan a delete request with a body is not supported by the ruby implementation. It is a very unusual usecase! @uglyog would it be supported by pact-jvm?

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:18

You can do that.

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:20

looks like we were having internal issues before.. Now i'm geting this error when I start the broker. Does this look familiar?

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:20

```22:01:09 2019-06-03 18:01:09,670 [DEBUG] Command 06_start_server_pact_broker output: *************Start Pact Broker Server************* % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0 100 14 100 14 0 0 3 ? 22:01:09 2019-06-03 18:01:09,671 [DEBUG] No services specified ? 22:01:09 2019-06-03 18:01:09,686 [INFO] ConfigSets completed ? 22:01:09 2019-06-03 18:01:09,686 [DEBUG] Not clearing reboot trigger as scheduling support is not available```

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:22

Hi @acooper106. Your workmates can join the pact foundation slack channel by going to http://slack.pact.io

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:22

this is the command that I'm running rackup -p 8080 -o $(curl http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/local-ipv4) -D >> pactbroker-service-output.txt

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:23

The output that starts `Command 06_start_server_pact_broker output` does not come from the pact broker. It most likely comes from what ever you are using to run the docker container.

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:23

``initialize': PG::ConnectionBad: timeout expired (Sequel::DatabaseConnectionError)` This says that your broker cannot connect to the database.

acooper106

those are my logs but i'm using the rackup command to start the server

acooper106

i fixed the DB connect error

bethskurrie

Are you using the docker image?

acooper106

yes

bethskurrie

you don't need to call rack up then

acooper106

docker is installed i believe version 2.0.1

bethskurrie

it will start for you automatically

bethskurrie

you just run the docker image.

acooper106

its doesn't usually start. what command it that to run docker

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:27

I'm afraid these are questions you need to ask your ops team.

acooper106

i was following the docs to install pact broker

bethskurrie

I don't know what architecture, environment or tools you're using to deploy your docker container.

acooper106

i believe the last i checked it said to run rackup

acooper106

from the example directory

bethskurrie

that's if you're running a custom installation

bethskurrie

not the docker container.

bethskurrie

https://cloud.docker.com/u/dius/repository/docker/dius/pact-broker

if you have dius/pact-broker or pactfoundation/pact-broker, you just run the docker container.

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:29

then im not using docker container. I have ruby installed and the i install docker and the pact broker

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:29

do you have doc on this? i believe the doc i was follow said run rackup

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:30

Can I suggest that you use the docker container? Running the ruby application directly is something that only experienced ruby developers would be qualified to do. I wouldn't even do it.

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:30

No wonder it's crashing!

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:31

i have only seen one doc for the installation

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:31

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:31

i'm not sure of any other options

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:32

Under "Usage" there is a "container solutions" section https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker#container-solutions

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:32

You are trying to "roll your own" which is a technically difficult exercise!

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:33

oo yes i remember now

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:33

we dont have docker in house

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:33

so that why we built it this way

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:34

From the line `http://169.254.169.254/latest/meta-data/local-ipv4)` it looks like you're trying to run it on an AWS EC2 instance. Is that the case?

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:37

yes

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:43

If you're already using AWS, I would recommend using AWS ECS to run the pactfoundation/pact-broker image. You can find the documentation here https://aws.amazon.com/getting-started/tutorials/deploy-docker-containers/

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:46

ok i will look into this and pass this along to my team.

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:46

You will need to ask you own ops people to assist you with the deployment.

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:46

can you speak to our current issuea little more as to why its crashing?

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:47

I'm afraid I really don't have enough information to help you.

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:47

I can tell you that nobody else has reported these issues, so it is likely to be environment specific.

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:47

ok its hard to identify if its my broker configuration of some other internal issue

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:48

ok what about the most recent one during the start command

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:48

If you are running the application directly, without passenger, nginx or puma (which you would get from the docker container), then I'm not surprised it's crashing though. That's not the way to run a production application.

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:49

The way you're running it is only suitable for someone playing around with an instance on their local machine - not something that needs to be available 24/7 to support CI.

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:50

This is why we've built http://pactflow.io - it takes a lot of engineering to make a service highly available. It's not just to do with the underlying Ruby application.

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:51

ok the doc didn't explain it this way

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:52

to me and our team it seemed like this was an equal option to the docker container

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:52

> For production usage, use a web application server like Phusion Passenger or Nginx to serve the Pact Broker application. You'll need to read up on the documentation for these yourself as it is beyond the scope of this documentation. See the wiki for instructions on using a reverse proxy with SSL.

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:52

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker#rolling-your-own

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:54

The docs clearly state that you need to use Phusion or similar to run the application in production.

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:55

It is beyond the scope of the Pact Broker documentation to explain how to use these. Again, I advise you to contact the ops team at your company.

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:56

like docker container is better but if you dont have it is ok to set it up this way. ok seems like if we dont have docker containers then we can continue this way but we are missing some pieces to make this reliable. ok I'm not sure if we missed that before. Are you sure that this hasn't changed since we first built the broker

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:56

No, it has not changed.

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:56

we did consult the ops team when we brought this in and built it on aws

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:57

thats why i'm not sure how we missed it

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:57

These instructions are quite old.

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:57

it has been running on aws for a while now and just started seeing major issues

matt.fellows

2019-06-03 23:58

Hi @acooper106, all of the issues you have described are unfortunately outside of our control.

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:58

> What version are you running? There are some versions that have quite intensive data processing before I optimised the "matrix" query. The latest versions do not have this issue.

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:59

ok seems like we either need docker container or "Phusion Passenger or Nginx"

bethskurrie

2019-06-03 23:59

I didn't see an answer to this question.

acooper106

2019-06-03 23:59

how to i tell which version of the broker do i have

matt.fellows

2019-06-04 00:00

Running the Pact Broker isn?t a hugely onerous task, but it does take some effort to maintain latest versions, keep it HA etc. I would suggest you have somebody with good operations knowledge look over the design and implementation (if not ownership) to ensure the ongoing stability and performance.

bethskurrie

2019-06-04 00:01

To get the version, go to `/hal-browser/browser.html#` in your broker, and look at the `x-pact-broker-version` response header

acooper106

2019-06-04 00:03

for the last 1-2 years that has been me. I'm technically out of the country now working on getting the broker back up and running

acooper106

2019-06-04 00:03

x-pact-broker-version: 2.32.0

bethskurrie

2019-06-04 00:03

That's the latest version at least.

acooper106

2019-06-04 00:04

i feel like most of our issues are internal tho

acooper106

2019-06-04 00:05

but it felt like we would get updates randomly as well

bethskurrie

2019-06-04 00:05

I'm afraid I have to go. My final advice is to use the pactfoundation/pact-broker image on ECS. The way you are currently running it is not advised, and I'm surprised it's run ok for this long.

acooper106

2019-06-04 00:07

we are using the pactfoundation/pact-broker

acooper106

2019-06-04 00:07

i believe you mean the docker image

bethskurrie

2019-06-04 00:07

ECS is a service for running docker. Yes, use the docker image.

acooper106

2019-06-04 00:08

uglyog

2019-06-04 00:12

Not directly. The mock server will accept it, but any http client libraries may not.

matt.fellows

2019-06-04 00:25

So on a related note - we?ve thought about creating an AWS cloudformation template for this purpose (possibly available via AWS marketplace to make this easier). It would be a bit of effort, but if we created such a thing - would this be something you would consider using instead of rolling your own?

acooper106

2019-06-04 00:26

i have the setup from "rolling my own" in a CF scripts

acooper106

2019-06-04 00:26

its built into our pipeline for maybe 100 teams now

bethskurrie

2019-06-04 00:29

It could just be crashing from the increase in load over time. That's a lot of teams. A single ruby process can only take so much load.

acooper106

we have the broker on an aws EC2 instance using the CF templates, auto scaling and load balancer etc. i belive that even at this point i can bring this back up for users but I'll be looking into the aws docker container next. I'm not sure if what you

acooper106

now that maybe true

acooper106

because it was just happen randomly

acooper106

https://docs.pact.io/faq#what-is-pact-not-good-for

i didn't actually do any analysis on scaling

acooper106

2019-06-04 00:31

but this is autmatically built into everyones build process

bethskurrie

2019-06-04 00:31

Scaling is difficult to do without a lot of fine tuning. Even our ops experts take some time to get it right.

matt.fellows

2019-06-04 00:37

> i have the setup from ?rolling my own? in a CF scripts Sure, but as mentioned, there are lots of little things that make rolling this out a challenge at scale.

matt.fellows

2019-06-04 00:38

To be honest though, if you?ve gotten as far asa 100 teams using it daily, it sounds like you need somebody to actually get their hands dirty to properly help you.

matt.fellows

2019-06-04 00:38

It?s going to be hard (and also very time consuming for us doing this in our spare time) to support your specific needs

acooper106

2019-06-04 00:39

possibly or i just need the aws docker container

matt.fellows

2019-06-04 00:39

:man-shrugging: maybe

acooper106

2019-06-04 00:39

i believe my questions were answered.

matt.fellows

2019-06-04 00:40

excellent!

acooper106

2019-06-04 00:40

thanks for all your help. all of this is good info. and i'll pass it along to my team

acooper106

2019-06-04 00:43

at first i just think they weren't ready for the docker container. but now we have the usage and a strong case for it

neil

2019-06-04 00:57

Hey. Nah no support for SOAP or XML.

richard.jones

2019-06-04 06:37

does anyone know of a stash/bitbucket merge check hook that will check pact verification status (so it?s checked like a build status)?

bethskurrie

2019-06-04 07:09

Can you publish results to a sha like you can with github?

simon.nizov

2019-06-04 08:16

Is there a good practice for provider verification when my provider talks to a 3rd party API (like google maps)? How do I stub that 3rd party API? There?s no pact so `pact-stub-service` isn?t relevant. I tried looking for some kind of standalone VCR stub server but couldn?t find anything worthwhile.

detert

2019-06-04 08:19

If your provider talks to a 3rd party, isn't he a consumer in that case. Wouldn't you use the PactMockService in that case? However if you run the provider verifyAll() tests, maybe you do not want to stub anything ...

simon.nizov

2019-06-04 08:21

No, I mean during the verification stage of a pact between a consumer and a provider, my provider is calling *another service*, which is not under my control, so pact is not an option.

detert

2019-06-04 08:25

Well I know. In that test case he is a provider and a consumer at the same time. And for the consumer part you have to decide if you want to mock/stub the 3rd party or if you use the real API. In my opinion you could could create a pact contract with the 3rd party provider, or you use a simple mock service like http://www.mock-server.com/ or http://wiremock.org/

detert

2019-06-04 08:28

Does that make sense?

simon.nizov

2019-06-04 08:39

Yup, that?s what I was thinking of. Does MockServer have a python client?

simon.nizov

2019-06-04 08:40

WireMock needs Java which is a problem for our use case

alessio.paciello

2019-06-04 08:41

Good morning! Is there a way, in Java, to write verification tests (for the same `consumer-provider` couple) in different test classes? We found no way without using the `@PactFilter` annotation , but doing this we would not fail while a consumer is actually declaring a new interaction

detert

2019-06-04 08:42

Isn't https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service standalone?

detert

2019-06-04 08:42

mock-server can be configured with json and/or HTTP requests

simon.nizov

2019-06-04 08:44

Yep, but I was hoping to not use pact only for its mocking capability. The Pact docs also suggest that this is not the use case for pact but oh well..

simon.nizov

2019-06-04 08:45

Ideally I would want to use VCR to record my interactions against the 3rd party API. Then in the pact verification I would want some kind tool that can read those VCR recordings and run a stub server with them which my provider would call instead of the real API.

detert

2019-06-04 08:48

Well, I am not using it like that currently (I am really new to this stuff and currently implementing my first consumer / provider tests with ci and all that) However we have way too many 3rd party provider and my idea was to create pact contracts for each of them to be able to run nightly tests for each contract. In that case I would use the pact mock services in cases like yours. However I have no experiences doing that

detert

2019-06-04 11:28

Do you use https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service? Maybe you can set --pact-file-write-mode=merge

alessio.paciello

2019-06-04 12:37

Nope I am using the java SpringPactRunner

detert

2019-06-04 13:20

Alright, I have no idea how that works, sorry

ckaptan

2019-06-04 13:40

Thanks, @bethskurrie. I look for more conventional solutions.

bheemreddy181

2019-06-04 13:59

Cool :sunglasses:

dperez

2019-06-04 15:45

hi @neil or @matt.fellows , is there any specific steps I need to follow to build pact-net from a particular branch I cloned?, specifically the message-pact branch. I'm able to build the solution and run the messaging tests and everything works fine inside the solution. Basically I want to build the project to have a nuget package I can include on one of my own projects but not sure how to get it.

gomathi.velayutham

2019-06-04 16:52

has joined #general

rob.clarken

2019-06-04 22:32

has joined #general

richard.jones

2019-06-04 22:42

Ahah! Yes, thanks for the clue!!

richard.jones

2019-06-04 22:43

(now I just need the full commit hash, but I reckon we can solve that)

bethskurrie

2019-06-04 22:44

@richard.jones http://blog.pact.io/2018/07/16/publishing-pact-verification-statuses-to-github/

bethskurrie

2019-06-04 22:45

It was close at one stage, but the person implementing the XML matchers went silent.

richard.jones

2019-06-04 22:47

cool thanks. I also just found https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Pacticipant-version-numbers which I?ll use as a ref to convince folks here to use the full hash as the version

richard.jones

2019-06-04 22:47

it?s not as *readable* though, but we can use tags for that

bethskurrie

2019-06-04 22:48

@detert pact isn't a great fit for 3rd party providers. Unless you can set up the 'provider states` programmatically, it becomes difficult to do the verification step.

bethskurrie

2019-06-04 22:48

bethskurrie

2019-06-04 22:50

@simon.nizov I like the idea of somehow using the VCR recordings to create a mock.

matt.fellows

2019-06-04 23:21

This is one of those cases where you?re talking to the ?dirty outside world?. Depending on those third parties, your level of confidence in the APIs changing could be different (e.g. with AWS I?d have pretty high trust). VCR could be a good option there. But if you have little trust in the system, you may need to continually ensure things work for reals, in which case you have no choice but to actually integrate

yousafn

2019-06-05 00:19

wiremock has a recorder mode and can be used in docker https://github.com/rodolpheche/wiremock-docker but also check out https://github.com/buger/goreplay

yousafn

2019-06-05 00:20

there is a tool that can generate pact files from wiremock mappings but i haven?t got round to trying it out yet

yousafn

2019-06-05 00:20

https://bitbucket.org/atlassian/wiremock-pact-generator/src/master/ from the cool guys at atlassian

yousafn

2019-06-05 00:23

i tend to run a set of api tests against public api?s and providers i don?t trust (within previous companies where noone talked to each other) on a cron job every hour - found it better to be proactive than reactive

bethskurrie

2019-06-05 00:25

:+1:

neil

2019-06-05 01:12

You can build a nuget package by running the following commands from PowerShell: - Create a release build from VS - `.\Build\Download-Standalone-Core.ps1` If you get a ?The request was aborted: Could not create SSL/TLS secure channel.? error, also run `[Net.ServicePointManager]::SecurityProtocol = [Net.SecurityProtocolType]::Tls12` - `.\Build\Publish-Release.ps1 -ReleaseVersionNumber "PACTNET_VERSION"` - `.\Build\Publish-StandaloneCore-Releases.ps1 -ReleaseVersionNumber "PACTNET_VERSION"` Replace PACTNET_VERSION with the version number you want. Once all the commands have been run you should see the packages in ./Build dir

neil

2019-06-05 01:13

Alternatively you can use the packages generated from the build https://ci.appveyor.com/project/SEEKJobs/pact-net/builds/22130704/artifacts

neil

2019-06-05 01:13

I do need to merge master back into message-pact, so there will be a new one soon

neil

2019-06-05 01:25

https://ci.appveyor.com/project/SEEKJobs/pact-net/builds/25048346/artifacts is the latest build from `message-pact`

dperez

2019-06-05 03:07

thanks a lot! @neil you are a life saver

detert

2019-06-05 05:19

@bethskurrie Good point. I missed that

bethskurrie

2019-06-05 05:21

the sweet spot for pact is internal APIs where the consumer teams and provider teams know each other and are collaborating over an API

nick_horne_90

2019-06-05 08:23

has joined #general

elvir.arslanovic

2019-06-05 09:33

has joined #general

taranovskyi.anton

2019-06-05 10:45

has joined #general

nick_horne_90

2019-06-05 14:37

Hi, does anyone know whats happened to the pact-jvm-provider-gradle that used to be here: https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/pact-jvm-provider-gradle ?

alessio.paciello

2019-06-05 14:45

It's here now https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/provider/pact-jvm-provider-gradle

uglyog

2019-06-05 23:26

Big refactor for version 4.0.x. You can still find the old structure on the v3.6.x branch

perhuman

2019-06-06 02:52

has joined #general

uri.goldstein

2019-06-06 06:52

Thanks @neil and @bethskurrie. I'm thinking of implementing it myself. Can you estimate how much work is involved in getting it done? Will it be in the core Ruby codebase?

bethskurrie

2019-06-06 06:55

Yes, you'll need to do ruby in afraid.

bethskurrie

It was super close, and I don't know why it lost momentum.

bethskurrie

If you google "pact xml ruby" you should find the repo

bethskurrie

In fact, I think there's a channel

bethskurrie

https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/what_is_pact_good_for#what-is-it-not-good-for

#pact-ruby-xml

nick_horne_90

2019-06-06 07:32

Great thanks

uri.goldstein

2019-06-06 07:47

Many thanks @bethskurrie . I don't know Ruby but I want to give it a look. I'll go look for the code and join the channel.

uri.goldstein

2019-06-06 07:53

Would the fork be one of thse 4? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-xml/network/members

bethskurrie

2019-06-06 07:55

Yes

uri.goldstein

2019-06-06 08:09

Tx :+1:

uri.goldstein

2019-06-06 08:10

Hey, this is you: https://github.com/peer85/pact-xml/commits/master :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2019-06-06 08:10

Yes

bethskurrie

2019-06-06 08:11

I did the initial framework to explain how it needed to be written.

bethskurrie

2019-06-06 08:11

But I didn't implement the matching logic.

bethskurrie

2019-06-06 08:11

Not using xml myself!

uri.goldstein

2019-06-06 08:12

Right. Sorry. Got confused.

uri.goldstein

2019-06-06 08:14

Seems like all 3 forks have no commits beyond your initial work.

bethskurrie

2019-06-06 08:14

There's definitely one with work! Have a look at any pr to the original

steveland

2019-06-06 14:20

has joined #general

void.alexey

2019-06-06 16:36

Hi, I am thinking about adding PACT to our company engineering flow. There is no issues when we have �consumer� and �provider�. But I also faced use case, that makes me think I am on the wrong way: - assume we have some service API (developed by us); - it will be consumed by another company and it is developed exactly for them to integrate with us (they are the only consumers); - they do not use PACT; - we provide Swagger/Blueprint/etc. Is it OK to implement own generic ?consumer? to write the contract pacts and after that also use it at the same place (code base) to verify ?provider??

russell.blandamer

2019-06-06 17:18

If you are not developing the ?real? consumer, then you have no control over what the it will request from you. Creating a ?fake? consumer in order to perform Pact testing won?t prevent the ?real? consumer from breaking the contract with your provider. IMHO Pact isn?t an appropriate tool in this situation: the whole point is that it?s driven by the consumer.

russell.blandamer

2019-06-06 17:18

Disclaimer: I have been using Pact for like three weeks: I?m not an expert.

antonello

2019-06-06 18:00

antonello

2019-06-06 18:05

You could - in theory - have a pact broker that both you and your client use.

antonello

2019-06-06 18:07

But your client would have to commit to write and maintain consumer tests and publish them to that pact broker.

antonello

2019-06-06 18:08

The standard advice is to not use pact for public APIs, but it you?re building an API for just one client, then it may work out ok for you.

void.alexey

2019-06-06 19:00

My initial goal is: verify and keep up to date API spec we share with client + be able to confirm that changes on provider won?t break current client interactions with us

void.alexey

2019-06-06 19:02

So from these points I came up with idea about using pact + Atlassian tool for swagger spec verification

bethskurrie

2019-06-07 00:43

@void.alexey if your consumer is not actually generating a pact from their own consumer tests, Pact is not going to help you much. In this case, you're best off providing them a swagger document, and then making sure (either by generating the swagger from the code, or via a swagger verification tool like dredd) that your swagger document and provider are in sync.

bethskurrie

2019-06-07 00:43

Peeps - the long awaited "Feature support table" is available here: https://docs.pact.io/feature_support Thanks to @tjones for making me get off my ass and write it.

tjones

2019-06-07 00:45

I love it!

acooper106

2019-06-07 01:21

/usr/lib64/ruby/gems/2.6.0/gems/sequel-5.21.0/lib/sequel/adapters/postgres.rb:206:in `initialize': PG::ConnectionBad: timeout expired (Sequel::DatabaseConnectionError)looks like this has returned. is this issue on my side?i updated the version of ruby https://koshigoe.github.io/ruby/2019/02/06/ruby-2.6.1-bundler-1.17.2.html

bethskurrie

2019-06-07 01:21

Yes, it is an issue on your side. Your ruby process cannot connect to the database.

acooper106

2019-06-07 01:22

hmm ok sometimes its does and sometimes its doesnt

bethskurrie

2019-06-07 01:22

Sounds like you have some kind of intermittent network issue.

acooper106

and from that article looks like that combination of bundler and ruby had issues so i upgraded to 2.6.2

bethskurrie

Again, you need your own ops people to help you with this.

bethskurrie

Again, I recommend you use the docker image.

bethskurrie

I have not tested the broker on ruby 2.6

bethskurrie

2019-06-07 01:24

It has been well tested on the version of ruby that is in the docker image.

void.alexey

2019-06-07 04:31

Thank you. Dredd is a good fit, but their golang hooks seems to be not so easy to use, compared to pact provider states :(

dennis.woditsch

2019-06-07 11:12

has joined #general

yousafn

2019-06-07 11:56

That is quality, good work team. There are a few features that I would love to get into pact-js when time allows :slightly_smiling_face:

yousafn

2019-06-07 11:56

Is it worth having the titles of the repo?s as links to the github repos for ease of convenience

bethskurrie

2019-06-07 11:57

I can add links, good idea.

bethskurrie

2019-06-07 11:59

Overall, I found dredd not as flexible as pact, but better than not verifying at all.

sgoodarzy

2019-06-07 21:28

has joined #general

hboddupalli

2019-06-07 21:31

has joined #general

sgoodarzy

2019-06-07 21:34

Hello @everyone I'm very new to pact so I'm gonna say beforehand that I'm sorry if my question is stupid. In the publisher/subscriber communication model , if service A is publishing messages to service B which one is consumer and which one is provider ?

matt.fellows

2019-06-08 02:28

Not stupid! Service B is the consumer. It is the one that consumes the message, so it must be able to handle what is published.

luchillo17

2019-06-08 20:22

Hey guys do you know why pact can't find our provider if we have it running? maybe because it's apollo? the object above are the options passed to the verifier, any idea?

yousafn

2019-06-08 21:42

Maybe try localhost rather than 0.0.0.0

luchillo17

2019-06-08 21:48

@bethskurrie Ok after debugging we found something interesting, we're passing the host url, but as you see in the image, the host url used in the verifier command is not using what we sent it, i think it might be a bug

pact.io

2019-06-08 22:06

the broker stores your pact contracts. the provider is your service under test

yousafn

2019-06-08 22:23

it always reads as that, see my image. The issue is it can?t hit your provider, on 0.0.0.0. Your error states nothing found on port 3001, so it is reading your providerBaseUrl correctly

yousafn

2019-06-08 22:24

my providerBaseUrl in the screenshot is actually `https://petstore.swagger.io`

yousafn

2019-06-08 22:24

but the verifier shows it as `--provider-base-url 'http://localhost:53146'`

yousafn

2019-06-08 22:25

try `localhost:3001` instead of `0.0.0.0:3001`. Can you curl your service on `0.0.0.0` ?

matt.fellows

2019-06-08 22:39

@luchillo17 this is normal, the node process proxies your API to be able to do state handling and request filters

matt.fellows

2019-06-08 22:57

You probably need to or fix your provider got name with `http://`

luchillo17

2019-06-09 00:26

Yep indeed i found out later it was being proxied, and had to split my host config in 2 variables, one for the server and another with `http://localhost` for the other, now it works. Thanks @yousafn @pact.io @matt.fellows

matt.fellows

2019-06-09 00:31

You?re welcome. Could you please raise an issue on pact-js for this? We should probably provide better validation to indicate that problem

luchillo17

2019-06-09 00:36

Sure

luchillo17

2019-06-09 00:41

Hmm i think it should be in pact-node since it's the server side right?

matt.fellows

Raise it in Pact JS and we?ll worry about the implementation. Pact Node shouldn?t really be a client facing thing for the most part

matt.fellows

But thanks for thinking that way

matt.fellows

It might end up in Pact Node

luchillo17

I mean i looked through my lock file and pact-js was nowhere to be seen, but ok, i'll raise it there

matt.fellows

2019-06-09 00:45

Oh I see. sure, pact node is fine

matt.fellows

2019-06-09 00:46

hmm really? The fact that your code is going through that proxy (i.e. your host name is changed) tells me you must be using pact js

matt.fellows

the dependency will be `@pact-foundation/pact`

luchillo17

Yes i'm using that one

matt.fellows

that?s pact js

luchillo17

In it's dependencies i saw pact-node

luchillo17

Ah ok

luchillo17

2019-06-09 00:59

How's this: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/310

vetisanvasile

2019-06-10 12:48

has joined #general

vetisanvasile

2019-06-10 13:05

anddreiu

2019-06-10 13:11

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-06-10 13:16

:wave:

vetisanvasile

2019-06-10 13:37

I would like to ask if I could post here a question that I posted on stackoverflow but remained without an answered

yousafn

2019-06-10 17:20

@vetisanvasile - ask away, plenty of friendly people here, or post a link to your SO question :call_me_hand:

trent.grover

2019-06-10 19:14

has joined #general

acooper106

2019-06-10 19:15

my team believes that the docker image does not work with our integration of id vault (i'm not sure why they would say that I would have to look into this more). However they would like to continue with the current setup. And are wondering how the container would solve our stability issues and are asking the question below:

acooper106

2019-06-10 19:16

1. Can we ask Beth if we are able to run broker on multiple nodes? Ideally would like to have multiple instances running broker app which points to 1 RDS We only have one node behind the ELB . Does pact support HA where we can have N nodes running connected to the same DB ?

acooper106

2019-06-10 19:17

i believe you mentioned this earlier. that "Pactflow (the hosted Pact Broker) runs in a "highly available architecture", and the fact that it is "highly available" is not much to do with the underlying Ruby application, and mostly to do with the way it is run and deployed (multiple ec2 instances, no downtime deployments, monitoring, auto scaling etc)."

acooper106

2019-06-10 19:17

so does this mean that my current configuration is already leveraging this design out of the box

acooper106

2019-06-10 19:19

or were you saying that if we use the aws ECS container then we would get this HA configuration out of the box

matt.fellows

2019-06-10 21:27

Yes, it can be run on multiple nodes behind a load balancer. It's a stateless design as per modern API design, so no need for sticky sessions etc

matt.fellows

2019-06-10 21:38

If you could reshare your q here, we'll make sure it gets updates if it's answered here

yousafn

2019-06-10 23:21

Hey up, I had an initial stab at this yesterday Hopefully I?m going in the right direction https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-support/pull/69 Ps. Wife is a-ok after the op!

matt.fellows

2019-06-10 23:23

> Ps. Wife is a-ok after the op! That?s awesome news!

vetisanvasile

2019-06-11 06:09

oky, so a bit of background first Ia have two applications (one - tConsumer that requires some data from wProvider) And I have to set up an automation framework to write the provider part for pact. My automation framework is a standalone maven app (like new Java Project -> maven...so on)

vetisanvasile

2019-06-11 06:09

I need to execute a @State for my provider in order to set up some data

vetisanvasile

2019-06-11 06:09

And here we go: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/56455409/mvn-pactverify-does-not-execute-provider-state-but-state-code-is-executed-from

n.chachampis

2019-06-11 06:37

has joined #general

yousafn

2019-06-11 12:19

good post written by the team at atlassian about spec-first API dev, with swagger and pact https://www.atlassian.com/blog/technology/spec-first-api-development

colin.moorehill

2019-06-11 15:43

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-06-11 21:05

They?re doing some cool stuff out there. I?ll reach out to James to see if there is anyway we can continue to collaborate. Ben Sayers and Mauri did a great talk a few years back too, and we?ve been in pretty good dialogue since

aniela.cole

2019-06-11 23:04

has joined #general

calvin.mcstein

2019-06-11 23:04

has joined #general

gabrielle.gasse

2019-06-11 23:05

has joined #general

calvin.mcstein

2019-06-11 23:14

:wave: good folks, I have a noobie question. Can pact tests be implemented in a language (ex: pact-js) regardless of whether the application has been (ex: spring boot). I'm evaluating if this can be tool-agnostic and I'm leaning towards a javascript implementation.

bethskurrie

2019-06-11 23:17

You typically need the consumer side to have an implementation in a matching language. The provider side, you can be more agnostic about the language, though it helps to have a matching one because the tooling can be managed with your normal language tools.

bethskurrie

2019-06-11 23:17

You can use pact jvm for a spring boot app.

bethskurrie

2019-06-11 23:18

The consume and provider languages don't need to match.

calvin.mcstein

2019-06-11 23:32

yep, that makes sense. Thanks @bethskurrie

matt.fellows

2019-06-12 01:34

@uglyog are you able to help?

matt.fellows

2019-06-12 01:35

Sorry @vetisanvasile I probably can?t easily help with the maven issue, but I?ll take a quick look

matt.fellows

2019-06-12 01:41

From what I can tell, the `@State` annotation is not supported for the Maven plugin

matt.fellows

2019-06-12 01:41

Reading this seems to suggest that https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/provider/pact-jvm-provider-maven#provider-states

richard.jones

2019-06-12 02:28

Just reading the ?Effective Pact Setup Guide? under ?Configure pact to be verified when provider changes? AFAICT the provider verification (for a new provider version) will just verify the latest pacts from the consumer. Assuming that there?s a feature branch and a prod pact registered, the provider?s verification will probably only check that feature pact, and not prod. All good for the feature branch - it?s status is updated to reflect potential changes in the provider, yay! You can force the checking of prod pacts by having a separate, explicit prod check (which is probably a good idea so that build can *fail* if the prod pacts fail). All good. Except what if there?s more than one feature branch in flight for a consumer? How do we ensure all *in-flight feature pacts* are checked when the provider changes?

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 02:29

You win all the points for working out what one of the upcoming features is :wink:

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 02:30

At the moment, you need to explictly add the tag of the "work in progress" pacts to your verification. But these will be pulled in automatically very soon as "pending" pacts (ones that don't fail the provider build).

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 02:32

Some teams use matching tag names for the consumer/provider branches. So, consumer publishes 'feat-x' pact, from branch 'feat-x'. Provider has makes a matching branch called 'feat-x'. The default pact verification step dynamically verifies the consumer tag matching the current git branch name, and master.

richard.jones

2019-06-12 02:40

Ahh yep. Honestly, we probably won?t implement proper tagging before pending is implemented :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 02:52

You guys!

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 02:52

Well, points for perseverance.

tjones

2019-06-12 02:59

We've solved this in the past by taking "latest" as work-in-progress, and only explicitly tagging prod

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 02:59

That's a simple and reasonable first step.

tjones

2019-06-12 03:00

that strategy might mean that you're not testing all pacts (because the latest might be a feature branch, if you're doing feature branches), but if you do a can-i-deploy before you deploy, it doesn't matter

richard.jones

2019-06-12 03:00

yeah, I?m not sure that solves the problem of having multiple features in flight

richard.jones

2019-06-12 03:01

webhooks only fire on pact content changes too, so another what-if has come up in our discussions. Let?s say this sequence happens: 1. consumer publishes feature pact, broker marks as pending 2. provider verifies pending pacts, result in the feature pact marked not-pending 3. provider makes a change which breaks the pact, but their checks only run against consumer master and pending pacts 4. provider releases to prod 5. consumer can merge and release their feature, and as far as I can tell because there?s no change to their pact, there?s no provider verification and the feature is now broken.

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:01

It doesn't really, but at least it stops you deploying anything broken.

bethskurrie

> provider verifies pending pacts, result in the feature pact marked not-pending

bethskurrie

It depends on which branch of the provider.

tjones

^ Exactly. This is what I care about

bethskurrie

Are we assuming you're using branches/tags for your provider, or not?

tjones

2019-06-12 03:03

Also, having multiple features in flight is going to cause other problems, not just with Pact. How do you solve those?

richard.jones

2019-06-12 03:03

I?m not entirely sure how provider tagging works yet :sweat_smile:

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:03

Let's say no then.

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:04

At step 5, the pact changed webhook will fire because you've now merged that content into master.

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:04

It will fire because the content has a new tag.

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:04

Oh, you're not using tags...

richard.jones

2019-06-12 03:05

oh, the tags are included in the pact contents for contract_content_changed!!

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:06

unintentionally, yes. there was a pr that I merged without really considering the impact. The logic is this: for each of the tags that the consumer version has been given, check to see if the content is different from the previous latest version with that tag.

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:06

Think of a series of tagged versions forming a 'pseudo branch'.

richard.jones

2019-06-12 03:06

We were reading the webhooks docs to see if that was the case, and concluded that the tags didn?t come into its ?triggered when the content of the contract has changed?

richard.jones

2019-06-12 03:07

If tags trigger a new contract_content_changed then all my (current, lol) problems are solved :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:07

in your case, it will trigger because you have no tags, and the content is different from the previous latest pact.

richard.jones

2019-06-12 03:08

but in my scenario the content of the pact doesn?t change from the version published in step 1

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:08

You don't have "feature" pacts, you only have "latest", because you don't have tags.

bethskurrie

the can-deploy check is the thing that stops you deploying a broken integration.

bethskurrie

and this is where you really need tagging.

richard.jones

This is all assuming that we do implement tagging. So for ?feature pact? I mean ?a pact tagged as feature-x?. My apologies that wasn?t clear.

bethskurrie

though, I guess if you have one broker for production, and one for dev, then you might get away with it.

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:10

`can-i-deploy --pacticipant Foo --version X` will make sure that version X is compatible with the latest versions of all the other apps that Foo has a pact with.

richard.jones

2019-06-12 03:10

But the sticking point for us was that tag changes (with otherwise identical pact content) didn?t appear to trigger a webhook verification

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:11

but you're not using tags?

richard.jones

2019-06-12 03:13

We?re going to be using them, but in order to do so I need to convince people here to use them, which means I need to be able to explain how the workflow changes, and I was just doing that and the person I was explaining it to came up with the what-if that I posted. I couldn?t see how, at step 5, can-i-deploy won?t have an out of date passing verification to work from. The feature pact won?t have been re-verified when the provider merges their breaking change. But if I understand you correctly, the pact *will* be re-verified (even though it?s the same content) because when the consumer merges it, it?s now tagged with a different branch name (?master? instead of ?feature-x?) and that causes the webhook to fire.

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:14

yes

richard.jones

2019-06-12 03:14

\o/

richard.jones

2019-06-12 03:14

thank you again

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:15

richard.jones

2019-06-12 03:19

Lots of communication, and sometimes feature toggles. It doesn?t happen often.

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:23

I've updated this section on webhooks https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Webhooks

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:48

I've just written an article on using can-i-deploy https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/can-i-deploy @richard.jones would love your feedback (and anyone else's feedback too). I'll move it to http://docs.pact.io when I've worked out where to put it.

richard.jones

2019-06-12 03:49

oooh! reading it now :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:52

@tjones you're our resident copywriter, I'd love your feedback too when you have time.

richard.jones

2019-06-12 03:52

that?s a fantastic explanation, thanks Beth!

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:52

Does the reason for provider tags make sense now?

richard.jones

2019-06-12 03:55

yep!

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:56

win

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:57

So the "stage" tags (test, dev, prod) are used for can-i-deploy, while the branch tags (master, feat-x) are used for managing feature development.

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:58

I did some work on splitting them out into separate underlying relationships (stage and branch), but I lost momentum on it.

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 03:59

I was thinking of changing the stage tags into "deployment" resources with extra details, and then I just overthought it and ground to a halt!

tjones

2019-06-12 03:59

I think we don't want Pact to be opinionated about how you're doing your branching (if at all)

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 04:00

yeah, that was one of my other thoughts - tags are quite unopinionated.

tjones

2019-06-12 04:00

for example, I prefer not to do feature branches. I think the ideal Pact tagging structure then becomes just "where is this deployed?"

tjones

2019-06-12 04:00

Well, it's nice to have guides for different styles of working

tjones

2019-06-12 04:01

There's an AWS article about how to get git-flow working in their CI/CD products. It starts with a note that is like "full disclosure, we encourage our teams not to work this way. But, if you want to - here's how you can do it"

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 04:01

bethskurrie

2019-06-12 04:19

@richard.jones are you across the "passing the URL of the changed pact to the provider pact verification job using webhook template parameters" technique?

richard.jones

2019-06-12 04:39

I have noted that in our planning, yep. I?m not sure how easy it?ll be to implement in practise across all our teams.

anddreiu

2019-06-12 06:28

Hi @matt.fellows. So there is no way to run a class annotated with @RunWith(PactRunner.class) using mvn pact:verify? In that class we would have @State and some other code which we would like to invoke when verifying the pact (for example, we are altering the request body) in a method annotated with @TargetRequestFilter

matt.fellows

2019-06-12 06:41

It doesn't seem like it. Hopefully when Ron gets a moment he can contribute to the discussion

anddreiu

2019-06-12 06:43

I have also tried to run it with maven surefire plugin, using mvn test command, but this way it's not able to connect to a pact broker using https - not sure how to solve this

anddreiu

2019-06-12 06:45

this is a little bit strange, because using the IDE it is able to connect to the pact broker (I am using the annotation for PactBroker, having also authentication), but when running as maven, it does not

matt.fellows

2019-06-12 06:57

Sure. I'm not a Java dev so hard for me to comment as to why it's the case. If you're running in your ide but not using maven that might be telling. All I'm saying is the docs don't suggest it's possible

poojashukla9219

2019-06-12 07:37

has joined #general

thavamani.raja

2019-06-12 08:41

has joined #general

anddreiu

2019-06-12 10:37

I just want to let you know that I have managed to solve the maven https issue using parameters for trustStore when running the maven command: -Djavax.net.ssl.trustStore=/path/to/file/cacerts -Djavax.net.ssl.trustStorePassword=password

iamtarasshevchenko

2019-06-12 11:21

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-06-12 12:02

Right, so you must be using a self-signed certificate somewhere

anddreiu

2019-06-12 12:02

yes, exactly

matt.fellows

2019-06-12 12:03

:thumbsup:

jrubial

2019-06-12 12:27

has joined #general

codrut.gusoi

2019-06-12 12:40

has joined #general

vetisanvasile

2019-06-12 12:50

@matt.fellows I also think that currently there is no way to execute @State from maven plugin. Thanks for the answer

codrut.gusoi

2019-06-12 12:53

:wave: Hello everyobdy. Any chance someone could help me out with writing a message contract test for clojure? I see there is an example here https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/blob/master/consumer/pact-jvm-consumer-junit/src/test/clojure/au/com/dius/pact/consumer/example_clojure_consumer_pact_test.clj but that file uses HTTP. What would `config (-> (MockProviderConfig/createDefault))` need to be replaced with for it to work with `MessagePactBuilder`? I see `ConsumerPactRunnerKt` tries to run a mock server.

matt.fellows

2019-06-12 12:58

:+1: sorry :persevere:

thomas.scheuchzer2

2019-06-12 13:17

has joined #general

acooper106

2019-06-12 13:28

I was really asking if its with our current setup or it only configured that way within the container?

enrique

2019-06-12 15:00

has joined #general

detert

2019-06-12 15:17

Which regex would you use, if you describe a field lastName or firstName? Is `.+` too generic?

detert

2019-06-12 15:19

Or would you use `Pact::SomethingLike('John')` for example?

mounikachirasani

2019-06-12 15:38

has joined #general

enrique

2019-06-12 15:42

If any string is a valid `lastName` then I would use exactly that

enrique

2019-06-12 15:43

If you have some validation requirements I would describe them as a regular expression

enrique

2019-06-12 15:43

And I meant validation requirements from the consumer side, the consumer side really cares about the format.

detert

2019-06-12 15:48

Well the consumer does not really care. It might be something like "John Martin" as well

detert

2019-06-12 15:49

Maybe UTF-8 is important. Maybe

codrut.gusoi

2019-06-12 17:05

I got it working by doing: ``` (ns message-consumer.core-test (:require [clojure.test :refer :all] [message-consumer.core :refer :all]) (:import [au.com.dius.pact.consumer MessagePactBuilder] [au.com.dius.pact.consumer.dsl PactDslJsonBody] [au.com.dius.pact.model PactSpecVersion])) (defn process-message "I do cool stuff" [message] (str "Got: " (.toString message))) (deftest clojure-message-consumer-pact-test (let [builder (-> (MessagePactBuilder/consumer "message-consumer") (.hasPactWith "message-provider")) content (-> (new PactDslJsonBody) (.stringValue "Important" "Data")) pact (-> builder (.given "Some condition") (.expectsToReceive "an important message") (.withMetadata {"contentType" "application/json"}) (.withContent content) (.toPact))] (let [interaction (-> pact (.getInteractions) (first)) message-body (-> interaction (.getContents) (.valueAsString))] ;; This is where the fun begins! (let [result (process-message message-body)] (is (= result "Got: {\"Important\":\"Data\"}"))) (.write pact "./pacts/" PactSpecVersion/V3)))) ```

codrut.gusoi

2019-06-12 17:05

Is there a better way?

phall

2019-06-12 20:28

Hi all, we?re developing a micro service architecture, with communication via REST. One area we?re having difficultly with is multiple consumers requiring similar provider states. e.g. Two consumers each want a similar response when a resource exists at a URL. ConsumerOne writes a provider state ?resource exists?, ConsumerTwo writes the same state as ?resource found?. The two consumers do not (and should not) know about each other. Should the provider accept all the various permutations of the same state? Or should there be a shared library, or external process to manage these states?

matt.fellows

2019-06-12 22:11

I?d get them to standardise on the state if possible. Maybe the two consumers don?t know about each other, but the provider should know about its consumers and there should always be a conversation between the consumer/provider before a pact is ?accepted?.

matt.fellows

2019-06-12 22:12

If I was the provider team, I?d ?reject? the pact and tell them to use the other already existent state

matt.fellows

2019-06-12 22:12

We?re working on making the known states available in the Broker (http://pactflow.io) to make this sort of thing easier for consumers to discover

uglyog

2019-06-12 22:56

I've added an additional answer on SO

richard.jones

2019-06-13 00:34

Looks good, thanks!

bethskurrie

2019-06-13 04:18

:pray::skin-tone-3: :pray::skin-tone-3: :pray::skin-tone-3: Hey all! There have been quite a few PRs coming through lately, and I just wanted to thank everyone who has contributed to any of the Pact code or docs. Maintaining and developing on such a large number of codebases and across so many languages (there are 46 repos in pact-foundation alone!) is a big task, and your assistance is greatly appreciated. :pray::skin-tone-3: :pray::skin-tone-3: :pray::skin-tone-3:

bethskurrie

2019-06-13 04:19

Side note, `Pact.like("John")` is shorter.

matt.fellows

2019-06-13 04:27

:point_up: this ++

matt.fellows

2019-06-13 04:27

Thank you. Special call out to @yousafn who I know I?m neglecting in GitHub but know that I _will_ get to your queries/efforts :smile:

detert

2019-06-13 05:52

:smiley::+1:

gerwin.vaatstra

2019-06-13 07:05

has joined #general

yousafn

2019-06-13 08:27

It?s our small way of saying thank you to you all, for doing all this for free, in your spare time. As Beth states, 46 repos, let alone 1 is a mammoth task, alongside your full times jobs, and the release of pact-flow. Don?t worry about getting back to me quickly - you?ve got bigger fish to fry, and we will work around stuff in the day job, but feedback where we can do help improve pact for everyone. Just glad to be able to help out, find it very empowering and it embodies all the good in FOSS. Just make sure you don?t burn yourselves out guys :heart::heart::heart:

yousafn

2019-06-13 08:28

Your NOT neglecting me homie, trust me! You?ve don?t owe us users anything but you give us everything. Much respect

matt.fellows

2019-06-13 11:25

It?s a great feeling, seeing somebody raise an issue for the first time or send a PR.

matt.fellows

2019-06-13 11:25

?OMG somebody is using my _thing_!?

anna.lakstigala

2019-06-13 12:34

has joined #general

neonmd

2019-06-13 15:19

has joined #general

vivek.125

2019-06-13 19:43

has joined #general

vivek.125

2019-06-13 19:43

~hi, how can i get the request reponse logs when running a provider?~

kalinets

2019-06-13 20:01

has joined #general

canomn

2019-06-13 21:05

has joined #general

canomn

2019-06-13 21:19

Hey pact peeps, I'm interested in implementing contract tests at my company, but am a bit unsure of how to get started. Our project consists of two teams, a frontend team, using angular (typescript) and a backend team, using .NET (C#). where do contract tests fit in this situation? what team owns them?

yousafn

2019-06-13 22:15

your consumer will create pacts and publish them to a pact broker. I assume your front-end is calling the backend C# service. your provider (the backend) can then verify that they meet those pacts, and publish the verification results to the broker. Everyone can use can-i-deploy, to find out if they can deploy their services to a particular env. it?s often called consumer driven contract testing, because your consumers provide a contract, as to what they are consuming, from the provider, however in reality, it?s collaborative, the provider should have a vested interest in the contracts, so ownership should be shared, if that makes sense try the pact nirvana guide with steps 1/2, see how you go, and then you can begin to roll it out, as you get buy it. https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/pact_nirvana

yousafn

2019-06-13 22:25

Hah, yes THIS! I built a slack reporter for cypress, as my first open source thing, and someone posted the first issue and I was so happy (even if they had an issue) that the first line of my reply was ``` Hey buddy, thanks for using my plugin! woop woop! ``` I?ve now got 25 odd stars across my few repos and it?s a great feeling. When I?m not playing with computers, I?m tinkering with old cars, and I have written countless guides to help others with engine conversions and the like, so it?s natural to do the same with tech. Wish I had started earlier in my career, but it?s never too late.

matt.fellows

2019-06-14 01:01

start with a consumer contract in your Typescript application for a single API endpoint and a happy scenario (e.g. `GET /users/` should return a list of users and a `200` response). Then publish to a Pact Broker (e.g. hosted at http://pactflow.io or otherwise) and then get your provider team to verify the contract

matt.fellows

2019-06-14 01:02

The contract is owned by the consumer team, but as Yousef says - it?s a collaborative thing. So step 1 is get the two teams talking to each other and agreeing on building the prototype, and measuring the outcomes of the experiment

cjadav

2019-06-14 05:38

has joined #general

anddreiu

2019-06-14 13:34

hi guys. I have added a question on github: https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/issues/893 Did anyone else see this problem? maybe I am doing something wrong and I don't know why the verification reports don't contain all the interactions from my pact file

mui_ume

2019-06-16 11:54

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2019-06-16 22:05

@anddreiu please ask on #pact-jvm

bethskurrie

2019-06-16 22:10

Peeps. We're discussing the issue that some people are having with integers not matching floats/doubles when doing type based matching in pact-js (and other implementations that use the ruby impl under the hood). The ruby implementation has never treated these as equivalent, however, it turns out that the pact-jvm implementation has. Pact specification fail. Anyway, We're discussing adding a flag to make integers/floats match during verification time, and wondering if that should actually be the default behaviour. It would be technically breaking backwards compatibility, but maybe that's ok... thoughts?

bethskurrie

2019-06-16 22:10

For reference, here's the thread: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby/issues/191

matt.fellows

2019-06-16 22:24

I'm leaning towards just making it the default behaviour. Another better option would be to allow the two new matchers on int/floats (i.e. precise matching) and keep the existing matcher as a general "number". No need for flags, but granted it confuses the spec implementation

abubics

2019-06-16 23:27

I would've expected JSON numbers (i.e. decimal) to be the default, and integers only if explicitly specified. But I don't have anything to break right now . . . :sweat_smile:

uglyog

2019-06-16 23:50

Just a note (based on some testing I have done) JSON parsers can return a different type depending on the format of the number. Decimal may not be the default.

bethskurrie

2019-06-16 23:51

ruby has bigdecimal for very large floating point numbers, but float for smaller ones

matt.fellows

2019-06-16 23:57

Yeah, so JSON spec says this https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159#section-6

matt.fellows

2019-06-16 23:58

but I have similar experiences to Ron. For example, in NodeJS a whole number decimal (e.g. 7.0) will be rounded to 7. So even if you wanted a float, you would have to specify something else (which is a bit confusing)

matt.fellows

2019-06-17 00:00

NodeJS floating point information loss

uglyog

2019-06-17 00:00

And different parsers in different languages can do something different.

matt.fellows

2019-06-17 00:00

mmm

matt.fellows

2019-06-17 00:01

This is also enlightening: https://json-schema.org/understanding-json-schema/reference/numeric.html

uglyog

2019-06-17 00:01

Scala always returned floats, Groovy would return Integer or BigNumber.

matt.fellows

2019-06-17 00:01

> JSON has no standard way to represent complex numbers, so there is no way to test for them in JSON Schema.

giancarlo.dipaolanton

2019-06-17 00:21

has joined #general

abubics

2019-06-17 00:37

A cool* thing I found using Jackson (in Kotlin): JSON numbers could be configured to come through as `Int`/`BigInt` and `Double`/`BigDecimal`, but it would still always throw precision away if the fractional part was all zeroes

mui_ume

2019-06-17 06:00

Hi Do you have any boilerplate project for me to get started on using pact with react native app as the front end client talking to services at the backend

mui_ume

2019-06-17 06:00

I like to use Javascript thanks

matt.fellows

2019-06-17 06:27

Are the existing JS examples not relevant? React native is just JS and react so nothing different

yousafn

2019-06-17 06:50

We use decimaljs at work in JavaScript on our consumer side but send them in strings, so that precision is maintained, ( as it goes through to 2 java rest services and then encoded in a soap message ) - our java services use Jackson

mui_ume

2019-06-17 06:51

Can I have my pact test repo separated from My react native app source code ?

bethskurrie

2019-06-17 06:52

What problem are you trying to get around?

bethskurrie

2019-06-17 06:52

Typically they're in the same codebase as the tests are run along with the other unit tests.

yousafn

2019-06-17 06:52

We had an argument when our provider changed their format in the specs to number, for fields that could contain integers or floats, when we had previously agreed on string, so they changed it back . PayPal use string in their api spec

matt.fellows

Yep, it?s a good idea if you don?t want to lose precision over the wire

bethskurrie

mm. typically people use strings or integer cents because of the whole precision thing.

bethskurrie

sad!

bethskurrie

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/316

stupid computers.

mui_ume

2019-06-17 06:56

I?m trying to setup the pact test with react native app And I am putting the API call http request and response Those response in Json format

mui_ume

2019-06-17 06:57

Looking at the example I?m quite confused

bethskurrie

2019-06-17 06:57

How does that relate to putting the pact tests in another codebase?

abubics

2019-06-17 06:58

it's the only thing I know is handled pretty well in XML :troll:

abubics

2019-06-17 06:59

Also, integer cents falls down in some finance cases . . . where they have fractional cents, because they like inventing new ways to hurt themselves :upside_down_face:

mui_ume

2019-06-17 07:00

If I use the same codebase Do I create a subfolder called test and put all my spec js file there And do a npm install at the package.json

mui_ume

2019-06-17 07:01

Do you have a simple example how to add a pact test and any npm package to Install ?

matt.fellows

2019-06-17 07:11

What is confusing about the examples on the pact js repository?

matt.fellows

2019-06-17 07:12

they collectively cover a lot of scenarios. I can have them updated if they are confusing

matt.fellows

2019-06-17 07:12

the jest/mocha examples are pretty basic

matt.fellows

2019-06-17 07:12

And yes, I typically have tests within the codebase in a subfolder that groups them together

mui_ume

2019-06-17 07:13

Ok if that is needed I will talk to the developer to add the subfolder there I need to get started and will take a look at the jest /mocha example

yousafn

2019-06-17 07:40

Tests need to be in your root dir with react ( usually src) but can be in any folder. Ideally call your tests .pact.js to seperate from unit tests but you want them in the same codebase so you are testing your codes api clients

yousafn

2019-06-17 07:42

Create react app?s jest config excludes any test files outside of the rootDir by design and cannot be overridden unless you eject from the CRA default ( but then you have to manage all your deps separately ) collaborating with your dev is best, as you want them to treat the pact tests as unit tests and be part of their dev workflow :ok_hand:

mui_ume

2019-06-17 07:44

Thank you Will start working on that

fili.projetto

2019-06-17 10:14

has joined #general

mui_ume

2019-06-17 10:41

Hi, I just have a look at https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js. I still do not quite understand how to integrate this into my react native app folder

mui_ume

2019-06-17 10:43

do I just look at https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/tree/master/examples/jest?

mui_ume

2019-06-17 10:44

currently the react-native app does not have any jests' __test__ folder

mui_ume

2019-06-17 10:45

is there a simple example, just to see how pact is setup for a react native app? without any irrelevant folder and files?

matt.fellows

2019-06-17 10:46

Not in the pact js repository. We'd happily accept an example if someone is willing to share

mui_ume

2019-06-17 10:46

I also does not quite understand the content of pactSetup.js, I added to my react native app folder, there is alot of syntax error in my VS code, so I don't know what is not needed

matt.fellows

2019-06-17 10:48

Have you written any unit tests for a react native app before?

mui_ume

2019-06-17 10:48

no. I am in QA. I did on end to end testing only. I am familar with appium

mui_ume

2019-06-17 10:49

but now I want to setup pact

matt.fellows

2019-06-17 10:52

Think of Pact as just another unit testing framework. There is nothing specific to react native required to do this testing. My suggestion is to pair with a developer who's written unit tests and get their input on setting it up and then you can write the tests independently

matt.fellows

2019-06-17 10:53

May I ask, is this something you're investigating or has somebody else asked you to do?

mui_ume

2019-06-17 11:06

My own accord I feel the need for pact To complement unit testing and end to end testing As I see it?s benefits that pact will bring to the team

mui_ume

2019-06-17 11:06

I will study jest myself first and see how to go from there

matt.fellows

2019-06-17 11:16

That's awesome!

matt.fellows

2019-06-17 11:18

See if you can get a basic unit test in, and then add in Pact

matt.fellows

2019-06-17 11:18

You might want to jump in #pact-js to get more specific support

mui_ume

2019-06-17 11:34

thanks for directing Matt

phall

2019-06-17 13:26

Fantastic! That sounds like a plan.

drambhia

2019-06-17 15:12

has joined #general

harryzhu2011

2019-06-17 23:58

has joined #general

agarwalatrisha1212

2019-06-18 03:15

has joined #general

arturs.savickis

2019-06-18 03:24

has joined #general

tuan.ho

2019-06-18 03:26

has joined #general

dalsidhu99

2019-06-18 10:50

has joined #general

goncalo

2019-06-18 12:51

has joined #general

christopher.f.almanza

2019-06-18 20:12

Do `@pact-foundation/pact-js` support registering a `GET` interaction that contains a Request body?

bxj231

2019-06-18 21:07

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-06-18 21:13

It may, but that is a bit strange (not an RFC standard)

clang1

2019-06-18 22:52

has joined #general

abubics

2019-06-18 23:34

Also, heaps of libraries don't support it, so it has portability issues.

mboudreau

2019-06-18 23:41

@christopher.f.almanza why are you doing such a thing?

mboudreau

2019-06-18 23:41

let me guess, trying to get around a CORS issue? :stuck_out_tongue:

abubics

2019-06-18 23:47

The times I thought I wanted to do that, it was often for a complex query that query params couldn't represent well

abubics

2019-06-18 23:48

but then I changed my resource model (and mental model) to represent searches as resources, so POST made even more sense

david.j.smith

2019-06-18 23:50

Default to doubles, it?s the only accurate thing to do. :slightly_smiling_face: Could add to the spec (who knows maybe we?ll even support it one day!) or have implementation specific matchers to add precision, but it wouldn?t work across language boundaries as there?s no guarantee that, say, Scala and Ruby would have those same ?extra? matchers implemented. Still handy for services talking to each other that are built in the same language. Scala-Pact has a whole different matching approach that none of the others support, and I think Pact-JVM has about a million matchers we don?t have - no problem in general - you just have to be careful interfacing with Pact files coming from other sources and stick to the spec at the boundaries of your estate.

christopher.f.almanza

2019-06-19 14:31

Hey guys! We just had a GET endpoint that expected a body. I know this is non-standard and hacky and just bad design, but I needed to give some solid reason about why it shouldn't be like that. I couldn't find the RFC at that moment Luckily, the backend engineer found the RFC for both `fetch` and `XMLHttpRequest`, where it specified that there should be no body on a GET request body, so the endpoint is now using query params as it should

james.reynolds

2019-06-19 14:44

has joined #general

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-06-19 15:30

Hi, might be a daft question I don't know. But someone on my team was asking if we could make Pact part of our service-template because each service by default exposes a /version and a /health endpoint which returns JSON - I'm think it wouldn't add a great deal of value to contract test these because it'd essentially be the same codebase being consumer and provider. What do people think?

james.carman

2019-06-19 15:38

That doesn?t sound like a big value-add to me. We have the same sort of thing, but it?s provided by the Spring Boot Actuator. We don?t do pacts for it

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-06-19 16:34

yeah I'm thinking it's kinda pointless. The only benefit would be that pact tests are there as a starting point right off the bat.

craig.pothier

2019-06-19 19:15

has joined #general

craig.pothier

2019-06-19 19:50

hello, super new to Pact. I've went through a lot of docs, and post but I am having a difficult time understanding how to use this with Lambda functions. I saw the examples on the pact-js github repo and but cant figure something out. I have 2 microservices. They are both lambda, lets call them lambda 1 and lambda 2. Lambda 1 directly invokes lambda 2 and waits for response from the lambda function. To me its almost like Rest API call with request and response but I cant figure out how to do this with Pact and lambda. Anyone have any ideas around this? I think the pact server mock would not work in this case right?

matt.fellows

2019-06-19 22:21

I?m surprised this hasn?t come up earlier

matt.fellows

2019-06-19 22:21

In short, the ?messaging? feature of Pact doesn?t support request/response style messages

matt.fellows

2019-06-19 22:21

cc: @bethskurrie because we were talking about this the other day

matt.fellows

2019-06-19 22:22

That would be the main benefit I see also. You could do it, but it seems like needless overhead. The other would be that the documentation in the broker (if you?re using one) would make it clear to all that those endpoints exist

matt.fellows

2019-06-19 22:23

Funny that I?ve never really had to do that in the wild, most of my lambda invocations are either a) async (fire and forget) or b) behind an API Gateway

matt.fellows

2019-06-19 22:23

If you would kindly raise a feature request on the Pact JS repository that will help it get the attention it deserves

craig.pothier

2019-06-19 22:43

craig.pothier

2019-06-19 22:44

Can you think of any work arounds for this? Should I create my own AWS lambda mock on the consumer side to do this?

craig.pothier

2019-06-19 22:44

Also, thanks for the response above.

craig.pothier

2019-06-19 22:45

Im also unsure what the point of the consumer mock is. It seems weird to me. Is it much faster than writing the pact file by hand? i know im obviously missing something

matt.fellows

2019-06-19 23:13

So in a normal integration test, you would test that your code is able to send messages and handle the response from the system you?re testing against. This implicitly tests a bunch of things, but importantly you can feel comfortable that _your consumer code_ is able to send messages in the right format, and handle the response properly.

matt.fellows

2019-06-19 23:13

(seems obvious)

matt.fellows

2019-06-19 23:16

But now that we aren?t going to be testing the actual provider service directly, we need a way to do two things: 1. Test that your consumer code is able to send messages in the correct format, and properly handle the response (probably into some internal model) 2. Capture the contract as a side effect of this, so we can share it with the provider If you write the pact file by hand, you can?t guarantee (1). You also can?t be sure that (2) doesn?t drift from reality (because your code isn?t being executed). At this point, you might as well just use a static document (like Swagger/JSON Schema), but you can?t convince yourself that your code (and the providers? code) is compatible with it

craig.pothier

2019-06-19 23:18

gotcha!! makes sense. Thanks a bunch for that. Its helpful for me to understand

matt.fellows

2019-06-19 23:24

I _think_ you might be able to do it by writing two separate message tests: one on the consumer side and one from the provider side. But I can see challenges with that approach. Alternatively, you could create a small wrapper that allows you to write an HTTP-style Pact, but filter out the http stuff

matt.fellows

2019-06-19 23:24

@uglyog how do you do this in Pact JVM?

uglyog

2019-06-19 23:31

Invoke lambda is just an HTTP POST request via the AWS lambda service, so either do it as a regular HTTP request/response, or test it at a higher level (as you mentioned) as two message flows

uglyog

2019-06-19 23:32

Looks like we need to bump up our thinking about synchronous messages

matt.fellows

2019-06-19 23:33

yep

matt.fellows

Invoking Lambda in the HTTP Post sense is clever, albeit most libraries abstract away that level of detail so would make the testing obscure and detract from some of the nice abstractions lambda gives you. +1 to req/res messages!

bethskurrie

We're just going to have to do something messy with the pact spec version

matt.fellows

We have all of the infrastructure in place, we lack :timer_clock:

bethskurrie

Technically, it should be easy

matt.fellows

mmm

abubics

2019-06-20 00:19

If your consumer uses structured data from the health endpoint for something meaningful (e.g. showing status of upstream services, or whatever) then you should have contract tests :slightly_smiling_face: if not, then it doesn't need to be in the contract

alat

2019-06-20 09:48

has joined #general

craig.pothier

2019-06-20 14:18

@uglyog do you happen to have any examples of how you accomplish executing lambda over http post?

closenet.uk

2019-06-20 14:44

has joined #general

uglyog

2019-06-20 22:24

No, I haven?t done it myself. I was only saying it is possible to do.

oswald.quek

2019-06-21 11:12

For a pact with multiple provider states (https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/tree/version-3#allow-multiple-provider-states-with-parameters), is it possible to specify the ordering in which they are applied at the provider contract testing side?

kevin.meiresonne

2019-06-21 11:14

What's your use case for requiring this? Your provider should be able to deal with any interaction independently, regardless of the order in which they are executed

bethskurrie

2019-06-21 11:18

If you need to rely on the ordering, then either pact is not the right tool for your use case, or you're not using it the way it's meant to be used.

oswald.quek

2019-06-21 11:19

the use case is that a consumer needs to get a Payment from our system, but some fields won't be populated until some confirmatory action has taken place. so it'd be nice to specify the test cases for *Get Payment from Provider* _Provider states_: 1) a payment exists *Get Payment from Provider with bank reference* _Provider states_: 1) a payment exists 2) the payment has a reference and unique id from bank

oswald.quek

2019-06-21 11:19

there are obvious workarounds but i was just wondering whether it were possible to order states

oswald.quek

it'd be nice to reuse the "1) a payment exists"

bethskurrie

Each interaction is meant to be executed independently of all the others, so that you don't get into the situation where the success of one interaction depends on the success a previous one.

bethskurrie

The provider state should set up everything that's needed before hand

kevin.meiresonne

it's up to your provider state to setup all that's needed for that interaction. You could have some helper classes to check if "Payment exists", and just call those in each provider state that needs them

kevin.meiresonne

2019-06-21 11:21

you don't want to end up in a situation where changing/removing one interaction can break other interactions

oswald.quek

2019-06-21 11:23

that's potentially an issue but I then wonder why allow multiple provider states in a pact then

oswald.quek

cool that's ok

oswald.quek

pact is still the right tool, i just need to use one state to set up everything

kevin.meiresonne

well, that's easy: you can have multiple outcomes to a single call. Typically you cover those with multiple states

oswald.quek

i was thinking about re-using code for the state setup at the provider end

bethskurrie

You can reuse it under the hood.

bethskurrie

2019-06-21 11:25

I always create a "test data builder" that I call out to from the provider state handler code

kevin.meiresonne

2019-06-21 11:26

Indeed, so do we

oswald.quek

2019-06-21 11:26

i don't follow. there is only one response in a pact, never multiple responses.

james.carman

@oswald.quek are you verifying your pacts against a live, running system?

oswald.quek

no, of course not!

james.carman

ok, just making sure :slightly_smiling_face:

oswald.quek

:slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/blob/master/spec/service_consumers/provider_states_for_pact_broker_client.rb

james.carman

2019-06-21 11:28

The way I typically handle the data setup is very similar to (and is implemented by) training a mock object.

bethskurrie

2019-06-21 11:28

Damn, I didn't need all that code slack!

james.carman

2019-06-21 11:29

So, you?re saying you want to basically use multiple state setups at the same time (with parameters)?

bethskurrie

2019-06-21 11:29

In v3 you can have multiple provider states.

bethskurrie

2019-06-21 11:30

To help break up the test data set up, and be more specific.

bethskurrie

2019-06-21 11:30

I think Kevin is talking about testing different scenarios by having a different provider state per interaction.

bethskurrie

2019-06-21 11:31

In v3 you can do this.

bethskurrie

2019-06-21 11:32

But it's not fully supported in the ruby impl yet, simply because time.

bethskurrie

2019-06-21 11:32

I think I know someone who could help add it though.

james.carman

2019-06-21 11:33

okay, reading it back now. The main thing is that the ordering is needed.

james.carman

2019-06-21 11:33

?is it possible to specify the ordering in which they are applied?

bethskurrie

2019-06-21 11:33

Oooh!

bethskurrie

Right. I misunderstood.

james.carman

No, you answered about the ordering. I misunderstood :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

They should be applied in the order in which they were defined. Are they not?

james.carman

Or, more likely, didn?t pay attention

james.carman

2019-06-21 11:35

I like the idea of having a larger state setup method and letting it reuse the other bits under the hood, as you suggested.

oswald.quek

2019-06-21 11:35

>To help break up the test data set up, and be more specific I think this was what i was trying to achieve. For example I want to achieve a state of "account with id x exists and a payment with id y exists". At the moment I'd have ``` "providerStates": [ { "name": "account and a payment exists", "params": { "account_id": "x, "payment_id": "y" } } ]``` but I wouldn't be able to separate that out into ```"providerStates": [ { "name": "account exists", "params": { "account_id": "x } }, { "name": "payment exists", "params": { "payment_id": "y" } } ]``` because the payment needs to have an associated account with it

bethskurrie

Sorry @oswald.quek I thought you were talking about interaction order, not provider state order.

james.carman

@oswald.quek you?re putting this stuff in a database?

oswald.quek

oh i just looked at all this just now! :smile:

james.carman

hence the referential integrity issues?

bethskurrie

2019-06-21 11:37

@oswald.quek what verifier language are you using?

oswald.quek

2019-06-21 11:37

at the provider side, java

oswald.quek

i assumed provider states are applied randomly but now i need to double check

james.carman

I would think, since it?s a list, that if it?s not ordered properly, that?s a bug

bethskurrie

OK, I totally understand the issue now, and it's something I'd wondered about but hadn't had someone ask about it

bethskurrie

We need to be able to pass all the states at once into the provider state handler not one at a time

bethskurrie

Is that the issue/solution?

james.carman

No, he wants to set up multiple states

oswald.quek

yes

james.carman

But, the states refer to each other, so they need to be set up in a specific order

james.carman

For (what appears to be) referential integrity constraints

james.carman

So, the account needs to be in the account table before the payment can be inserted into the payment table with a foreign key to the account table

bethskurrie

Yes, but there was one giant provider state setter upper that took the entire list at once, it could decide how to set up the data.

james.carman

I believe I have that ordering right :slightly_smiling_face:

james.carman

Right, if there was an uber state setter upper, that?d work too

bethskurrie

I think the problem is that each state is set up separately, and they lose context.

james.carman

you?d just pass in a larger structure of data and it?d know how to do the right thing

bethskurrie

Yes.

james.carman

@oswald.quek was just hoping to reuse/compose these states from the outside I believe

oswald.quek

yup

james.carman

Rather than having to work with the provider team to add new state setter upper mechanisms

bethskurrie

Perhaps we can have a flag for it, so that you could either do them one at a time (existing behaviour) or have an all in one handler (if toggled on).

bethskurrie

Hm. Tricky.

james.carman

in this case, the states don?t require data from one another. The account id is fully specified in the pact

oswald.quek

it's not that big an issue though :smile: i was just wondering if it were possible.

james.carman

I guess the big question is, ?are the state definitions executed in order during verification by the provider??

james.carman

Does that sum it up?

bethskurrie

Yes

james.carman

I don?t think that?s a terrible idea, to support that

bethskurrie

They are executed in order of definition

james.carman

Yeah, that would be the most intuitive outcome

james.carman

So, sounds like you can do what you want, @oswald.quek

oswald.quek

yup i can confirm they aren't executed in order of definiton

oswald.quek

i've just tested it

james.carman

Then that?s a bug

bethskurrie

@uglyog?

james.carman

I?d ping the #pact-jvm channel

bethskurrie

This is news to me. Ruby impl does them in order of definition.

oswald.quek

ah :slightly_smiling_face:

oswald.quek

i'll raise a github issue too

viktor

has joined #general

bethskurrie

Sorry, we should stop spamming general. I hadn't realised we'd gone off the thread.

oswald.quek

i didn't realise there was a #pact-jvm channel! my bad

james.carman

There?s certainly something off, then

james.carman

https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/blob/master/core/model/src/main/kotlin/au/com/dius/pact/core/model/Pact.kt#L51

james.carman

The model for the pact indeed stores them as an ordered list. Perhaps it reads them first into a set or something and converts to a list, which would jumble them

james.carman

Likely a very simple fix

bethskurrie

:thinking_face:

bethskurrie

Ron will know.

james.carman

indeed

bethskurrie

2019-06-21 11:50

We used to have a German textbook at school where one of the phrases was "mecki weiss alles".

bethskurrie

2019-06-21 11:50

Ron weiss alles!

rakesh_patel

2019-06-21 13:37

has joined #general

rakesh_patel

2019-06-21 14:28

@bethskurrie I am taking over from Allegra from Vanguard

rakesh_patel

2019-06-21 14:30

Does anyone know of the default log file location for broker? wanted to investigate why our broker app went down

nathan2oo3

2019-06-21 14:55

has joined #general

jemmawells

2019-06-21 15:54

has joined #general

craig.pothier

2019-06-21 16:23

Can someone help me troubleshoot some code?

craig.pothier

2019-06-21 16:24

trying to get verify the results from a lambda invoke to a PACT file

craig.pothier

2019-06-21 16:27

the lambda returns results that I then compare against the generated PACT file. The error is as follows: ``` Actual: {"statusCode":200,"body":{"platform":"test","targetId":"default","version":"4.2.2.3259","upgradeUrl":"http://test.com/test.img","upgradeNow":true}} Diff -------------------------------------- Key: - is expected + is actual Matching keys and values are not shown -{ - "statusCode": 200, - "body": { - "platform": "test", - "targetId": "default", - "version": "4.2.2.3259", - "upgradeUrl": "http://test.com/test.img", - "updateNow": true - } -} +{"statusCode":200,"body":{"platform":"test","targetId":"default","version":"4.2.2.3259","upgradeUrl":"http://test.com/test.img","upgradeNow":true}} Description of differences -------------------------------------- * Expected a Hash (like {"statusCode"=>200, "body"=>{"platform"=>"test", "targetId"=>"default", "version"=>"4.2.2.3259", "upgradeUrl"=>"http://test.com/test.img", "updateNow"=>true}}) but got a String ("{\"statusCode\":200,\"body\":{\"platform\":\"test\",\"targetId\":\"default\",\"version\":\"4.2.2.3259\",\"upgradeUrl\":\"http://test.com/test.img\",\"upgradeNow\":true}}") at $```

craig.pothier

2019-06-21 16:27

I can share the code if it helps too

phall

2019-06-21 17:23

Just from reading the error message, it seems to be expecting an object, but is receiving a string. i.e. the difference between ``` { "statusCode": 200 } ``` and ``` "{ \"statusCode\": 200 }" ``` As to the fix? It?s very much dependent on your code. It may be as easy as parsing the string to JSON, but that?s just speculation.

cristiano

2019-06-21 17:31

has joined #general

craig.pothier

2019-06-21 18:08

yeah, i've been trying to deal with that. Im pasting the code here in case someone sees something that i dont. import { MessageProviderPact} from '@pact-foundation/pact'; import * as path from 'path'; import * as AWS from 'aws-sdk'; const lambda = new AWS.Lambda({ region: 'us-west-1' }); async function calllambda() { const params: any = { FunctionName: 'softwareUpdate-stage-getSoftwareVersion', InvocationType: 'RequestResponse', LogType: 'Tail', Payload: '{ "platform": "test", "groupUuid": "d658c575-b359-41bc-829e-7b00aef6fafd", "serialNumber": "KQ6931091B3B7", "extension": "254266" }' }; try { const response = await lambda.invoke(params).promise(); const responsePayload: string = JSON.stringify(response['Payload']); return JSON.parse(responsePayload); } catch(err) { console.log(err) return err } } describe("Message provider tests", () => { const p = new MessageProviderPact({ messageProviders: { "a request to save an event": () => calllambda() }, logLevel: "warn", provider: "services.softwareUpdate", providerVersion: "1.0.0", consumer: "services.checkin", pactUrls: [path.resolve(process.cwd(), "./src/tests/pacts", "services.checkin-services.softwareupdate.json")], tags: ["latest"], }) describe("send an event", () => { it("sends a valid event", () => { return p.verify() }) }) })```

yousafn

2019-06-21 19:50

You are expecting updateNow but your receiving upgradeNow

craig.pothier

2019-06-21 19:52

wow

craig.pothier

2019-06-21 19:52

haha

craig.pothier

2019-06-21 19:53

thank you!

yousafn

Also you may not need return json.parse(responsePayload) and just return the stringified payload. Not sure where in your code, it specifies updateNow, unless that?s in a diff file?

craig.pothier

it comes from the PACT file that was generated from the consumer side

yousafn

I?ve been testing lambdas, but they are invoked via api gateway

yousafn

Ahhh right! Hopefully it?s just that then :raised_hands:

craig.pothier

2019-06-21 19:56

yeah, i wish our application would be invoking them through the API gateway. Current version of PACT doesnt play nicely with lambdas that are invoked in request/response format

yousafn

2019-06-21 19:59

Ahhhh that?s the verifier code, Peter might be correct with regards to the hash/string thing, if you update your pact file to have upgradeNow in it and that doesn?t match then you probably don?t need json.parse and just return the json.stringify, and then work out who is wrong with regards to updateNow/upgradeNow. Best of luck homie

craig.pothier

2019-06-21 20:01

thank you very much

yousafn

2019-06-21 20:02

Any time mate, let us know how you get on :)

dar

2019-06-21 23:45

has joined #general

dar

2019-06-21 23:54

Lack of research: Has anybody succeeded in implementing pact for SOAP Api? Where could I go looking for such?

bethskurrie

2019-06-21 23:54

pact-jvm supports XML matching

bethskurrie

2019-06-21 23:55

no other impls do yet

dar

2019-06-21 23:55

oh :disappointed: Ok, I still can learn things...

dar

2019-06-21 23:57

Thanks!!!

matt.fellows

2019-06-22 03:27

What language are you using?

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-22 12:02

Hello, was wondering if someone could help me with how can to tag a provider. I want to tag my provider with the feature branch it?s been developed on. I checked the `pact-provider-verifier` doc, but I could not find it there. I know that we can make a `PUT` request on the pact-broker and set the tag, but was looking to do this during the verification process. Thanks!

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-22 12:54

Ahh.. missed the `pact-broker create-version-tag`! Got it!

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-22 14:22

I am trying to create webhook via `pact-broker create-webhook` and getting an error saying `require': cannot load such file -- pact/hal/entity (LoadError)` Here?s the entire command ``` pact-broker create-webhook "https://circleci.com/api/v1.1/project/bitbucket/xyz/xyz/tree/JT-AUT-92-pact-poc?circle-token=<token>" -X POST -H Content-Type=application/json -d build_parameters[CIRCLE_JOB]=my_job --consumer con --provider pro --broker-base-url https://x.pact.dius.com.au --broker-token <token> --provider-verification-published -v ```

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-22 14:23

Here?s the complete stacktrace: ``` /Users/jinal/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.2.5/lib/ruby/site_ruby/2.2.0/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb:54:in `require': cannot load such file -- pact/hal/entity (LoadError) from /Users/jinal/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.2.5/lib/ruby/site_ruby/2.2.0/rubygems/core_ext/kernel_require.rb:54:in `require' from /Users/jinal/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.2.5/gems/pact_broker-client-1.18.0/lib/pact_broker/client/hal/link.rb:61:in `wrap_response' from /Users/jinal/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.2.5/gems/pact_broker-client-1.18.0/lib/pact_broker/client/hal/link.rb:49:in `post' from /Users/jinal/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.2.5/gems/pact_broker-client-1.18.0/lib/pact_broker/client/webhooks/create.rb:41:in `create_webhook_with_consumer_and_provider' from /Users/jinal/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.2.5/gems/pact_broker-client-1.18.0/lib/pact_broker/client/webhooks/create.rb:30:in `call' from /Users/jinal/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.2.5/gems/pact_broker-client-1.18.0/lib/pact_broker/client/webhooks/create.rb:17:in `call' from /Users/jinal/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.2.5/gems/pact_broker-client-1.18.0/lib/pact_broker/client/cli/broker.rb:165:in `create_webhook' from /Users/jinal/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.2.5/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in `run' from /Users/jinal/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.2.5/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/invocation.rb:126:in `invoke_command' from /Users/jinal/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.2.5/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor.rb:387:in `dispatch' from /Users/jinal/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.2.5/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/base.rb:466:in `start' from /Users/jinal/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.2.5/gems/pact_broker-client-1.18.0/lib/pact_broker/client/cli/custom_thor.rb:15:in `start' from /Users/jinal/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.2.5/gems/pact_broker-client-1.18.0/bin/pact-broker:4:in `<top (required)>' from /Users/jinal/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.2.5/bin/pact-broker:23:in `load' from /Users/jinal/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.2.5/bin/pact-broker:23:in `<main>' from /Users/jinal/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.2.5/bin/ruby_executable_hooks:15:in `eval' from /Users/jinal/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.2.5/bin/ruby_executable_hooks:15:in `<main>' ```

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-22 14:24

Also (sorry for back to back messages), is there a way to use `Dynamic variable substitution` for webhooks using `pact-broker create-webhook` ?

pact.io

2019-06-22 16:08

I wanna try to implement a new matcher to pact-php. For example the minmax matcher. As far as I understand it is something like ``` "matchingRules": { "body": { "$.values": { "matchers": [{"match": "type", "min": "1", "max": "1"}] }, } } ``` However the json file or the payload send to the ruby mock server seems to have some other format. I don't really understand how that works and what I should do. Do you have an example for the json file and the message that shall be send to POST /interactions?

shefeeque85

2019-06-22 18:53

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-06-23 00:03

The Ruby mock service doesn't support this yet I'm afraid

matt.fellows

2019-06-23 00:03

That is a v3 specification matcher, which Ruby does not yet support

luchillo17

2019-06-23 00:48

Hey guys anyone has any idea why my Pact tests fails only in desktop PCs?

mboudreau

2019-06-23 01:15

It's trying to use the Linux binary in windows, that's why. Did someone commit the node_modules folder?

luchillo17

2019-06-23 01:16

No, node modules is ignored by default on project creation, so no. I think most likely is because i'm using WSL.

mboudreau

2019-06-23 01:18

Yep, that's exactly why. Wsl is really crap cause it identifies as Linux, but doesn't work like Linux :/

luchillo17

2019-06-23 01:32

I'm running with powershell & worked like a charm.

luchillo17

2019-06-23 01:32

Thanks, shame i had to install node again.

mboudreau

2019-06-23 02:38

Yeah, I tried getting it working with wsl, but there's nothing in there to say that it's running inside wsl as far as I can tell unless Microsoft changed something. When I first implemented it, wsl just got out

mboudreau

2019-06-23 02:40

I'm not a windows expert myself (Linux guy) but if you can find a variable in wsl that we can use to identify it, that'd be great

pact.io

2019-06-23 07:32

Alright. I understand that. Do you know which of the points mentioned in the below list are worth implementing currently? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-php/issues/29#issuecomment-504624662

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-23 12:42

Could someone help with this please?

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-23 12:42

Does anyone have any idea about this one?

jemma.wells

2019-06-23 20:04

has joined #general

abubics

2019-06-23 23:52

You might start getting replies now :slightly_smiling_face: The local time for most of the maintainers is almost 10am now, and your messages were all around midnight over the weekend :stuck_out_tongue:

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-24 05:13

Hehe thanks, will wait :slightly_smiling_face:

mstalmasek

2019-06-24 09:54

has joined #general

sankalan13

2019-06-24 11:50

@bethskurrie @matt.fellows please help. :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2019-06-24 11:51

Yes, you just put them in.

bethskurrie

2019-06-24 11:53

There's no trick. You just put `${pactbroker.pactUrl}` or whatever into the body or params where you want it to be substituted.

steve637

2019-06-24 12:09

has joined #general

sankalan13

2019-06-24 14:05

Thanks @bethskurrie will try this out. :slightly_smiling_face: @thakkarjinal29 FYI :slightly_smiling_face:

shefeeque85

2019-06-24 16:25

Hello...Just trying my luck here..Iam doing a poc to implement pact in my project..

shefeeque85

2019-06-24 16:25

I have the following classes:- public class Student { private String id; private String firstName; private String lastName; private int age; } public class DepartmentResponse { private String id; private String name; List<Student> students; } At Consumer side, I have the LamdaDsl as below: @Pact(consumer = "StudentServiceConsumer1") public RequestResponsePact createPact(PactDslWithProvider builder) { Map<String, String> headers = new HashMap(); headers.put("Content-Type", "application/json"); final DslPart actualPactDsl = LambdaDsl.newJsonBody((bodyDsl) -> { bodyDsl .stringType("id", "1") .stringType("name","Dep 1") .array("students",(stud) ->{ stud.object((s1->{ s1.stringType("id","1") .stringType("firstName","John") .stringType("lastName","Smith") .numberType("age",21); })); }); }) .build(); return builder .given("Department 1 exist") .uponReceiving("A request for DepartmentResponse Object with Id 1") .path("/department/1") .method("GET") .willRespondWith() .status(200) .headers(headers) .body(actualPactDsl).toPact(); } So in the pact file generated, I will have only one student record. Now, in the Provider side, with the id as "1", it will give two student records, sample code below:- public DepartmentResponse getDepartmentById(String id){ Student student1 = new Student(); student1.setId("1"); student1.setAge(23); student1.setFirstName("John"); student1.setLastName("Smith"); Student student2 = new Student(); student2.setId("2"); student2.setAge(21); student2.setFirstName("Adam"); student2.setLastName("Zamba"); DepartmentResponse department = new DepartmentResponse(); department.setId(id); department.setName("Dep 1"); department.setStudents(Arrays.asList(student1,student2)); return department; } Now when I run the pact verifier, it fails as it says there are 2 student records in the provider response. java.lang.AssertionError: 0 - $.students -> [{mismatch=Expected a List with 1 elements but received 2 elements, diff= { + "id": "1", "firstName": "John", "lastName": "Smith", - "id": "1", + "age": 23 + }, + { + "id": "2", + "firstName": "Adam", + "lastName": "Zamba", "age": 21}]

shefeeque85

2019-06-24 16:26

So what I need is, if there is a List in the response object, pact verifier should check only for the first instance

shefeeque85

2019-06-24 16:27

either lambda or the old way is fine for me

craig.pothier

2019-06-24 17:31

trying to publish pacts using typescript but Im getting the following error. Anyone have any ideas? Works if I change import state to require and run as js.

matt.fellows

2019-06-24 22:22

I think you need to change the import to `import pact from "@pact-foundation/pact-node"`

chris.maki

2019-06-25 03:12

has joined #general

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-25 05:39

Thanks @bethskurrie and @sankalan13. I did try that but there are 2 issues. 1. One is that `{pactbroker.providerVersionTags}` is returning empty, although I have tagged my provider. 2. I?m getting a `kernel_require.rb:54:in `require?: cannot load such file -- pact/hal/entity (LoadError)` error (Attaching screenshot)

matt.fellows

2019-06-25 06:02

Hmm I think the `401` is the real problem. Looks like the credentials aren?t going through to the broker maybe? Or perhaps it?s an incorrect bearer token

matt.fellows

2019-06-25 06:02

P.S. you exposed your circle CI token. You?ll want to deactivate that

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-25 06:03

Oops! Thanks! :shocked_face_with_exploding_head:

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-25 06:04

Hmm, the bearer token seems to be working for all other commands. But will still check, thanks! Any idea why `{pactbroker.providerVersionTags}` would be empty inspite of tagging the provider version?

matt.fellows

2019-06-25 07:52

Are you missing the `$` in front of that? i.e. `${pactbroker.providerVersionTags}`

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 08:00

@thakkarjinal29 there are a few libraries that incorrectly tag after publishing the pact or results instead of before. What are you using?

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 08:03

Also do you have the latest version of whatever you are using? The token auth support has only been added recently.

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 08:03

I assume you've removed the screenshot, because I can't see it

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-25 08:03

hey @bethskurrie, used `pact-broker create-version-tag`to tag the provider version

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-25 08:08

Hey @matt.fellows, when I use it with *$* in the commandline, it says `${pactbroker.providerVersionTags}: bad substitution`. Hence, was trying without it. However, it works fine from the UI, however even there it returns an empty string.

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 08:08

Ooh, you may be hitting problems with your shell interpolating the dollar sign.

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 08:11

Also, it looks like the token isn't being passed though. I can't see an authentication header being set.

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 08:11

Can you raise an issue in the pact broker client project?

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-25 08:12

Yes this was my next question :slightly_smiling_face: Sure, will do that right away

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 08:14

From memory, when I've created webhooks using this command I've used a file for the webhook json, so it avoids the bash interpolation issue.

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-25 08:14

I am using `pact-broker` utility of pact-ruby-standalone. The version of pact-broker utility is 1.18.0

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-25 08:16

I escaped the *$* and the command works fine. But yes, using a file makes more sense. Thanks, will do that!

matt.fellows

2019-06-25 08:20

Yep. I Verifies the token wasn't coming thru on the train and started investigating

matt.fellows

2019-06-25 08:20

Verified*

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-25 08:23

I am using the pact-ruby-standalone version 1.66.0 and the latest is 1.68.0 however, the `pact_broker-client gem` version in both is `1.18.0`

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 09:14

Ok, I've just put out a fix to the pact broker client in the standalone 1.69.0

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 09:14

the token should work now @thakkarjinal29

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-25 09:22

Wow that was quick! Thanks @bethskurrie @matt.fellows!

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-25 10:14

Hey @bethskurrie, just noticed the build failed here https://travis-ci.org/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/builds/550181728?utm_source=github_status

detert

2019-06-25 10:15

My pact verification shows this error: What am I doing wrong? * Expected a String matching /\d{1,2}/ (like "11") but got a Fixnum (12) at $.creditCards[0].detail.validToMonth * Expected a String matching /\d{4}/ (like "2019") but got a Fixnum (2020) at $.creditCards[0].detail.validToYear

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 10:18

You're expecting a sting, but getting a number

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 10:18

You can't do a regex on a number btw.

detert

2019-06-25 11:03

Oh, that is a surprise. Can i Match on exactly one or two digots?

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 11:03

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 11:03

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 11:04

Why is that important for a contact?

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 11:04

Oh, I see you have a month and a year.

detert

2019-06-25 11:04

Well I want to ensure that a valid month is returned, but maybe that is not part of the contract?

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 11:05

What might be important is whether it's a two digit year or a 4 digit year. Unfortunately, there's no way to check that, in v2 at least.

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 11:05

V3 might have Min and Max

detert

2019-06-25 11:06

That might be worth a feature request. Where should I write such an issue?

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 11:06

Check if it already exists in v3

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 11:06

In the pact specification repo

detert

2019-06-25 11:08

I don't see it at the first look. Maybe we could extend `{ "match": "integer" }` with `digits` or something like that, or we allow regex for digits as well

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 11:09

Raise an issue for it

detert

2019-06-25 11:09

The Generators are able to provide a specified amount of digits

detert

2019-06-25 11:09

thank you

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 11:10

Or, if you're in control of the schema, you could try changing the date to an ISO date format string.

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 11:10

You can do a regex on that.

bethskurrie

Oh, just scrolled up and its a credit card expiry.

bethskurrie

I see your issue.

detert

I will use like(11) for the beginning. I have to change a lot of stuff else

detert

Yes it is

carolyn.biggar

2019-06-25 11:38

has joined #general

alessandrobuggin

2019-06-25 14:08

has joined #general

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-25 15:00

Hey @bethskurrie, I think the 1.69.0 version did not get released, I am unable to use it.

zrkann

2019-06-25 20:49

has joined #general

mail259

2019-06-25 21:27

has joined #general

mail259

2019-06-25 21:32

I'm implementing contract testing in our organization and we are driving it through the provider. As a developer, you often start writing the API first and then use them in the frontend. Similarly, we write the API first and then merge it in master and then define the contract test inside the consumer. When we need to modify something, we take the same approach by making changes in the provider ( N-1 compatible ) and then making those changes in the consumer. I read that pact should be consumer driven but I'm able to understand what's wrong about contract testing by driving it through a provider? What are the cases when this approach can go wrong?

matt.fellows

2019-06-25 22:22

I?ve just re-ran that build - looked like a temporary GitHub API issue. It?s up now at https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases/tag/v1.69.0

matt.fellows

2019-06-25 22:32

You can do it from the provider. But (at the moment) Pact makes it a little unnatural due to the workflow assuming it starts from the consumer (for all of the reasons written extensively at https://docs.pact.io).

matt.fellows

2019-06-25 22:32

If you are using the can-i-deploy checks via the Pact Broker on the provider and ensuring backwards compatibility, you still get the usual guarantees of contract testing - i.e. that your consumers and providers are API compatible.

bethskurrie

2019-06-25 22:36

There's no reason why the functionality can't come first @mail259. Pact will just make sure that any changes you make are compatible with your existing consumers.

thakkarjinal29

2019-06-26 04:46

Awesome! Thanks :slightly_smiling_face:

andreas

2019-06-26 11:52

has joined #general

mail259

2019-06-26 13:00

Thanks for the quick response! Given that I'm using can-i-deploy checks, what am I losing out on starting the workflow from the provider ( functionality first )? I'm not sure if it is an anti-pattern and can't get clear information from the pact docs.

matt.fellows

2019-06-26 13:09

You're not losing anything, really

matt.fellows

2019-06-26 13:11

CDC is a philosophical position that advocates better internal microservices design by putting the consumers at the heart of the process. Provider driven APIs tend to think about themselves and less about how they're consumed _</gross generalization>_

matt.fellows

2019-06-26 13:11

If you didn't get that from docs we need to fix something!

mail259

2019-06-26 13:15

That completely makes sense, thanks again!

bethskurrie

2019-06-26 23:47

Peeps. Does anyone here have the scenario where an http message is sent to a service, and an async message is sent back in response?

detert

2019-06-27 06:05

@bethskurrie Maybe. What do you mean with message? We trigger an http request to a search service. That service calls another endpoint when the search is completed

sundaresank

2019-06-27 09:09

has joined #general

whitehorse5353

2019-06-27 16:54

has joined #general

oscar821210

2019-06-28 00:31

has joined #general

doxuantien

2019-06-28 02:25

has joined #general

chris.maki

2019-06-28 05:24

@bethskurrie With POST calls, I?ve implemented services where the provider returns a 201 and populates the LOCATION header so the consumer can check on the progress. Is that similar to what you are trying to do? If not, can you give a little more detail on your service?

bqiu

2019-06-28 20:18

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-06-29 04:15

That?s the way I usually see it implemented

matt.fellows

2019-06-29 04:24

/poll ?If we were to run a webinar series, what should we cover?? ?Getting started? ?CD with the Pact Broker? ?Asynchronous service testing? ?Cloud service testing (e.g. lambda)?

matt.fellows

2019-06-29 04:48

Cross posting from #pact-broker Looking to get involved with OSS but don?t know where to start? Here is an easy win :point_right: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9VPNUJR2/p1561783533171100

gaurav.singh55

2019-06-30 03:43

has joined #general

nick_horne_90

2019-07-01 08:46

Hi, I am trying to write a Pact-Verifying unit test for the consumer in Java. Should I only have one test per class? I have noticed that if I have multiple tests in the class some of them fail unless I add a sleep before running my client assertions.

nick_horne_90

2019-07-01 08:47

What I have looks like this: ```@RunWith(SpringRunner.class) @SpringBootTest(properties = {}) public class ConsumerPactVerificationTest { @Rule public PactProviderRuleMk2 stubProvider = new PactProviderRuleMk2("customerServiceProvider", "localhost", 8888, this); @Autowired private AddressClient addressClient; @Pact(provider = "test") public RequestResponsePact getAddresses(PactDslWithProvider builder) { return builder .given("a collection of 2 addresses") .uponReceiving("a request to the address collection resource") .path("/addresses/") .method("GET") .willRespondWith() .status(200) .body("...", "application/hal+json") .toPact(); } @Test @PactVerification(fragment = getAddresses public void verifyAddressCollectionPact() { assertThat(addressClient.getAddresses())... } }```

dorons

2019-07-01 09:25

has joined #general

tuan.ho

2019-07-01 09:29

Hi, anyone got experience with dredd test? how is it different from PACT?

tuan.ho

2019-07-01 09:30

there two to me do the same thing which is verifying the API contract

tuan.ho

2019-07-01 09:31

am i correct?

matt.fellows

2019-07-01 09:32

Dreds issues tests against a provider based on a spec (not a contract). It doesn't guarantee that both sides of the contract are in sync. It can be used alongside pact to verify provider functionality/conformity to a spec (to a degree). Pact is a testing framework that implements contract testing (distinct from spec testing) and guarantees both parties to a contract stay in sync

matt.fellows

2019-07-01 09:32

Short answer, no they are different

dorons

2019-07-01 09:34

Hi Can I get some help with pact and protobuf?

nick_horne_90

2019-07-01 09:54

I wonder if this is related to my issue: https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/blob/9018bf66b054b136f7223213fbbc24e002b33188/consumer/pact-jvm-consumer/src/main/kotlin/au/com/dius/pact/consumer/MockHttpServer.kt#L111

bethskurrie

2019-07-01 09:55

Hi @nick_horne_90 best to have this conversation in the #pact-jvm channel

nick_horne_90

2019-07-01 09:59

Thanks @bethskurrie I will ask in there

raffael.stein

2019-07-01 10:54

has joined #general

deepti.kinnerkar

2019-07-01 13:44

has joined #general

deepti.kinnerkar

2019-07-01 13:47

Is there any mechanism to create some data on the Provider via pact Files, before making a GET API Call?

simon.nizov

2019-07-01 14:06

https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/provider_states :smile:

jfnavin

2019-07-01 22:53

has joined #general

uglyog

2019-07-01 23:53

You're HTTP library is probably caching connections. Have a look at https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/issues/342 for more info

nick_horne_90

2019-07-02 15:09

Thanks that does seem to be it. Im using the Spring RestTemplate and it has stored the connection in a connection pool

karlboyle

2019-07-02 15:25

has joined #general

emanuele.ivaldi

2019-07-02 21:18

has joined #general

ur_pact

2019-07-03 15:08

has joined #general

sandhyarani.gabbi

2019-07-03 16:05

has joined #general

morteza.alizadeh

2019-07-04 03:09

has joined #general

johngluckjunk

2019-07-04 05:24

has joined #general

berlinau

2019-07-04 16:48

has joined #general

xyang2008

2019-07-05 05:48

has joined #general

xyang2008

2019-07-05 05:58

xyang2008

2019-07-05 06:00

Hi, I'am newbie to pact and now learning it by writting some demo. Now the pact contract file was generated successfully as below. { "consumer": { "name": "weather-consumer" }, "provider": { "name": "weather-provider" }, "interactions": [ { "description": "Query weather info by city id.", "providerState": "City id \"101010100\" exists", "request": { "method": "get", "path": "/101010100.html" }, "response": { "status": 200, "headers": { }, "body": { "weatherinfo": { "city": "??", "cityid": "101010100", "temp1": "18?", "temp2": "31?", "weather": "????", "img1": "n1.gif", "img2": "d2.gif", "ptime": "18:00" } } } } ], "metadata": { "pactSpecification": { "version": "2.0.0" } } }% Next I want to do the provider verification, I run the below cmd: pact-verifier --provider-base-url=http://www.weather.com.cn/data/cityinfo ./pacts/weather-consumer-weather-provider.json I got the failures. INFO: Reading pact at ./pacts/weather-consumer-weather-provider.json Verifying a pact between weather-consumer and weather-provider Given City id "101010100" exists Query weather info by city id. with GET /101010100.html returns a response which WARN: Skipping set up for provider state 'City id "101010100" exists' for consumer 'weather-consumer' as there is no --provider-states-setup-url specified. has status code 200 has a matching body (FAILED - 1) Failures: 1) Verifying a pact between weather-consumer and weather-provider Given City id "101010100" exists Query weather info by city id. with GET /101010100.html returns a response which has a matching body Failure/Error: expect(response_body).to match_term expected_response_body, diff_options, example Encoding::UndefinedConversionError: "\xE5" from ASCII-8BIT to UTF-8 1 interaction, 1 failure Failed interactions: PACT_DESCRIPTION='Query weather info by city id.' PACT_PROVIDER_STATE='City id "101010100" exists' /Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.6/bin/pact-verifier --provider-base-url=http://www.weather.com.cn/data/cityinfo ./pacts/weather-consumer-weather-provider.json # Query weather info by city id. given City id "101010100" exists The error "Encoding::UndefinedConversionError:" seems to be a string2json translation error? I'am confused, maybe I used the pact-verifier in a wrong way, am't I?

xyang2008

2019-07-05 06:01

pact-demo ? curl http://www.weather.com.cn/data/cityinfo/101010100.html {"weatherinfo":{"city":"??","cityid":"101010100","temp1":"18?","temp2":"31?","weather":"????","img1":"n1.gif","img2":"d2.gif","ptime":"18:00"}}%

xyang2008

2019-07-05 06:01

I use curl to check the real server response, it returns ok.

bethskurrie

You can only use pact for UTF-8 strings

bethskurrie

it may be that your encoding env var is set to ASCII

bethskurrie

are you running on windows?

xyang2008

on macos

bethskurrie

2019-07-05 06:04

hm. should be ok then

xyang2008

2019-07-05 06:04

how to set the encoding? pact-verifier is a bin file

bethskurrie

2019-07-05 06:04

is your response returning non UTF-8 chars?

xyang2008

2019-07-05 06:05

you mean the response from pact-mock server or from the real server?

bethskurrie

2019-07-05 06:05

real server

xyang2008

2019-07-05 06:06

>>> r=requests.get("http://www.weather.com.cn/data/cityinfo/101010100.html") >>> r.encoding 'ISO-8859-1'

xyang2008

2019-07-05 06:06

ISO-8859-1

xyang2008

not utf-8

bethskurrie

the error is occuring because the response has ascii 8 bit chars in it

bethskurrie

that's not going to work.

bethskurrie

JSON encoding is UTF-8

xyang2008

2019-07-05 06:08

hmm, because this is a demo, i chose a publick interface, I will try other public API who returns utf-8. Thanks.

bethskurrie

@xyang2008 please don't use pact with a public API!

bethskurrie

It's really bad for that.

xyang2008

I alse check pact-verifier --help, no option to set encoding. this ruby tool could not support set encoding?

bethskurrie

the pact files are written in utf-8

bethskurrie

i just don't think it would work.

xyang2008

https://docs.pact.io/faq#what-is-pact-not-good-for

Ok, I will test our own API

xyang2008

2019-07-05 06:10

got it

bethskurrie

2019-07-05 06:10

xyang2008

2019-07-05 06:13

emm.. I will read the doc carefully. before I came here, I really read all the doc https://github.com/pact-foundation, it seems the doc is not very clear to a green hand, especially lack of examples. I read the some issues and found the slack... really thanks

bethskurrie

2019-07-05 06:14

There are no docs at https://github.com/pact-foundation!

bethskurrie

2019-07-05 06:14

It's all at http://docs.pact.io

xyang2008

2019-07-05 06:14

@bethskurrie thanks for your replies.

xyang2008

2019-07-05 06:15

I just read the readme files:)

bethskurrie

2019-07-05 06:15

ha. yeah, that's not very helpful!

xyang2008

2019-07-05 06:16

Ok, I will read the docs you share with me, thanks.

matt.fellows

2019-07-05 06:54

Last day to cast your votes: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1561782293368400

fun_rajesh

2019-07-05 11:16

has joined #general

fun_rajesh

2019-07-05 12:27

Hi, I received a mail from with a temporoary password. However, when i signed in https://<myusername>.http://pact.dius.com.au , the credentials were not identified.

fun_rajesh

2019-07-05 12:28

May I know how to start using the pact broker hosted in the cloud by Pact team

matt.fellows

2019-07-05 12:32

Hi Rajesh. Drop a line to and we'll get it sorted

kiran.kumar.sukumar

2019-07-05 14:01

has joined #general

fun_rajesh

2019-07-05 14:06

Thanks @matt.fellows I have sent a mail to the support

kiran.kumar.sukumar

2019-07-05 15:20

How do i replace a query parameter sent from the provider ?

kiran.kumar.sukumar

2019-07-05 15:48

Is it possible to modify the query parameter in the pact when running the test from the provider side ?

agarwalatrisha1212

2019-07-06 08:31

agarwalatrisha1212

2019-07-06 08:35

I sorry if it not right channel to post the question, but i am newbie to pact and i wanted to develop the consumer driven test, i have visualisation of how does pact work? but i don?t have hands on . How do i get two dependent api and start with ? A simple example as to start with or pairing with somebody? I just wanted to get the experience of simple test with handson

pact.io

2019-07-06 09:41

Well, if you grep the pact and run all verification step manually that might be possible. However, I think that that is not a good choice as you could break the significance of your test. You could use the provider state to prepare everything as needed

pact.io

2019-07-06 09:41

Did you read http://docs.pact.io?

sumit

2019-07-07 05:27

has joined #general

agarwalatrisha1212

2019-07-07 12:26

little

agarwalatrisha1212

2019-07-07 12:26

But i am more open for handson

pact.io

2019-07-07 16:01

@agarwalatrisha1212 you can find implementation guides there

skirankumars31

2019-07-07 16:22

My provider state has no control over the ID that should be used as a query parameter. Its a dynamically generated value

pact.io

2019-07-07 16:57

Why is it random? Are you able to mick the random generator on the consumer side? Every test should be reproducable

agarwalatrisha1212

2019-07-07 18:32

Thank you @pact.io

matt.fellows

2019-07-08 03:59

What language Trisha?

matt.fellows

2019-07-08 03:59

There are a few workshops that are worth doing (linked from docs side as Sebastian mentioned)

florian.nagel

2019-07-08 07:48

has joined #general

asite.mshah

2019-07-08 09:29

has joined #general

asite.mshah

2019-07-08 09:46

One question :- Is it possible to have a different response for the same request on the consumer side? For example call `/api/abc/1` on first call want response `1` and on the second call with the same request want response `2`. Could someone let me know if it supported through pact.

detert

2019-07-08 09:49

Pact tests are isolated. Thus I would say: no. That is not intended However you can set the provider state like "noone called /api/abc/1", "someone called /api/abc/1". Out of curiosity: Why do you have that behaviour? I would not expect that

matt.fellows

2019-07-08 09:51

The main way to achieve it is thru what is known as provider states. The classic example is getting a user - at a minimum, you'll want to test the 200 and the 404 scenarios

florian.nagel

2019-07-08 09:54

Does someone here have a generated pact file for a message queue, so the v3 specification, as a reference point for me? I've found a possible bug and want to compare my pact file. I've already checked multiple online resources, but am not able to build a pact file bc of other errors. So if someone has one laying around I'd appreciate it. I don't want to open an issue before knowing if it really is one. (I haven't found any open issues or stackoverflow questions regarding the possible bug). Any help is appreciated!

florian.nagel

2019-07-08 09:56

As a reference I've tried to compile this https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/blob/v4.x/consumer/pact-jvm-consumer-junit/src/test/java/au/com/dius/pact/consumer/v3/AsyncMessageTest.java project but couldn't get it to produce pacts because of an error I encountered while executing the `build` task in gradle

asite.mshah

2019-07-08 10:08

Thank you for your response. Let me explain the scenario which I am trying to use. Correct me if it is not proper. - We have two services (`a` and `b`) , when we execute acceptance test of service `a` we mock service `b` using `pact-stub-server`. - So there are calls from service a --> b, for which I need to mock. This way we use pact to return a response, without starting actual service.

florian.nagel

2019-07-08 10:31

I think it is a legit bug! I've found a pact file to compare mine to and the `contents:` value under messages looks like a normal formatted JSON. My generated pact file looks like this though: ``` ... "contents": "{\n \"hometeamScore\": 0,\n \"ownerId\": 0,\n \"foreignteamScore\": 0,\n \"matchId\": 0\n}", ... ``` when they should look like this to be recognized correctly by a pact provider test: ``` ... "contents": {"hometeamScore": 0,"ownerId": 0,"foreignteamScore": 0,"matchId": 0}, ... ``` (Omitting some of the contents/pact file bc I don't think it is relevant. Can provide more information if necessary.) Should I ask on stackoverflow and provide more information or is it sufficient to ask this here?

detert

2019-07-08 10:51

Exactly

matt.fellows

2019-07-08 11:04

Let?s give it a quick crack here, and if no-one solves it right away, get it up on SO

matt.fellows

2019-07-08 11:05

At the moment, if you are trying to get pact-stub-server to return different responses from the same request then I think the (current) answer to that question is no

matt.fellows

2019-07-08 11:06

In your tests you can, but not via the stub server (because it needs to know which state to fetch, which is only provided during unit test / framework execution)

asite.mshah

2019-07-08 11:08

Thank you for answer and explaination

matt.fellows

2019-07-08 11:11

We?d like to be able to support that feature, we just haven?t thought of a good way of ?how?

matt.fellows

2019-07-08 11:11

There?s probably an issue for it somewhere, as I recall discussion the potential to augment/amend the pact file with ?predicates? etc.

matt.fellows

2019-07-08 11:12

I usually work around it by not creating two exact requests in a Pact file. In the fictional case above I would have two tests like this: ? `GET /users/1` returns `404` ? `GET /users/2` returns `200`

matt.fellows

2019-07-08 11:12

That way acceptance test mocks work

florian.nagel

2019-07-08 11:13

Alright! I'll send the code used to produce the pact here in a sec @matt.fellows Thanks for your help!

detert

2019-07-08 11:15

I did not understand that Manan needs different response codes. For me it was like, I get a valid 200 response, but the body is different. In the case you have a different provider state. Is the stub-server able to distinguish that?

matt.fellows

2019-07-08 11:15

Well, whether it?s different response codes, bodies etc., the principle is the same

florian.nagel

2019-07-08 11:17

This is the class used to generate the pacts. The first function is the important one. That is `createPactForTippabgabe(MessagePactBuilder builder)`. It is written in Java btw. I've tried it using the old and the new DSL for Java. Both produce the same result. @matt.fellows

matt.fellows

2019-07-08 11:28

I?m not that familiar with the JVM implementation as much, but do you need to call an `.asBody()` on that builder?

florian.nagel

2019-07-08 11:31

I'm not sure what you are referring to. There is nothing coming up when I search for `.asBody()`. I'm sorry if I'm missing something. @matt.fellows

florian.nagel

2019-07-08 11:33

Ah okay. Got what you mean. Trying it out now!

florian.nagel

2019-07-08 11:35

Still the same result unfortunately. Tried to call `.asBody()` on both, the `body` and on `actualPactDsl`, so the error persists no matter which DSL I use. @matt.fellows

matt.fellows

2019-07-08 11:38

bugger, sorry - was really just a guess

matt.fellows

2019-07-08 11:38

@uglyog any ideas?

detert

2019-07-08 11:40

And the stub-server does not support that? Is it possible to spawn it several times and merge the pact files afterwards? I did not implement that yet. But I am going to do so

matt.fellows

2019-07-08 11:41

I?m not sure what you?re asking? The stub server simply reads the pact files for use as a standalone API stub service.

matt.fellows

2019-07-08 11:42

The _mock_ server (thing used in the Pact tests themselves) absolutely _does_ support it

detert

2019-07-08 11:42

My mistake

matt.fellows

2019-07-08 11:42

all good!

florian.nagel

2019-07-08 11:43

I'm using `pact-jvm-consumer-junit5 version: '4.0.0-beta.3'` and `pact-jvm-consumer-java8 version: '4.0.0-beta.3'` by the way. I don't know if that is relevant

florian.nagel

2019-07-08 11:43

No worries! @matt.fellows I appreciate the help nonetheless

asite.mshah

2019-07-08 13:45

@matt.fellows I would suggest the way mockito did to support the different responses might be good option. Sample here https://static.javadoc.io/org.mockito/mockito-core/2.8.9/org/mockito/Mockito.html#10 yeah I have used mocking with different id for a different response, but here id(request) is same.

thamu.gurung

2019-07-08 19:54

has joined #general

thamu.gurung

2019-07-08 19:56

Hi everyone ..

thamu.gurung

2019-07-08 19:58

Looking forward to use Pact js for the contract testing. Can someone pls give me some kind of initial guidelines. Would like to use JavaScript to use Pact

matt.fellows

2019-07-08 22:35

Hi there! That?s great. What have you tried so far and why weren?t they helpful?

matt.fellows

2019-07-08 22:35

this will help us point you in the right direction

matt.fellows

2019-07-08 22:35

also #pact-js

uglyog

2019-07-09 00:13

@florian.nagel both versions are technically correct. The bodies can be encoded in a string (required for non-JSON formats) but for JSON that are inlined to make the file more readable.

uglyog

2019-07-09 00:34

I've confirmed that 4.0.0-beta versions are not inlineing the message contents. You can raise an issue for that.

florian.nagel

2019-07-09 08:14

I'll try to raise an issue for that when I have time for that today. Thank you for the quick reply! @uglyog What would be the next step after raising the issue? Can I help somehow?

thamu.gurung

2019-07-09 08:28

to be honest I haven?t started yet. Wondering if I can pull the example for the JS(https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js) and start

thamu.gurung

2019-07-09 08:28

Now I am doing my API testing using the Supertest. But would like to get started with Pact-js

thamu.gurung

2019-07-09 08:29

Would be wonderful if you can suggest me any example repo to clone and get started initially.

beth

2019-07-09 09:37

I believe there are examples in the pact js repo @thamu.gurung

simone.dicola820

2019-07-09 11:51

has joined #general

thamu.gurung

2019-07-09 13:11

would you recommend anything in particular , thanks

antonello

2019-07-09 14:09

I?ve taken the liberty to create this PR to add my current client to the list of companies in the testimonials page https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact.io/pull/89

antonello

2019-07-09 14:11

2 of my clients and old employer are in the list :slightly_smiling_face:

thamu.gurung

2019-07-09 20:08

@beth any suggestion?

matt.fellows

2019-07-09 21:18

I?d start with the simpler mocha unit test, and then once you get that, take a look at the e2e example which covers both consumer/provider and publishing to a broker

beth

2019-07-09 22:07

Thanks @antonello!

antonello

2019-07-09 22:36

My pleasure!

uglyog

2019-07-09 23:20

If you want to try a PR to fix it, it should be a small change

thamu.gurung

2019-07-10 08:43

thanks

budi.injo

2019-07-10 10:14

has joined #general

anders

2019-07-10 12:09

has joined #general

craig.pothier

2019-07-10 17:26

hello, I trying to do a GraphQL interaction. I followed your example and use the exact same queries in the client appolo and pact mock however I am getting this: ```{ "body": { - "query": /query\s*getMeetingsByUUID$\$uuids:\s*\[UUID\]!$\s*\{\s*directoryByUUIDsWithFilter$uuids:\s*\$uuids,\s*filter:\s*MEETING$\s*\{\s*\.\.\.\s*on\s*Meeting\s*\{\s*displayName\s*UUID,\s*\}\s*\}\s*\}/ + "query": "query getMeetingsByUUID($uuids: [UUID]!) {\n directoryByUUIDsWithFilter(uuids: $uuids, filter: MEETING) {\n ... on Meeting {\n displayName\n UUID\n __typename\n }\n __typename\n }\n}\n" } }``` And I am not getting the returned results I am expecting as it seems pact doesn't see the queries as being the same. Can anyone help me here?

dan.schepers

2019-07-10 22:06

has joined #general

ukamkhan

2019-07-11 01:28

has joined #general

johngluckjunk

2019-07-11 06:09

Hey all, I used pact at my last company. My current company is attempting to figure out why their contract testing implementation isn't getting adoption. (They are using Spring CDC). I have a bunch of questions, but primarily I'm wondering if there are any testimonials from anyone that is using Pact where there are hundreds of microservices, how they were able to get adoption, and whether or not that helped them convince developers to stop writing so many system e2e tests. I have other questions too, but I don't want to overwhelm. Oh, and yes I have seen this - https://medium.com/kreuzwerker-gmbh/consumer-driven-contract-tests-lessons-learned-b4e1ac471d0c. I'm planning on running a POC with pact using the broker. I just don't want to over promise.

matt.fellows

2019-07-11 06:18

Hello!

matt.fellows

2019-07-11 06:18

The GraphQL wrapper provided in the JS implementation is still fairly new, so it?s possible the matching regex that is applied is just? wrong

matt.fellows

2019-07-11 06:20

The wrapper is also just sugar over an HTTP interaction (because GraphQL runs on HTTP)

matt.fellows

2019-07-11 06:20

If you can get it running without the GraphQL interface, we can work out why it?s not working

matt.fellows

2019-07-11 06:20

or, if you can create an example project that replicates and raise an issue, we can look into it

nick_horne_90

2019-07-11 10:35

Hey all, as a consumer, we are modelling some fields (e.g. an Id) as a `String` type but actually the type on the provider is an `integer`. As a result our pact verification is failing but really we wan't to use a string because we don't care on the Id format (just that there is one). Are there any thoughts on this or solutions to get the pact to pass?

simon.nizov

2019-07-11 10:55

You can?t have it both ways. You need to make a decision regarding the contract. If you decide the field should be `String`, then the provider should serialize its response in such a way that fits the contract, regardless of its own internal implementation. On the other hand, if you decide that the provider is the source of truth, then you should change the contract defined by the consumer accordingly.

matt.fellows

2019-07-11 11:30

Following from that. If you ?don?t care? about the format, then `integer` it is

matt.fellows

2019-07-11 11:33

There are a bunch of articles out there, and I can direct you to https://docs.pact.io/testimonialshttps://docs.pact.io/testimonials for companies who are using Pact in one way or another

matt.fellows

2019-07-11 11:33

I have stories, but nothing that has been approved for public release (we are hopeful Sainsbury?s will approve something in this space soon - they are certainly in that size/category)

matt.fellows

2019-07-11 11:36

As a consultant and core Pact developer, there is no ?one way?. But the key things that tend to work: ? Can you identify a problem and ideally a way of measuring it? This usually takes the form of classic CD metrics slow or flakey builds, high test maintenance, long cycle/lead times etc. ? Find a small pocket that you can influence/control and demonstrate a before/after success story. Garner support from key stakeholders in the process, but also be sure to include those pesky ?skeptics? - they become your key change agents when things succeed ? Prove value, iteratively expand from there. If step 1 is 2 services within a team, step 2 should go across team boundaries or knock off a painful integration

matt.fellows

2019-07-11 11:53

Oh, and yes. Generally where there is Pact, e2e tests are reduced. In some cases, completely.

nick_horne_90

2019-07-11 12:13

Thanks for the reply's. I guess as the consumer I just want to say that there is a field called "id" that can be read as a `String` I don't want to make this an integer because on the provider side, its only an integer because of the database implementation (e.g. if that changes I don't really want suffer any consequences as all I care about is that I can read it as a string and its called id).

nick_horne_90

2019-07-11 12:15

With the provider, I can't easily change the API as there will be other clients that do rely on it being an `integer`. Ideally it would have been represented as a `string` from the start on the provider side.

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-07-11 14:05

any advice on how to handle developers changing the provider before the consumer and commenting out the pact verification steps of your build? :rage:

craig.pothier

2019-07-11 15:24

thank you!

joris

2019-07-11 19:55

has joined #general

marko.justinek

2019-07-11 22:44

@james.hattersley-dyke There?s a pretty good write up on how to get the most out of pact -> https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/pact_nirvana Hope it helps If your provider devs decide to not honour the contract and not tell you about it, it might not be (most probably isn?t) personal and just having a friendly chat with them (maybe a few times). Explaining you guys are on the same team to provide a service to end users where you all are responsible for users? success? that might make them think next time (or the 3rd time down the line) to remember to notify you they _need_ to change the provider? That way you can be ready for provider changes by rewriting the implementation and tests, and consequently the contract.

mboudreau

2019-07-11 23:23

@james.hattersley-dyke sounds like you have a cultural problem. Personally, someone disabling tests instead of improving them because it "stops them from doing code" is a flight risk and a cowboy. I'd have a long chat with them and their manager about it in the hopes that they understand that this is detrimental to the business and if they don't change their tune, it might be best to part ways.

abubics

2019-07-12 03:42

put them in charge of maintaining consumer SLAs :upside_down_face:

abubics

2019-07-12 03:45

The practical solution is to make non-breaking changes, deprecate the old interface, then remove it when nothing depends on it, but . . . is there no concern that things are broken in the meantime?

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-07-12 07:23

yeah, it was more of a joke question / rant I guess... Just frustrating when you see lines of code commented out just so 'the build passes' aka my breaking change can get in...

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-07-12 08:25

I'd like to make a suggestion for an improvement in the docs. This was something I missed and was struggling to get my head around. On the Pact Nirvana Guide https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/pact_nirvana#5-allow-contracts-to-change-without-breaking-your-builds sub-bullets 5 & 6 should be in *bold* or have a diagram attached. Especially the part about local verification and then putting the provider code into master first. With the emphasis on it being Consumer driven, I've been struggling with the point of how to get new changes into a provider but having the consumer tagged with a branch name and providers verifying against the latest master from a CI point of view. I feel it's quite an important point but easily missed. Just wanted to say, while the above is a minor minor critique I think Pact is an amazing tool. I'm also loving how helpful you all are on here and the effort you've all have and keep putting in.

matt.fellows

2019-07-12 08:26

Thanks James. Would you care to submit a PR to the docs?

matt.fellows

2019-07-12 08:26

The diagram though, yes, we do need one of those!

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-07-12 08:36

yeah I'll have a crack at getting something down. Just thinking of the best way to describe / visualize it all :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2019-07-12 08:37

thanks, that?d be great

matt.fellows

2019-07-12 08:37

my advice: get the text out first and then worry about the diagram. _just_ in case that takes a little longer :slightly_smiling_face:

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-07-12 08:38

:+1:

ashish.dubey91

2019-07-12 11:47

https://twitter.com/groferseng/status/1149643536276475905

ninjinsky.coding

2019-07-12 14:02

has joined #general

amber.houle3

2019-07-12 17:10

has joined #general

madhukar.mishra

2019-07-12 17:17

@matt.fellows @bethskurrie can I get my request for pactflow trial approved quickly. Want to use it for the demo if possible

antonello

2019-07-12 18:51

Hi! I have some doubts around how to deal with endpoints protected by cookie based authentication. I have looked at the docs and issues in GitHub but I?m still unclear as what the best approach should be. We have a provider that has some endpoints that are protected by cookie-based authentication. Let?s say that two cookies `cookie_a` and `cookie_b` are required. These cookies are issued by a login endpoint in the provider and are set on the browser via a Set-Cookie directive in the provider response. The consumer sends these cookies in every request but they are not actively added by the consumer as it?s the browser that adds them to every request. How should we treat these cookies from a pact point of view? Should we: a) Not include them at all - after all the consumer does nothing with them and, because the provider is written in Java with Spring, we can mock what we want and handle cases of successful and failed authentication anyway. b) Include the cookies in the request headers of our interactions. If b) is the best answer here, should the cookies have exactly the same names of the real ones? And what about the values, would it be enough for the provider to verify that both cookies are present or should we be able to produce some test cookies (like the real ones) that never expire that the provider will just accept as valid?

matt.fellows

2019-07-12 22:50

There's no approval process anymore, you should have your account already. Hope it goes well, let us know!

madhukar.mishra

2019-07-13 15:41

Talk went well enough, couldn't get the demo prepped on time. Maybe in the next iteration :smiley:

matt.fellows

2019-07-14 01:03

:ok_hand:

matt.fellows

2019-07-14 22:09

It?s an interesting question

matt.fellows

2019-07-14 22:10

if the API Provider requires it to operate, it?s a key part of the contract but equally your ?client _code_? doesn?t know about it. But your _client_ does, however

matt.fellows

2019-07-14 22:11

I think that?s illuminating.

antonello

2019-07-14 22:22

There are different views in the office and I can see merits on both including it and not including them.

antonello

2019-07-14 22:23

Perhaps it would be more important (and sufficient?) to test that the login endpoints actually returns a Set-Cookie response header.

antonello

2019-07-14 22:52

Also, assuming that we were to test that the consumer sends the cookies, would we not want to use some ?real cookies?, with real names and values that the provider can interpret? My gut feeling is that we should, as otherwise you wouldn?t be testing the real contract.

matt.fellows

2019-07-14 23:05

Yep. I think you need to weigh up the pros/cons. From a purely theoretical perspective, I think the answer is ?you should include it?. But taking a more balanced view, I?d say test what gives you value. If the cookie is always going to be implicitly added by the browser (because that?s how browser?s behave) and it?s a scenario unlikely to give your team more (useful) information about how the system behaves, whilst costing you effort in maintaining it. Then maybe it?s not worth it

matt.fellows

2019-07-14 23:05

(sorry for delay, I was on the train on the way in and then was walking to work)

william.ariawan

2019-07-15 00:43

has joined #general

abubics

2019-07-15 01:40

I maintain my first comment :stuck_out_tongue:

matt.fellows

2019-07-15 04:18

Yep, if I did choose to test this I'd use the same cookie names and valid looking values with the auth but mocked our on the provider side (or using request filters if needed to inject the correct value at provider verification time if mocking wasn't an option)

antonello

2019-07-15 06:15

Thank you @matt.fellows! So, if you tested it and you could mock the provider side, you would use valid looking values but not actual valid values. In other words you wouldn?t - for example - generate a valid value with a very long expiration date using the real secret?

bethskurrie

2019-07-15 06:31

@antonello I'm with Matt on this one - be pragmatic.

bethskurrie

2019-07-15 06:31

I like the idea of checking that the login endpoint returns a Set-Cookie header

bethskurrie

2019-07-15 06:33

You can set a header at verification time using the --custom-auth-header option so that you don't have to include any valid values in the pact itself.

bethskurrie

2019-07-15 06:34

If you want to be classy about it, you can use custom middleware that 1. makes sure the cookies with the right name are there and 2. replaces their values with real values.

antonello

2019-07-15 06:40

Thank you both!

matt.fellows

2019-07-15 08:01

Here's the verification option if you need it https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/master/README.md#modify-requests-prior-to-verification-request-filters

antonello

2019-07-15 08:08

Thanks @matt.fellows. The provider is in Java though :slightly_smiling_face: (consumer is js).

matt.fellows

2019-07-15 08:09

Ah no. They're called request filters in the JVM implementation

antonello

2019-07-15 08:11

That?s what I thought. We can mock the authorisation/identification logic in the provider though, so - if we decided not to include the cookies in the pact - I reckon it would just be easier to mock.

matt.fellows

2019-07-15 08:30

Agree. Those filters are for break glass scenarios

antonello

2019-07-15 08:32

I would still quite like the idea of generating a real cookie using the real secret (which in dev is different from production) but with a long expiration date.

rosario.azzaro

2019-07-15 14:44

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2019-07-15 21:58

Try it and see and report back @antonello

antonello

2019-07-15 22:09

Consensus today was to not include the cookies header in the contracts, at least for now.

matt.fellows

2019-07-15 22:32

Thanks for the feedback

matt.fellows

2019-07-15 22:33

If the situation changes let us know

ghandour.jihad

2019-07-16 08:21

Hello @bethskurrie, I am coming back to this answer :slightly_smiling_face: I got 2 questions for you:

ghandour.jihad

2019-07-16 08:21

1- Did anyone work on the c++ during this time? do we have a solution?

ghandour.jihad

2019-07-16 08:22

2- Can you please give me more details on the C++ basics you mentioned above, so that I can try and convince a C++ developer to work on implementing a solution?

bethskurrie

2019-07-16 08:57

@ghandour.jihad Nobody has picked this up that I know of. I'm afraid I haven't done c++ since uni (a long time ago!!), so I won't be any help at all with the technical details.

ghandour.jihad

2019-07-16 09:05

sure no worries! @uglyog, hello :slightly_smiling_face: I am interested in a C++ implementation of PACT. Can you please provide me with more details on how can the c bindings of the rust impl you did be used so that we develop a C++ implementation? (I will forward your answer to C++ developers that might be interested in picking up the work) thanks a lot! :slightly_smiling_face:

nathan2oo3

2019-07-16 09:32

Is there a consensus on the best way to use ldap with pact broker? I see nginx python2 ldap module being recommended by Nginx for ldap authentication and there are docker images out there with the http_auth_ldap module compiled but is there a recommended approach for best results?

uglyog

2019-07-16 13:03

The Rust implementation is a shared library that exports C bindings. Should be very usable from C++.

pavani.polakala

2019-07-16 15:44

has joined #general

pavani.polakala

2019-07-16 16:07

Hi. I'm kind of new to pact contract testing and I want to develop pact for android project. But the pact implementation guide for android looks pretty outdated - https://github.com/DiUS/pact-workshop-android/tree/master/consumer . Do you any other link that helps me setup pact in android env?

abubics

2019-07-17 01:23

I don't know if there are any decent recent examples :slightly_smiling_face: but Pact in Android is the same as any other JVM language consumer, so it really depends more on what testing libraries you're using

tanle.oz

2019-07-17 04:07

has joined #general

elvis.willems

2019-07-17 09:23

has joined #general

sebastian.kempken

2019-07-17 09:31

has joined #general

sabil.beladri

2019-07-17 14:00

has joined #general

jakub.gawryjolek

2019-07-17 16:20

has joined #general

pkuang

2019-07-17 18:43

Is there a way to disable these warnings in the pactjs verifier output: "WARN: Adding header ...", they are polluting our logs which makes it difficult to read the verification results

matt.fellows

2019-07-17 23:25

At the moment I don?t believe so. Could you please raise an issue on the pact JS repo and we?ll get it on our backlog?

denis.ducansel

2019-07-18 09:20

has joined #general

meirosuandreea

2019-07-18 09:56

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-07-18 11:13

Haven?t heard of anyone doing this yet, but keen to hear how you go if you do

matektchorek

2019-07-18 17:50

has joined #general

tchorek.mateusz

2019-07-18 17:51

has joined #general

matektchorek

2019-07-18 18:14

Hello. I have running server that allows me to retrieve json when I send get method for an endpoint. I have created in groovy a pact that should test if the json I am sending is correct but unfortunately I constantly have ExpectedButNotReceived exception. if I remove willRespondWith or withAttributes methods everything goes fine but in most of examples there were both of them. What am i doing wrong? Json example: [{"_shoppingmalls":[{"href":"http://localhost:8080/api/shopsData/Shoppingmall/1"}],"id":1,"shopId":1,"shoppingmallId":"1", "isOpen":"true"}] def example = new PactBuilder() example { serviceConsumer "consumer" hasPactWith "producer" port 2356 given('' shopping mall request") uponReceiving(" a shopping mall list") withAttributes(method: 'get', path: '/api/shopsData/Shoppingmall') willRespondWith(status:200,headers: ['Content-Type':'application/json']) withBody([ { _links{ href string() } id integer() shopId integer() shoppingmallId string() isOpen string() } ]) } My exception is: ExpectedButNotReceived(expectedRequests= method: get path: /api/shopsData/Shoppingmall query: [:] headers: [ : ] matchers: MatchingRules(rules= {}) genetrators: Generators(categories={}) body: MISSING])

kevin.monteiro

2019-07-18 22:07

has joined #general

uglyog

2019-07-19 00:36

@matektchorek can you verify that the test code is actually making the request. Debug level logs would help.

matektchorek

2019-07-19 05:19

I can see that incoming data in the intellij's console is the same as in the web browser

matektchorek

2019-07-19 05:20

but asserting service.runTest with PactVerifyProvider.OK.INSTANCE fails

uglyog

2019-07-19 05:21

`ExpectedButNotReceived` means the mock server is not getting the request. Where is it going? Enabling debug logging will show what is happening.

matektchorek

2019-07-19 05:21

You mean pacta server?

matektchorek

2019-07-19 05:22

I have the runnig server at 8080 and pacta running at port 2356

matektchorek

2019-07-19 05:22

i only check that one at 8080

uglyog

2019-07-19 05:22

No, when you run the test, a mock server is created. You need to get your consumer code to make the request to that server.

matektchorek

so if I go to the real server instead it does show the good results but tells that mock server is not used

uglyog

Port 2356

matektchorek

the problem is, when I used mock server

matektchorek

it generated random hashed values

uglyog

2019-07-19 05:24

It will generate random values if you don't give example values to the `integer()` and `string()` functions

matektchorek

2019-07-19 05:25

ok, my bad then

matektchorek

2019-07-19 05:25

is it possible then to make pacta tests with the real server running on?

matektchorek

2019-07-19 05:26

just for curosity

matt.fellows

2019-07-19 05:26

`s/pacta/Pact`

matektchorek

ye, my bad, i use pacta as substitute for Pact

matektchorek

anyway

matt.fellows

:smile:

matektchorek

I have real jar file running in background

matektchorek

https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/provider/pact-jvm-provider-spring?

and I attempt to use that mocked jar

matektchorek

2019-07-19 05:40

in Pact test, is there a way that Pact tests would treat that jar process as a mocked server?

uglyog

2019-07-19 06:04

No, it doesn't work like that

niickkc2

2019-07-19 23:06

has joined #general

seamusjbellew

2019-07-22 05:34

has joined #general

kapoorvishal23

2019-07-22 10:32

has joined #general

bartek.bulat

2019-07-22 13:18

has joined #general

sdpoling

2019-07-22 15:35

I see there are two git repositories pact-provider-verifier and pact-provider-verifier-docker. Is there any significant difference between them (except the underlying versions of the former are more recent).

luchillo17

2019-07-22 17:44

Second one i'm guessing its the docker image to be able to run Pact in a container

igordezky

2019-07-22 17:53

has joined #general

p0deje

2019-07-23 06:30

has joined #general

yousafn

2019-07-23 09:52

Ola, just me being a mither again. Is there any way to skip provider verification for certain pact interactions?

ramspotla

2019-07-23 10:47

has joined #general

thakkarjinal29

2019-07-23 11:35

Ran into the same issue. Is this resolved? Can you please redirect me to where this issue is raised?

ramspotla

2019-07-23 11:45

Hi There , I am trying to use JVM to set up pact project . Is there any sample project for this

detert

2019-07-23 11:57

Did you read https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/jvm?

detert

2019-07-23 11:57

The only thing that I can image is using tags

matt.fellows

2019-07-23 11:59

What have you tried so far?

matt.fellows

2019-07-23 12:00

Hmmm you sort of can in some cases. You can spexificy a single interaction to test. But not exclude/fliter

ramspotla

2019-07-23 12:04

I have not tried anything yet . First time at our work plc

ramspotla

2019-07-23 12:05

I?m trying to use pact-jvm-junit5 for consunervtestd

ramspotla

2019-07-23 12:05

Consumer test but Gradle build fails . I did as per your example

ramspotla

2019-07-23 12:07

And also other question I have is : does it support soap/ XML messages

yousafn

2019-07-23 12:08

No worries, for the moment, I will just drop those interactions from the consumer sides code. The provider isn?t going to expose a mechanism to modify the expected response via provider states, and from a consumer perspective, the shape of the response is the same for 3 pact interactions, and I can currently validate one of them so its all good

ramspotla

2019-07-23 12:09

Consumer sends soap message to micro service and micro service receives soap messages from downstream systems & process it sends it back to consumer in soap message

tchorek.mateusz

2019-07-23 13:14

I have an endpoint like: "http://localhost:8080/api/data/nbi/Shop?fields=name,shopId" that allows me to get list of shops with certains fields like name, etc. How can I recreate this string in pact framework? Should I add those parameters in query array in "withAttributes" method? Like: withAttributes(method: 'get', path: /api/data/Shop?fields=", query : [name: "name", shopId : "shopId"] ) ?

mui_ume

2019-07-23 13:20

Hi, I am getting confused with the provider for JVM in this github https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/provider

mui_ume

2019-07-23 13:20

do I just choose one only. my project is in java, using maven build and spring boot, junit, which one should I look at?

hvgiitr

2019-07-23 14:20

has joined #general

dherman

2019-07-23 14:36

has joined #general

oswald.quek

2019-07-23 15:57

pact.io

2019-07-23 16:10

According to the docs, soap is possible if I remember it correctly. You should take some time to read the docs. It really helps a lot

ramspotla

2019-07-23 22:02

https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/consumer/pact-jvm-consumer-junit5

ramspotla

2019-07-23 22:04

then I went to I use Java section

ramspotla

2019-07-23 22:04

https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/consumer/pact-jvm-consumer-junit5

ramspotla

2019-07-23 22:06

pact-jvm-consumer-junit5 JUnit 5 support for Pact consumer tests Dependency The library is available on maven central using: group-id = au.com.dius artifact-id = pact-jvm-consumer-junit5 version-id = 4.0.x

ramspotla

2019-07-23 22:08

after adding above dependency in gradle , gradle builld failed

craig.pothier

2019-07-23 22:35

I didn't resolve this unfortunately.

uglyog

2019-07-23 23:03

@ramspotla can you provide more info on how your build failed?

wontae.lee09

2019-07-24 00:30

has joined #general

davmitchell

2019-07-24 00:35

has joined #general

tjones

2019-07-24 01:25

If there are interactions in the consumer pact that you don't expect to work yet, tags are definitely the way to go

matt.fellows

2019-07-24 01:28

But you can?t do that _within_ a contract file, which is a current limitation.

mui_ume

2019-07-24 01:43

thanks my first provider pact looks like this: ```package xx.xxxxxx.platform.service.identitymanager.pact; import au.com.dius.pact.provider.junit.Provider; import au.com.dius.pact.provider.junit.State; import au.com.dius.pact.provider.junit.loader.PactBroker; import au.com.dius.pact.provider.junit.loader.PactFolder; import au.com.dius.pact.provider.junit.target.Target; import au.com.dius.pact.provider.junit.target.TestTarget; import au.com.dius.pact.provider.spring.SpringRestPactRunner; import au.com.dius.pact.provider.spring.target.SpringBootHttpTarget; import org.springframework.boot.test.context.SpringBootTest; import org.junit.runner.RunWith; @RunWith(SpringRestPactRunner.class) @Provider("Platform Services") @PactFolder("pacts") @SpringBootTest(webEnvironment = SpringBootTest.WebEnvironment.RANDOM_PORT) public class ProviderPactTest { @TestTarget public final Target target = new SpringBootHttpTarget(); @State("login with valid userId") public void loginTest() { System.out.println("Login Test with valid UserId Verified"); } @State("Start Chat with valid session") public void StartChatTest() { System.out.println("Start chat with valid session Verified"); } @State("logout with valid authToken") public void logoutTest() { System.out.println("logout with valid authToken Verified"); } @State("forgotPassword with valid userId") public void forgotPasswordTest() { System.out.println("forgotPassword with valid userId Verified"); } @State("start Session with valid token") public void startSessionTest() { System.out.println("startSession with valid token Verified"); } } ```

mui_ume

2019-07-24 01:44

I have a pact broker at a url https://pact.shared.frigg.li how do I add to my above code. is it like this: @pactBroker("https://pact.shared.frigg.li")

yousafn

2019-07-24 09:41

Yeah I have a single pact file for each consumer/provider. Some of those interactions are not able to work at the moment, due to the provider state not being able to be addressed in this current phase, so I would ideally like to skip one of those interactions within a pact. I could address it two ways at the moment - either drop the interaction from the pact contract when writing the consumer tests or when I programmatically overwrite a pact prior to verification, to add in AWS signed headers, just remove the interaction from the pact, pre verification. The former is simpler, and is possible now, as we have switched to wiremock for our mock services, rather than using pact mock service, due to some current kwown limitations (which I would like to address and have raised issues/pr?s for :ok_hand: )

antonello

2019-07-24 22:41

Hi! It?s me again! There is something that I have noticed today that is confusing me and some of the teams I?m working with. All our feature branches for consumer and provider have their own pipelines. The consumer?s feature branch pipeline publishes a pact with a tag `feature_branch_a` and the provider?s feature branch pipeline verifies pacts published with tags `master`, `prod` and `feature_branch_a`. So, if the name of the consumer?s and provider?s feature branches match, the pact tagged with `feature_branch_a` gets ?cross-verified?. Today a change was made on a branch of both consumer and provider that involved removing a field from the pact and from the response of the provider. Leaving aside whether this was the right thing to do, when the provider verification ran on the feature branch, it understandably failed because the latest pacts tagged with `master` and `prod` included the field that had been removed from the response of the provider. Now to the bit that I don?t understand. When going to the pact broker matrix and searching for the consumer version that published the pact with tag `feature_branch_a`, it shows that the pact was correctly published. However, it shows that the pact was not verified successfully, even if that pact specifically is compatible with the provider?s feature branch (as demonstrated by running the verification locally agains that tag). I can think of (at least) two possible explanations: a) I don?t understand how the matrix works and it is correct that ?Pact verified? in the matrix is red, or b) when running the provider verification, a failed verification result is uploaded by `pact_jvm` to the broker against the pact with tag `feature_branch` even if the verification tests succeeded when verifying the `feature_branch` tag but failed for `master` and `prod` (which were obviously published by a different consumer version). I hope this is not too convoluted, but it?s sometimes hard to describe these things with enough clarity.

bethskurrie

2019-07-24 22:44

Ok, that's a complicated scenario. Before I delve into it too deeply, have you remembered that the verification belongs to the *content*.

bethskurrie

2019-07-24 22:44

If two different versions of the pact have identical content, then the verification for one also belongs to the other.

antonello

2019-07-24 22:48

Here the content is definitely different as some fields were removed from the pact on the feature branch.

bethskurrie

2019-07-24 22:49

What would help here is if the build URL was published with the results. It's available in the API, but not many clients take advantage of it.

bethskurrie

2019-07-24 22:50

Are you publishing verification results from local machine or CI?

antonello

All CI

antonello

As we should :)

bethskurrie

:thumbsup::skin-tone-3:

bethskurrie

You're a pro.

bethskurrie

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9654350/socketerror-getaddrinfo-name-or-service-not-known-sunspot-solr-rails-develo

And when you look at the CI results for that branch, they say they're green?

antonello

2019-07-24 22:52

The scenario I?ve described is probably more complicated than it should - but basically it seems that when the provider verification tests run for more than one tag, the latest pact with one of those tags is marked as non verified even the verification failed for a different tag

bethskurrie

2019-07-24 22:53

Sometimes the index can be misleading because it doesn't know which tags are significant, but the matrix should be accurate.

antonello

2019-07-24 22:53

Nope, CI results are red, as expected because feature consumer is compatible with feature provider, but feature provider is not compatible with master consumer.

bethskurrie

2019-07-24 22:53

Esp if you're in the view that shows every version - not the view that rolls up some of the results.

bethskurrie

2019-07-24 22:54

But you'd expect feature_branch_a pact and feature_branch_a verification to be green

bethskurrie

2019-07-24 22:54

Can you find that particular verification result in the CI and see what it says?

bethskurrie

2019-07-24 22:55

When we get verification results into the broker that will also help!

bethskurrie

2019-07-24 22:55

In fact, they may be there, depending which clients you're using. What are you verifying with?

antonello

2019-07-24 22:58

Using `pact-jvm-provider-junit`

antonello

2019-07-24 22:58

>But you?d expect feature_branch_a pact and feature_branch_a verification to be green yes, and that does not seem to be the case.

antonello

2019-07-24 23:01

>Can you find that particular verification result in the CI and see what it says? I can?t see anything being logged with regard to the verification result apart from the two test failures that I expect (for the master and prod tags - well, at least I think it?s for them because it?s 2 out of 3 that failed. Sadly the test runner does not say which tags failed the verification.)

antonello

2019-07-24 23:15

we?re using the `3.6.10` by the way

antonello

2019-07-24 23:21

Time for bed here in :uk:, but I?ll check this again when I wake up in 7 hours. I wonder if @uglyog may have any ideas of whether `pact-jvm-provider-junit` may be behaving incorrectly in this scenario?

uglyog

2019-07-24 23:25

Have a good night! It definitely seems like something is going wrong and we will have to debug a bit further. Version 3.6.10 does publish the verification results, so you will need to dig that out so we can see what is going on.

uglyog

2019-07-24 23:33

Just got a PR to print the tag: > When provider tests are run using the PactBroker, and multiple tags are specified, it can be to figure out which verification was for which tag. > This is slightly annoying especially when verifications fail. This commit prints out the tag if supplied.

antonello

2019-07-24 23:36

That?s great! It?s something we really wanted and I know @alessio.paciello was looking into it but great someone else got there first :blush:

antonello

2019-07-24 23:39

Off the top of your head, do you know if the verification results are published separately for each tag that gets verified?

uglyog

2019-07-24 23:42

It should be, based on the pacts that are fetched. Not sure what happens if two tags fetch the same pact.

gsravikumar

2019-07-25 05:34

has joined #general

gsravikumar

2019-07-25 05:47

Hi , I need input on using PACT for our use case. We are using PACT for our for all our microservice level contract testing. However we have a few jobs (spark jobs) , these jobs consumes data from KAFKA topic.. There are other services which writes into the same KAFKA topic. So two services are not talking to each other via APIs, but use common KAFKA topic. Does PACT supports contract testing for the above scenario ?

p0deje

2019-07-25 05:52

I research the same topic know and the best I could find is https://dius.com.au/2017/09/22/contract-testing-serverless-and-asynchronous-applications/

gsravikumar

2019-07-25 05:54

Thank you Alex.

matt.fellows

2019-07-25 06:11

Yes, we support testing this sorry if thing. Look for pact message related terms

matt.fellows

2019-07-25 07:02

Sort of thing*

shikha.mishra

2019-07-25 07:44

has joined #general

antonello

2019-07-25 08:12

:+1::skin-tone-2: As you said the next step is probably debugging through it

diegorherrera

2019-07-25 08:20

has joined #general

shikha.mishra

2019-07-25 09:16

Hi everyone, I am quite new to pact and graphql. Has anyone tried mutation in request? Could someone give me some pointers? Thank you:)

manish.kapoor

2019-07-25 10:00

has joined #general

dsu

2019-07-25 10:52

has joined #general

anders

2019-07-25 10:56

Hi Shika. Are you talking about requests to endpoints which mutate persisted data?Our project had some challenges testing this for a while. We solved it by realising that the pact probably should not be verified against an actual live database, but against a mocked database which always contains the expected state (given by the `state` field in the pact interaction), and which doesn't affect any live environment when mutated.

au443479

2019-07-25 13:03

has joined #general

au443479

2019-07-25 13:06

Hi everyone

au443479

2019-07-25 13:07

I want to use to test aws sns notification basically other than res api calls .. is pact a good framework to use for contract testing ?

rajendra.patil

2019-07-25 13:25

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-07-25 13:38

yes, you can test SNS notifications

matt.fellows

2019-07-25 13:38

which language?

matt.fellows

2019-07-25 13:38

what have you read/looked at so far?

rajendra.patil

2019-07-25 13:45

Hi Everyone ! I am seeing some wired issue with webhooks talking to slack , I have pivotal cloud foundry instance for my pact broker , when webhook executed it doesn't even go to my https proxy and shows following error.

rajendra.patil

2019-07-25 13:45

Failed to open TCP connection to http://hooks.slack.com:443 (getaddrinfo: Name or service not known)

rajendra.patil

2019-07-25 13:46

after research i learned that it could be caused by rack version! please advice

rajendra.patil

2019-07-25 13:46

jgluck

2019-07-25 17:14

has joined #general

christopher.f.almanza

2019-07-25 18:46

Is there any general recommendation for when you have a CD pipeline?

christopher.f.almanza

2019-07-25 18:48

We started off by following the "team communication" motto, which is great. But sometimes we either merge in the wrong order or merge with time in between both consumer and provider

christopher.f.almanza

2019-07-25 18:48

which ends up in a broken build on our integrated environment for some time

christopher.f.almanza

2019-07-25 18:48

is there any process documentation that tackles a similar scenario

ljnoble

2019-07-25 18:58

has joined #general

getsreerag22

2019-07-26 02:28

has joined #general

shikha.mishra

2019-07-26 03:26

Thanks Anders. Yes thats what I was talking about. I will have a look at state field. Thank you:pray:

matektchorek

2019-07-26 12:01

In groovy, how can I add array in withBody parameter? like "array" [ { json: "json" } ] intellij doesnt see array : [ { json: "json" } ]

matektchorek

2019-07-26 12:04

getAt cannot be applied to array

matektchorek

2019-07-26 12:06

ok problem solved

matektchorek

2019-07-26 12:07

array = [ { json: "json" } ] works!

matt.fellows

2019-07-26 12:26

might want to ask this in #pact-jvm

matt.fellows

2019-07-26 12:27

https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/pact_nirvana

matt.fellows

2019-07-26 12:28

?and read up on provider states

ajeet.tripathi632

2019-07-26 15:57

has joined #general

deshdeepdivakar

2019-07-29 02:37

hi @here I am getting this scalalogging issue when linking the mock server with the interaction. Any help is much appreciated! I am following this https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/consumer/pact-jvm-consumer-junit5

uglyog

2019-07-29 02:48

How are you running your tests? Are you using Scala in your project?

deshdeepdivakar

2019-07-29 02:50

No, we aren't using scala at all. I thought the Pact Junit extension might be using scala

deshdeepdivakar

2019-07-29 02:51

Found this https://github.com/lightbend/scala-logging/issues/68 but not entirely sure what is using scala and how I can exclude it

deshdeepdivakar

2019-07-29 03:09

@uglyog I am running my test as Junit test. Intellij

uglyog

2019-07-29 03:26

There must be some conflict that is bringing in different versions of the Scala logging. You can switch to the latest 4.0.0 beta version. That doesn't depend on Scala.

deshdeepdivakar

2019-07-29 03:28

Sure, let me give it a shot. Thank you for your instant responses appreciate :man-bowing:

deshdeepdivakar

2019-07-29 03:33

This is what i have at the moment - ```classpath 'au.com.dius:pact-jvm-consumer-junit5_2.12:3.6.12' classpath 'au.com.dius:pact-jvm-provider_2.12:3.6.12'```

deshdeepdivakar

2019-07-29 03:36

Now replaced with ```classpath 'au.com.dius:pact-jvm-consumer-junit5:4.0.0-beta.1' classpath 'au.com.dius:pact-jvm-provider-junit5:4.0.0-beta.1'```

annarayanarasagond

2019-07-29 04:09

has joined #general

deshdeepdivakar

2019-07-29 04:51

that worked thanks heaps!!

deshdeepdivakar

2019-07-29 06:48

hi @here just a general/conceptual question? When writing the provider test do I need to startup my provider service locally? I am assuming yes which means in our case I need to proxy a whole bunch of services and DB to have that service up and running. We are monolith from repository perspective but the code is segregated across different projects/folders. Any thought/suggestions are much appreciated as we are currently running a spike for this and really want to adapt it. Cheers!

matt.fellows

2019-07-29 07:00

you assumed correct, you do indeed

matt.fellows

2019-07-29 07:00

My general advice would be to stub out any external collaborators (an anti-social style test)

deshdeepdivakar

2019-07-29 07:07

Thanks @matt.fellows just to understand a bit better what you have suggested. Should I be stubbing everything what my provider needs? Also, a few things - we heavily use rpc/jrpc calls between different api's. I know this might already started to sound intertwined and it is. But we are aiming for leveraging http://Pact.io with all these challenges while we work on separating out those projects in to their own services. Cheers

matt.fellows

2019-07-29 07:09

Correct. But, just know thata when you do that, if you were previously relying on those tests for coverage you might need to add others in the interim to give you confidence that integration is working.

deshdeepdivakar

2019-07-29 07:14

Awesome, thanks appreciate your prompt response. :+1:

florian.nagel

2019-07-29 07:15

I had the same issue on the 3.x version

srikanthyadake

2019-07-29 09:25

has joined #general

lennart.tange

2019-07-29 09:56

has joined #general

lennarttange

2019-07-29 09:56

has joined #general

elineopsommer

2019-07-29 13:55

has joined #general

mohindroo.deepak

2019-07-30 06:10

has joined #general

zhaoxia2

2019-07-30 06:10

has joined #general

deshdeepdivakar

2019-07-30 06:23

hi @here can someone please point me to a good provider (Spring + JUnit 5) example. I am a bit confused as all the current JUnit examples are using Wiremock & I have my service running locally as a gradle task. Do I need to have my consumer mocked when verifying provider :thinking_face: https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/blob/master/provider/pact-jvm-provider-junit5/src/test/java/au/com/dius/pact/provider/junit5/HttpsContractTest.java

deshdeepdivakar

2019-07-30 07:18

Also, ```org.junit.platform.commons.util.PreconditionViolationException: No supporting TestTemplateInvocationContextProvider provided an invocation context``` getting this error as well.

matt.fellows

2019-07-30 07:22

Maybe ask in #pact-jvm

deshdeepdivakar

2019-07-30 07:30

@matt.fellows @uglyog ^ can you please help with the error above ^

matt.fellows

2019-07-30 07:32

Sorry, that means nothing to me :grimacing:

matt.fellows

2019-07-30 07:32

Haven't worked in Java for ages

deshdeepdivakar

2019-07-30 07:34

no worries

deshdeepdivakar

2019-07-30 07:34

Sure

antonello

2019-07-30 07:42

Morning or evening, depending on time zones! I?m posting here rather than in #pact-jvm because, aside from the teamwork implementation, there is a more general point here. We have noticed a problem with pact-jvm-provider-junit. We will probably raise an issue on github, but in the meantime here is a brief explanation. When splitting the verification tests across multiple classes using @PactFilter, if some of the interactions are NOT verified (because they are ?filtered out?), the provider verification tests pass AND a verification result is NOT published to the broker.* While this is ?fine? from a can-i-deploy perspective, it is confusing because, when looking at the broker, it looks as though the provider verifications never ran. Also, one could argue that the provider verification tests should also fail if some interactions are not verified. I am inclined to agree with that. What is the ideal behaviour here? Failing the tests and/or uploading a failed verification results would seem reasonable in principle to me. * A couple of months ago @alessio.paciello pushed a fix to prevent the publication of successful verification results if not all interactions were verified.

antonello

2019-07-30 07:46

P.S. the problem doesn?t manifest itself if you don?t use @PactFilter and if all provider verification tests live in the same class. But it is not a sustainable approach, especially for services that are not that micro.

uglyog

2019-07-30 07:57

The ideal solution would be for the broker to accept the verifications in bits, and only display successful verification when all interactions have a successful result. But it will require work to implement this logic in the broker.

uglyog

2019-07-30 07:58

This is the junit 5 way of saying there were no tests to run. Probably because there were no matching interactions found to verify.

antonello

2019-07-30 08:00

You don?t think that pact-jvm-provider-junit could be changed to have a runner that aggregates the results as @alessio.paciello suggested here? https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/pull/890#issuecomment-499769255

dvallabhuni

2019-07-30 08:05

has joined #general

uglyog

2019-07-30 08:09

I mentioned the ideal solution. Because you can then split the tests over multiple build agents. But that will work for tests that run in a single process. The complexity comes in when do you publish the verification result? You can?t wait for a result for all interactions, because if one doesn?t run.

antonello

2019-07-30 08:15

mmm. you make a very good point.

antonello

2019-07-30 08:20

could it be something that you can switch on and off? if you know you run tests in a single process, you would switch on the ability of failing the test run if not all interactions are verified?

william.robson

2019-07-30 09:34

has joined #general

richard.peckett

2019-07-30 14:48

quick question guys, forgive me if I'm being thicky mc thickson from backwardshire here... If you're defining a contract whereby the consumer is actually sending a POST to a provider is this valid (is the consumer actually a consumer here?) can a consumer be a consumer if it's sending data to the provider and the provider is responding in the 200 range with no content in the body?

phall

2019-07-30 14:53

Yes, the consumer is the ?user? of the service. That would be a valid use case.

thirumal.net

2019-07-30 16:07

Hi All @matt.fellows @yousafn we have implemented pact in some of our projects and it is working good. but stuck in implementing pact for non json services . what is the solution for xml response services form pact recommendation? Thanks in advance

yousafn

2019-07-30 16:09

pretty sure pact-jvm has xml matchers, pact-js doesn?t.

thirumal.net

2019-07-30 16:22

Thank you yousaf for quick response, you mean to say we can implement Pact for web services which will return xml responses from consumer and provider side . could you please guide me for some examples ?

atle.rudshaug

2019-07-30 19:26

has joined #general

kyle.hammond

2019-07-30 20:07

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-07-30 21:10

@thirumal.net The Java implementation supports XML (as does the Scala one). I?m not sure/aware of other languages Pact supports that do

matt.fellows

2019-07-30 21:10

so you could, but not if you need to test services that are not either of them

matt.fellows

2019-07-30 21:11

I can see the confusion, but yes, it?s still the correct parlance :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2019-07-30 21:11

Presumably, the provider does something more than just respond with a `201` or something - hopefully it actually does something useful :slightly_smiling_face:

kyle.hammond

2019-07-30 21:30

Is it possible to write a PACT with the standard v2 matchers that will match a JSON array where each element of the array matches a regex? My consumer matching code look something like this (using pact-consumer-swift) ``` var expectedBody: [String: Any] = ["object": 123] let regex = Matcher.term(matcher: "(abc|def|ghi)", generate: "abc") expectedBody["available"] = Matcher.eachLike(regex, min: 1) ``` I?m trying to say that the ?available? key should contain an array of at least one element, and each of those elements should match the regex (that is, be one of the three possibilities listed in the regex). Example valid responses would be: `{"object":123, "available": ["abc"]}` or ` {"object":123, "available": ["abc", "ghi"]}` or `{"object":123, "available": ["def", "abc"]}` I can?t seem to figure out if the Pact contract v2 is supposed to support this by looking at the specification.

matt.fellows

2019-07-30 22:00

Hmmm that?s an interesting one. It should, I think. `eachLike(regex(...))` doesn?t work?

shivmohan08

2019-07-30 22:47

has joined #general

abubics

2019-07-30 23:20

The provider-consumer relationship is conceptually close to server-client. One end supplies a service via an interface, and the other end invokes it :)

matt.fellows

2019-07-30 23:21

Also see https://gist.github.com/bethesque/43eef1bf47afea4445c8b8bdebf28df0 (sorry didn?t hit send on this yesterday)

dpm

2019-07-31 06:39

has joined #general

srikanthyadake

2019-07-31 13:22

Hi All, I'm new to pact stuff, can anyone help me with this issue : https://stackoverflow.com/questions/57287320/provider-state-errors

srikanthyadake

2019-07-31 13:24

brief about the issue : when I try to run provider against pact file, I see 'error setting up provider-state'.

chaoscifer

2019-07-31 14:11

has joined #general

chaoscifer

2019-07-31 14:18

Hi! Please, Provider gradle task pactVerify fails with org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.DefaultGroovyMethods.collect(Ljava/lang/Iterable;Lgroovy/lang/Closure;)Ljava/util/List; I'm using pact-jvm with Kotlin and I'm loading the pact file from disk within build.gradle: pact { serviceProviders { providerService { protocol ='http' host = 'localhost' port = 7000 hasPactWith("consumerService") { pactSource = file("$rootDir/resources/pacts/providerService-consumerService.json") } } } } The output of this execution is: Verifying a pact between checkingAccount and fraudService [Using File /Users/cassio.kenji/workspace/fraud-service/target/pacts/checking-account-fraud.json] :pactVerify_fraudService (Thread[Task worker for ':' Thread 3,5,main]) completed. Took 0.011 secs. FAILURE: Build failed with an exception. * What went wrong: Execution failed for task ':pactVerify_fraudService'. > org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.DefaultGroovyMethods.collect(Ljava/lang/Iterable;Lgroovy/lang/Closure;)Ljava/util/List; -- Sorry for the lack of information at this moment. I work for a fintech and some data is very sensitive. I already tried a variety of alternatives from github examples and some Pact official documentation and I always come to that error. My pact-jvm versions: classpath("au.com.dius:pact-jvm-provider-gradle_2.12:3.6.1") //pactTests testCompile 'au.com.dius:pact-jvm-provider_2.12:3.6.1' Thanks!

kyle.hammond

2019-07-31 15:39

Indeed `eachLike(regex(?))` does *not* work during pact verification on the provider side. The consumer can code it that way, but I don?t know that the generated PACT is valid. The verification on the server side shows > Error: WARN: Only the first item will be used to match the items in the array at $[?body?][?available?] and stops the verification since it?s an error.

kyle.hammond

2019-07-31 15:42

The spec says, for the ?MinType? matcher > This executes a type based match against the values, that is, they are equal if they are the same type. In addition, if the values represent a collection, the length of the actual value is compared against the minimum. That implies that it is a ?Type? based match, and not a Regex based match for the items in the array. I?m not sure if ?type? based matches are supposed to be replaceable with ?Regex? based matches; that is, if anywhere I can put a type based match I could instead put a Regex based match.

uglyog

2019-07-31 23:02

Try the latest version of pact-jvm. Also check out https://github.com/pactflow/injected-provider-states-example and see if you get the same problem

chaoscifer

2019-08-01 00:12

hi, thanks for you reply! I ended solving this up by updating my gradle wraper to 5.1.1. as I said I work for a fintech and infosec is very restrictive... I have to use an internal repo and some packages are kinda of old. thanks again!

franklin.huynh

2019-08-01 01:36

Hi all I just wanna ask about the idea how to do the below statement without modifying the provider test > Add the ?production? tagged pact to the list of pacts the provider will verify. My current provider script is ``` new PactVerifier(config) .ProviderState($"{PactServiceUri}/provider-states") .ServiceProvider(ProviderName, ProviderUri) .HonoursPactWith(ConsumerName) .PactUri($"PactUtilities.PactBrokerCloud}/pacts/provider/{ProviderName}/consumer/{ConsumerName}/master") .Verify(); ``` Many thanks

franklin.huynh

2019-08-01 05:29

@matt.fellows ^^ any idea

srikanthyadake

2019-08-01 05:31

@matt.fellows any idea? thanks.

antonello

2019-08-01 05:35

Which language is that?

franklin.huynh

2019-08-01 08:12

it's C# @antonello

james.hattersley-dyke

2019-08-01 10:13

Hi, bit of a vauge question. We have an nginx service which calls a downstream REST API using lua. Nginx/lau is the consumer, and the provider is a spring boot app. I noticed there's a generic provider verification tool, is there the consumer equivilant? rather then install node or python etc into the nginx project, I was wondering if there's a generic way to create contracts?

sundakr1

2019-08-01 11:20

has joined #general

marius.maaland

2019-08-01 16:41

has joined #general

marius.maaland

2019-08-01 16:48

Hi all! I'm reading up on, and trying out Pact testing for my company. One question I have is: Can you not run provider tests against deployed APIs, using HTTP*S* ? Our APIs cannot be run locally (locahost, like in all the examples I've seen), but we do deploy to staging before production. I would like to run provider tests against `https://myapi-staging.com/blabla` before deploying to production. Is Pact not intended to be used that way, or am I missing something? When I do run a test like that, the test fails with `read server hello A: unknown protocol`

sedpavel

2019-08-02 12:09

has joined #general

ajitvdpthk

2019-08-02 12:17

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-08-03 13:54

You can do it that way, but it will get harder to do as your contracts get more advanced (e.g. setting up states). People so it though and can be a good way to get started with Pact

luis.giraldo10

2019-08-03 18:46

has joined #general

luchillo17

2019-08-03 19:19

Guys question about GraphQL interactions and provider states, i need the same query, different `given` clause & different response, i tried adding this new interaction in the exact test that uses it with the hope that the next request would use the latest defined interaction that matched the request in this test, but it uses the first interaction, how do we use the `providerStates` feature with GraphQL interactions?

luchillo17

2019-08-03 19:24

To clarify the new interaction has the same `withRequest`, `withVariables`, `withQuery` and `withOperation` (as null), things different are the `given`, `uponReceiving` and `willRespondWith`

srikanthyadake

2019-08-04 05:59

Hi all, a question regarding provider state. I need to do a post call which requires http request header from another api. Can I add request header in provider state block?

srikanthyadake

2019-08-04 08:47

I read about this, generateNewHeaders and requestFilters should be added. I am writing in .net and is this implemented in pact-net ? If so, any examples around?

matt.fellows

2019-08-04 22:34

It looks like the suffix `/master` is the tag. So you probably want to also do that for, say, `/production`

matt.fellows

2019-08-04 22:34

(sorry, was traveling second half of last week)

matt.fellows

2019-08-04 22:35

I think so, but you?d need to install Ruby for that CI job

matt.fellows

2019-08-04 22:36

for an example using the mock service in a standalone way (basically, a very crude implementation of what Node/Go/Python/PHP? use) see https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service/blob/master/script/example.sh

franklin.huynh

2019-08-04 23:38

no worry @matt.fellows is that mean I need to update the provider test in order to verify /production tag? Do you have any idea to do it in cicd script? For example, if there is Production tag, it will automatically get the production tag verify?

franklin.huynh

2019-08-04 23:42

I'm trying to make it standard so the owners of the provider test don't need to raise any PR that just to add production tag

franklin.huynh

2019-08-04 23:42

I hope my question is clear

matt.fellows

2019-08-05 02:29

yep

matt.fellows

2019-08-05 02:29

I usually use git tags and/or environment variables to modify behaviour in builds. For example, if on the `master` branch, you might want to verify tags that match `master` and `production` whereas on a branch you might want `feature1` and `production`.

matt.fellows

2019-08-05 02:30

the code you shows above is just going to validate a single tag `master`. You might want it to dynamically iterate over a list of tags that are (possibly) supplied by the build environment

matt.fellows

2019-08-05 02:31

e.g. the build environment might have an environment variable `TAGS=master production` and you split that based on space, and then iterate over it

matt.fellows

2019-08-05 02:31

I don?t know the .NET API all that well, but others let you specify an array of tags to be verified. See if that?s possible, or perhaps raise a feature request if not

franklin.huynh

2019-08-05 03:15

this is exactly what I needed. I'll have a look on that if .net api have it

franklin.huynh

2019-08-05 03:26

at the moment, if I want to verify 2 tags, I need to verify it twice ``` new PactVerifier(config) .ProviderState($"{PactServiceUri}/provider-states") .ServiceProvider(ProviderName, ProviderUri) .HonoursPactWith(ConsumerName) .PactUri($"PactUtilities.PactBrokerCloud}/pacts/provider/{ProviderName}/consumer/{ConsumerName}/master") .Verify(); new PactVerifier(config) .ProviderState($"{PactServiceUri}/provider-states") .ServiceProvider(ProviderName, ProviderUri) .HonoursPactWith(ConsumerName) .PactUri($"PactUtilities.PactBrokerCloud}/pacts/provider/{ProviderName}/consumer/{ConsumerName}/production") .Verify(); ```

franklin.huynh

2019-08-05 03:27

it'll be great if we can pass as an array for to PactUri function

franklin.huynh

2019-08-05 03:27

I checked, it doesn't accept array list

matt.fellows

2019-08-05 04:13

might be worth raising a feature request

franklin.huynh

2019-08-05 04:34

yes, will do

mohindroo.deepak

2019-08-05 06:35

I was trying to set PactDir in consumer side where pact files generated but it always create in d:\pacts directory? Is this a bug? Another issue coming is how provider will get all pact files for specific provider? It can be multiple consumers using one provider?

matt.fellows

2019-08-05 06:48

Can you please ask that question in the related language channel @mohindroo.deepak? That will help get it answered quicker

gs201m

2019-08-05 10:19

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-08-05 12:44

Sorry Carlos I didn?t quite follow this question. Are you asking if you can use provider states with GraphQL? The short answer is yes, all that the JS GraphQL interface is is a wrapper over the default one (i.e. you could use that if you needed too)

matt.fellows

2019-08-05 12:44

What issue are you actually facing?

luchillo17

2019-08-05 16:01

To clarify the new interaction has the same `withRequest`, `withVariables`, `withQuery` and `withOperation` (is null), things different are the `given`, `uponReceiving` and `willRespondWith`, but the second request (which is the one that should use the new interaction) is still using the previous one.

matt.fellows

2019-08-05 22:13

Is it two requests in the same test? Or spread across multiple? I don?t believe you can do it twice within the same test

matt.fellows

2019-08-05 22:13

across tests it should work, and if not is a bug. Are you sure the interactions are cleaned in between tests? If you could paste the logs I can t take a look

luchillo17

2019-08-05 22:36

Its in same file, different `it` block.

pbarrientos

2019-08-05 22:46

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-08-05 22:48

should work, assuming you call `verify()` in between

luchillo17

2019-08-05 22:57

Hmm? the issue is when we're defining the interacions in the consumer, verify is called in the provider isn't it?

goingkilo

2019-08-05 23:22

has joined #general

matt.fellows

In the consumer, you still must call the `verify()` method to ensure that your code did what you said it would

matt.fellows

e.g. see the example in https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/#example

matt.fellows

(I generally run this in the `afterEach` type block - after each `it` statement, we should check that your code did what it said it would do - in your case, make a call to the GraphQL mock service)

matt.fellows

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-net/issues/201

If you could share your code / logs, I could help more

luis.giraldo10

2019-08-06 00:38

@matt.fellows This is the code (test) and log

franklin.huynh

2019-08-06 00:47

hi @matt.fellows, I raise the feature request and I'd like to work on it. Could you explain to me on how other can use it in CICD? Please leave your comment here

franklin.huynh

2019-08-06 00:47

franklin.huynh

2019-08-06 01:38

please ignore the above

sbellew

2019-08-06 02:03

has joined #general

gs201m

2019-08-06 04:36

You can consider running PACT against the deployed API in staging. Only pact generation is part of the unit tests...

thirumal.net

2019-08-06 05:45

Thank you @matt.fellows and @yousafn. we are analyzing pact implementation for xml-rpc service project. i am unable to find out any sample java example for pact xml -rpc projects. please share it if you come across pact implementation for xml-rpc

beth

2019-08-06 09:30

Try asking in the #pact-net channel @srikanthyadake

srikanthyadake

2019-08-06 13:16

cool, I was not aware of the channel. anyway, issue is resolved by using PactVerifierConfig.CustomHeader

srikanthyadake

2019-08-06 13:17

This is resolved now, this happened as there was a issue with pact file.

c.metz

2019-08-06 19:22

has joined #general

c.metz

2019-08-06 19:32

Question: is it possible to define a regex matcher for a plain text body of a multiformdata request? For details see: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/57372629/how-to-define-pact-specification-matching-rule-for-single-string-body. Help would be much appreciated. We got stuck with this. Thanks!

matt.fellows

2019-08-06 21:33

I had a quick look - the test seemed to run as expected as far as the log is cooncerned

matt.fellows

2019-08-06 21:35

That test file you sent me can?t match that log file. The description doesn?t match (log has ?A user? which is not present in the code)

matt.fellows

2019-08-06 23:01

@uglyog any suggestions?

efroese

2019-08-06 23:05

has joined #general

deshdeepdivakar

2019-08-06 23:47

Hi @here anyone tried http://pact.io for `json-rpc` ?

bethskurrie

2019-08-06 23:50

Try asking in the #pact-rust channel. @uglyog will be able to help you.

matt.fellows

2019-08-07 00:09

not me. Any reason why it wouldn?t work with Pact? Looks like JSON req/res so in theory should be OK?

deshdeepdivakar

2019-08-07 03:32

hi @matt.fellows I thought so, but few something i noticed : For a json-rpc header - should be `Content-Type : application/json-rpc` and if you set the ```context.setTarget(new HttpTestTarget``` it seems to override the header with some default values like `Content-Type : application/json`

matt.fellows

2019-08-07 03:37

Oh! Interesting

matt.fellows

2019-08-07 03:37

which language is this?

deshdeepdivakar

2019-08-07 03:54

`Java`

matt.fellows

2019-08-07 05:05

are you setting the correct headers in your request/response setup?

matt.fellows

2019-08-07 05:05

That doesn?t seem right, Pact shouldn?t modify / coerce any headers

deshdeepdivakar

2019-08-07 05:30

```package consumer; import au.com.dius.pact.consumer.MockServer; import au.com.dius.pact.consumer.Pact; import au.com.dius.pact.consumer.dsl.PactDslJsonBody; import au.com.dius.pact.consumer.dsl.PactDslWithProvider; import au.com.dius.pact.consumer.junit5.PactConsumerTestExt; import au.com.dius.pact.consumer.junit5.PactTestFor; import au.com.dius.pact.core.model.RequestResponsePact; import org.apache.commons.collections4.MapUtils; import org.apache.http.HttpResponse; import org.apache.http.client.fluent.Request; import org.junit.jupiter.api.Test; import org.junit.jupiter.api.extension.ExtendWith; import java.io.IOException; import java.util.HashMap; import java.util.Map; import static org.hamcrest.CoreMatchers.equalTo; import static org.hamcrest.MatcherAssert.assertThat; import static http://org.hamcrest.core.Is.is; //1. Add the Pact consumer test extension to the test class. @ExtendWith(PactConsumerTestExt.class) @PactTestFor(providerName = "messageService", port = "8080") public class rpcConsumerTest { private Map<String, String> headers = MapUtils.putAll(new HashMap<>(), new String[] { "Content-Type", "application/json-rpc" }); //2. create a method annotated with @Pact that returns the interactions for the test @Pact(consumer = "ConsumerService", provider = "messageService") public RequestResponsePact getMessage(PactDslWithProvider builder){ return builder .given("default") .uponReceiving("retrieve message") .path("/message") .method("GET") .willRespondWith() .headers(headers) .status(200) .body( new PactDslJsonBody() .integerType("id") .stringType("jsonrpc", "2.0") .stringType("method", "getMessage") .object("params", new PactDslJsonBody() .stringType("text","rpc-pact-demo") )).toPact(); } //3. Link the mock server with the interactions for the test with @PactTestFor @Test @PactTestFor(providerName = "messageService", pactMethod = "getMessage") void verifyGetMessage(MockServer mockServer) throws IOException { HttpResponse httpResponse = Request.Get(mockServer.getUrl() + "/message").execute().returnResponse(); assertThat(httpResponse.getStatusLine().getStatusCode(), is(equalTo(200))); // assertThat(IOUtils.toString(httpResponse.getEntity().getContent()), // is(equalTo("{\"articles\":[{\"variants\":{\"0032\":{\"description\":\"sample description\"}}}]}"))); } } ```

deshdeepdivakar

2019-08-07 05:31

I think I am setting it up right. Sorry, accidentally posted the whole Consumer spec

deshdeepdivakar

2019-08-07 05:31

``` private Map<String, String> headers = MapUtils.putAll(new HashMap<>(), new String[] { "Content-Type", "application/json-rpc" });``` Json rpc GET request body ``` {"id":"1420197679","jsonrpc":"2.0","method":"getMessage","params":{"text":"rpc-pact-demo"}} ```

deshdeepdivakar

2019-08-07 07:11

@matt.fellows ^ your thoughts please?

matt.fellows

2019-08-07 07:13

Sorry, I?m not across the Java DSL so I can?t respond with any authority, but looks ok to me

matt.fellows

2019-08-07 07:15

might be worth chatting in #pact-jvm to see if there are any people with specific advice?

vineethv

2019-08-07 08:09

has joined #general

c.metz

2019-08-07 08:54

I will. Thanks for your suggestion!

gs201m

2019-08-07 09:17

#general

gs201m

2019-08-07 09:21

Guys, I am trying to run PACT tests on a GOLang based MS. It works well in local but on the CI JENKINSX it always throws me error ?pact-mock-service?: executable file not found. Any help is appreciated.

matt.fellows

2019-08-07 09:39

My guess is that the executables are not on the `PATH`

matt.fellows

2019-08-07 09:39

Prove that's not true first and go from thetr

gs201m

2019-08-07 09:43

@matt.fellows how to set the executables in PATH in Jenkins File (using Jenkins X). In windows local I can do it. But on Jenkins kubernetes how can it be done?

matt.fellows

2019-08-07 09:56

:man-shrugging:

matt.fellows

2019-08-07 09:56

Who manages your Jenkins environment?

matt.fellows

2019-08-07 09:56

Its an environment variable. It just needs to be updated to point at where you've installed pact

uglyog

2019-08-07 10:05

Must be a defect if it is overwriting the header

gs201m

2019-08-07 10:06

That?s the challenge. It?s on JENKINSX on kubernetes. We have to mention in the Jenkins File about the instruction to install and point to the same. Which I am doing. Still no luck.

gs201m

2019-08-07 10:32

@matt.fellows is there any specific way to set path in Jenkins X

matt.fellows

2019-08-07 10:36

Im sorry, I don't know anything about Jenkins X

matt.fellows

2019-08-07 10:37

It looks ok, can you check if the binati s are in that directory and iff you can execute any of them?

matt.fellows

2019-08-07 10:38

Binaries*

antstorm

2019-08-07 10:48

has joined #general

deshdeepdivakar

2019-08-07 11:55

hi @uglyog, @matt.fellows sorry it wasn't overwriting the header. I misread that. ```21:44:57.819 [Test worker] DEBUG au.com.dius.pact.core.matchers.Matching - Found a matcher for application/json-rpc -> au.com.dius.pact.core.matchers.JsonBodyMatcher@7af6e144 returns a response which has status code 200 (FAILED) includes headers "Content-Type" with value "application/json-rpc" (OK) has a matching body (FAILED) Failures: 0) Verifying a pact between ConsumerService and messageService - retrieve message returns a response which has status code 200 expected status of 200 but was 400 1) Verifying a pact between ConsumerService and messageService - retrieve message returns a response which has a matching body / -> Expected empty body but received '[B@348a87ce'```

matt.fellows

2019-08-07 12:09

good to know. So it looks like your API is returning stuff when it shouldn?t?

deshdeepdivakar

2019-08-07 12:12

I wrote a basic -`rpc` service returning a string you pass to it & it works as curl request

deshdeepdivakar

2019-08-07 13:12

I don't think it's replaying the interaction as I can't see any request coming through in my provider service

amber.race

2019-08-07 21:45

has joined #general

brent.foley

2019-08-07 22:20

has joined #general

thirumal.net

2019-08-08 05:49

@uglyog Could you Please guide me here

nikolajs.cmihuns

2019-08-08 05:52

Hi, please help me to get understanding in the following problem. Provider has several http API's - 1,2,3,4. Is it somehow possible to verify api calls chain, the correct order in which api's must be called using PACT. The correct order let's say is 1,2,3,4, but not 1,3,2,4. Would provider state feature help here somehow or it's not the case for PACT testing at all ?

matt.fellows

2019-08-08 05:54

What have you read so far about this? Basically, in Pact you always test 1 API at a time. If you need state to do a call, lookup ?provider states?.

matt.fellows

2019-08-08 05:54

http://docs.pact.io has all of these questions answered in one form or another

matt.fellows

2019-08-08 05:54

see FAQ, best practices etc.

uglyog

2019-08-08 05:55

There are no example projects that I know of that use XML. You'll have to look at the XML tests in the Pact-JVM codebase, like this one https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/blob/master/core/matchers/src/test/groovy/au/com/dius/pact/core/matchers/XmlBodyMatcherSpec.groovy or use the JSON examples but replace the bodies and content types with XML

sayboras

2019-08-08 06:56

has joined #general

nikolajs.cmihuns

2019-08-08 07:08

thanks:+1:

gs201m

2019-08-08 07:38

#general guys I am stuck in implementing pact for GO-LANG over Jenkins X. It always complains that it?s not able to find pact-mock-service not found in path. I am explicitly setting the path in Jenkins file through commands. It?s not working out.- Any helps or pointers is much appreciated.

matt.fellows

2019-08-08 07:44

Can you manually execute the binaries to see if they are present? Have you tried enabling debug/verbose on pact go to see if that provides feedback? What have you tried?

matt.fellows

2019-08-08 07:46

The PATH setting looks ok. Have you tried a `which pact-broker` to see if it finds the binary?

gs201m

2019-08-08 11:02

I am using the latest go-pact validation. Getting an error before

matt.fellows

2019-08-08 12:00

Can you run the pact binaries that you've downloaded? Ignoring pact go for a second, let's get the dependencies working first

oswald.quek

2019-08-08 15:06

it'll be something like `@PactBroker(scheme = "https", host = "http://pact.shared.frigg.il")`

gs201m

2019-08-08 18:33

Yes, pact binary is available and is being invoked. However the mock service is still not starting.

anupamknw

2019-08-08 18:43

has joined #general

luchillo17

2019-08-08 19:31

That section is likely to come from another test in the Auth service/store

matt.fellows

2019-08-08 22:09

What happens when you run `/usr/local/git/bin/pact-mock-service` directly? (not through Pact Go)

thirumal.net

2019-08-09 00:08

Thank you @uglyog

uglyog

2019-08-09 00:11

You can also take this opportunity to be the first to create a sample project for it :smile:

thirumal.net

2019-08-09 00:13

sure:) if my poc goes well , will update you back on the same. Thank you again !:+1:

deshdeepdivakar

2019-08-09 05:21

hi @here I am keen to understand the best practices around maintaining Pact's across different versions. For example : Assume, consumer version 1 defines pact for provider version 1 and next iteration we add some non breaking changes to provider version 1 and incremented provider to version 2 - should I'll be updating the consumer 1 pacts?? How would I ensure backward compatibility if I update my pact fro consumer 1? Please, share your experience. Cheers!!

antonello

2019-08-09 06:47

If it?s only the provider that changes, you shouldn?t make any changes to your consumer tests. Simply provider version 2 will have to verify the pact published by consumer version 1.

matt.fellows

2019-08-09 07:11

:point_up:

matt.fellows

2019-08-09 07:11

Exactly what Anto said

matt.fellows

2019-08-09 07:11

so you can keep making changes to the provider until such point that it breaks one of its consumers - Pact will detect this situation

matt.fellows

2019-08-09 07:13

This is the easiest case. It gets more complex when both consumers and providers are constantly making changes. This is where the Pact Broker comes in handy, and can help you identify which components are compatible at any one moment (the can-i-deploy command is the most useful here)

puja.bhattacharya.pb

2019-08-09 18:28

has joined #general

kbakk

2019-08-10 17:01

has joined #general

kbakk643

2019-08-10 17:16

has joined #general

mohindroo.deepak

2019-08-11 07:57

If provider wants to do some breaking and important changes in the code which effects consumer as well then 1) will provider not able to release those changes till consumer not make their changes? Might be consumer need another week to release those changes. 2) logically provider release pipeline should fail. But how will we intimate this breaking change to all consumers across the company?

matt.fellows

2019-08-11 07:59

1) is the answer. If you do release the changes, then you break the consumers. Why would you want to do that?

matt.fellows

2019-08-11 07:59

You initiate the change by talking to the teams

matt.fellows

2019-08-11 08:00

Ideally, you inplement the change using the expand/contract schema approach

matt.fellows

2019-08-11 08:00

Add new field with new behaviours, wait for consumers to transition to it, deprecate old field

bart.schotten

2019-08-11 08:10

I have question about the Pact Specification (maybe there should be a channel for that): why was the decision made to allow matching rules on requests? I can't think of a scenario in which that would be useful and it seems to go against Postel's Law...

mohindroo.deepak

2019-08-11 08:39

Intimation to the consumers about change will be manual or it is automated with some feature? What are the roles of web hooks here?

bethskurrie

2019-08-11 08:46

I personally don't tend to use it, and recommend strict matching where possible, as I only use pact to unit test the client class that is responsible for communicating with the provider. Some people do use it for higher level tests, in which case the more flexible matching is handy. There's also the case where you can use a generated pact to create a stub service for higher level integrated tests, and it's very useful then.

bart.schotten

2019-08-11 08:57

Right, that last case I can imagine.

matt.fellows

2019-08-11 09:33

I mean. You have to speak to your consumers if you're going to decide break stuff. Period. No tool can automate that for you. But Pact has a number of ways of determining if systems are compatible with one another, the most notable is using can-i-deploy with the broker. But the usual flow is that if you break a consumer on the provider side the provider teams build will fail (because if you release bad things will happen) and that's a prompt to go and speak to people (see the theme here?).

matt.fellows

2019-08-11 09:34

Webhooks are useful, and you could use a webhooks on a failed verification to notify consumers. The usual case is for the opposite - to kickoff builds on the provider side for a new contract/changed contract. You could subscribe to the same event to notify the providers of the change

mohindroo.deepak

2019-08-11 18:37

Thanks

richard.jones

2019-08-11 22:14

If I understand your question correctly, matching on requests (allowing variable parameters to match the request params/payload) is very useful to us because it means we can generate a single pact that handles many different unit test data cases, rather than generating new pacts for each case.

richard.jones

2019-08-12 03:13

Is anyone verifying pacts against AWS lambdas?

uglyog

2019-08-12 03:23

Yes, using message pacts.

uglyog

2019-08-12 03:23

:point_right: https://dius.com.au/2018/10/01/contract-testing-serverless-and-asynchronous-applications-part-2/

bart.schotten

2019-08-12 06:30

I personally wouldn't use Pact for unit tests in this way, but it's always interesting to hear how other people approach things.

antonello

2019-08-12 07:47

I imagine that a common, or at least useful, use case for pact is to verify backwards compatibility of api changes against multiple versions of native mobile applications that users may be using. Obviously in this case there can be more than one consumer version in production. @emanuele.ivaldi and I were discussing this and we were thinking that a possible approach may be to tag consumers, when released, with a tag like ?prod-v1.2.0?. This way, you could run provider verification tests against all the ?live? versions, provided that you keep a list of the current live versions somewhere outside of the broker, as you cannot at the moment query the broker for a tag with wildcards. An alternative approach, as the provider is written in Java, would be to be able to tell pact-jvm: ?verify all pacts with a prod tag and not just the latest one tagged ad prod?. This approach would require removing prod tags from the consumer when versions are deprecated and, obviously, a change to pact-jvm. Thoughts?

matt.fellows

2019-08-12 08:05

My first instinct is to support wildcards or regexes to achieve it, with the behaviour of still retrieving the latest for each tag it finds. I suspect they will have unintended consequences but seems the nicest

matt.fellows

2019-08-12 08:06

The answer we usually give is for the provider to know in advance of sacred tags and include that in the list to verify, but it would be nice automate that

antonello

2019-08-12 08:10

Which - as I explained - would require tagging with something more than just `prod` - in other words the tags need to be aware of the version also, which is a bit of a bastardisation of the tags, but kind of harmless.

fernandojsmoreira

2019-08-12 08:12

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-08-12 08:22

yes, indeed it is

matt.fellows

2019-08-12 08:22

it?s definitely a workaround, and not a true first class citizen in the system

bethskurrie

2019-08-12 10:21

@antonello I've designed the API so that you can verify *all* pacts with a given tag, not just the latest.

bethskurrie

2019-08-12 10:21

This is to support mobile consumers that have multiple prod versions.

bethskurrie

There is a bit of code in the client that needs to be added to support specifying the "all" instead of just "latest", and I just haven't gotten around to putting that in yet.

antonello

that?s great @bethskurrie! However, as far as understand it, `pact-jvm` does not support that (yet).

bethskurrie

Someone else has asked for it recently, and I need to do it, but I've been using all my Pact energy on Pactflow, and then I come home and I have nothing for the OSS code.

bethskurrie

pact-jvm will soon.

antonello

sounds great

bethskurrie

There's a new API being written for supporting "pending pacts" which will make the broker a lot smarter in what pacts it returns for verification.

antonello

in the meantime, we may have to use the workaround.

bethskurrie

Again, it's close to done, but I've had little OSS code time recently.

bethskurrie

2019-08-12 10:24

Yes, if you keep a "manifest" of the prod versions, it will achieve the same thing.

bethskurrie

2019-08-12 10:24

I think it would be easier than trying to do wildcard matching.

gaurav13.singh

2019-08-12 13:52

has joined #general

gaurav13.singh

2019-08-12 13:54

Hi, Does pact supports SOAP api calls??

gaurav13.singh

2019-08-12 13:59

basically my microservices make a soap request to downstream system and convert it back to json to serve client

gaurav13.singh

2019-08-12 14:00

so I need to implement pact between my microservice and the downstream system

nathan2oo3

2019-08-12 14:58

Where in pact brokers http://config.ru does the webhook_host_whitelist need to be set? I have tried it in the config loop and outside it below the basic auth variables but still get the error "for security purposes the response details are not logged. Configure webhook host whitelist"

marius.maaland

2019-08-12 15:57

Yeah I am trying to run against staging. The problem is that `pact-go` doesn't seem to like `https` , because it gives me `read server hello A: unknown protocol` when I try it

matt.fellows

2019-08-12 21:08

Is it a self signed certificate?

matt.fellows

2019-08-12 22:22

Search this channel for that very question. Not all languages support XML but Java + Rust does

richard.jones

2019-08-12 23:15

What do you see as ?in this way??

bethskurrie

2019-08-12 23:22

It just goes where the rest of the config goes. Can you copy paste it here? You definitely restarted the server after making the change?

matt.fellows

2019-08-13 11:30

What language are you using?

gijs.van.der.venne

2019-08-13 12:01

has joined #general

gijs.van.der.venne

2019-08-13 12:05

Hi everyone, We started using Pact testing and am running into an issue. Consumers provide pact contracts that we have to adhere to as provider. We get a nice contract from the consumers stating an event that we did not build yet. So our pact-jvm build is now failing. How can i prevent my build to fail in this case?

matt.fellows

2019-08-13 12:06

So my guess is that the consumers are yet to move to production (because their code wouldn?t work). My guess, is that their work is on a feature branch

gijs.van.der.venne

2019-08-13 12:07

Yes it is in a staging branch indeed but now our application build is failing because we use the central staging branches to comsume the contracts

matt.fellows

2019-08-13 12:08

The usual way of dealing with this, is to get your consumers to only tag what?s in production as e.g. `prod` and your provider only cares about validating things that are in, or about to go to, production

matt.fellows

2019-08-13 12:08

(see https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/pact_nirvana for the full workflow you should follow over time)

matt.fellows

2019-08-13 12:09

(you might use multiple tags, but again, that doc above will illuminate that)

matt.fellows

2019-08-13 12:09

If they are tagging the pact as something that needs to be supported by you straight away, but is not valid, you will need to have a conversation with that team telling them that their feature is not yet ready and that they are breaking your build

matt.fellows

2019-08-13 12:10

Their workflow needs to support reality - right now they?ve told you via a Pact publish that it needs to be supported, and Pact is failing because it doesn?t want that to happen. I?d suggest reviewing your tagging strategy, so that features that aren?t going to production yet don?t fail your build

gijs.van.der.venne

2019-08-13 12:10

Thanks a lot of this information

gijs.van.der.venne

2019-08-13 12:11

am starting to read the documentation and the strategy seems very useful indeed am going over to the team to see if they tagged anything :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2019-08-13 12:13

:thumbsup:

matt.fellows

2019-08-13 12:14

you?re welcome!

nathan2oo3

2019-08-13 15:02

dc = PactBroker::DockerConfiguration.new(ENV, PactBroker::Configuration.default_configuration) dc.pact_broker_environment_variables.each{ |key, value| $http://logger.info "#{key}=#{value}"} app = PactBroker::App.new do | config | config.logger = $logger config.database_connection = create_database_connection(config.logger) config.database_connection.timezone = :utc config.enable_public_badge_access = true config.enable_badge_resources = true config.webhook_host_whitelist = dc.webhook_host_whitelist config.webhook_http_method_whitelist = dc.webhook_http_method_whitelist config.webhook_scheme_whitelist = dc.webhook_scheme_whitelist #You should set these to appropriate values for your organization config.webhook_host_whitelist = ['http://host.domain.com'] # For security reasons, it is not recommended to alter this list (see below) config.webhook_http_method_whitelist = ['POST'] config.webhook_scheme_whitelist = ['https'] config.base_equality_only_on_content_that_affects_verification_results = dc.base_equality_only_on_content_that_affects_verification_results config.order_versions_by_date = dc.order_versions_by_date config.disable_ssl_verification = dc.disable_ssl_verification end

nathan2oo3

2019-08-13 15:02

Currently how we have it configured. Apologies about the formatting seems mobile app doesn't have code formatting

li.poltorak

2019-08-13 21:51

has joined #general

li.poltorak

2019-08-13 22:10

Hi, I'm working with a couple of other SDETs and QA engineers across teams at my company to test out pact and see if it will work for our needs, we're just putting together a quick proof-of-concept to learn more about the tool. In the particular case I'm testing, the consumer is a python api and the provider is a php (laravel) api. I was wondering, is it required to set up a provider states url for the provider, even if I'm just testing a GET request for a resource I know exists?

matt.fellows

2019-08-13 22:11

Awesome!

matt.fellows

2019-08-13 22:12

Nope, for a lot of cases you can get by with out them. I still like to document the state itself (because it makes for more readible test cases and clarity) but don?t act on the provider state during validation

matt.fellows

2019-08-13 22:12

In many cases, I single (well designed) database fixture on the provider side can take care of most states

matt.fellows

2019-08-13 22:12

e.g. `given user A exists` and `given user B does not exist` is an easy thing to implement

matt.fellows

2019-08-13 22:13

doing `given user A exists` and `given user A does not exists` requires different data to be seeded during verification.

li.poltorak

2019-08-13 22:25

It looks like `.given('user A exists')` or whatever is required, and if there's nothing set up on the provider-side for that, it fails validation (`Could not find provider state "user A exists" for consumer...`). Is there a way to set it up to not require it? Or not expect it in the consumer test?

li.poltorak

2019-08-13 22:25

I'm new to this concept, so forgive me if I'm missing something obvious.

matt.fellows

2019-08-13 22:53

hmmm

matt.fellows

2019-08-13 22:53

that might be a bug on the PHP code - it shouldn?t fail the test if not present, just emit a warning

matt.fellows

2019-08-13 22:54

Are you sure it?s an error and failing the test? If it is, perhaps omit them for now, and raise an issue on the GitHub repo?

li.poltorak

2019-08-13 22:56

Hmmm, ok. I'm using the docker pact verifier to run the verification: https://github.com/DiUS/pact-provider-verifier-docker

li.poltorak

2019-08-13 22:56

Maybe I have something configured wrong there.

li.poltorak

2019-08-13 22:59

```WARN: the following non-mandatory environment variables have not been specified: '["provider_states_url", "provider_states_active_url"]' Reading pact at /tmp/pacts/consumer-provider.json Verifying a pact between Consumer and Provider Given a request for reservation 12345 with GET /v1/reservations/12345 returns a response which has status code 200 (FAILED - 1) has a matching body (FAILED - 2) Failures: 1) Verifying a pact between Consumer and Provider Given a request for reservation 12345 with GET /reservations/12345 returns a response which has status code 200 Got 0 failures and 2 other errors: 1.1) Failure/Error: set_up_provider_state interaction.provider_state, options[:consumer] RuntimeError: Could not find provider state "" for consumer Consumer # /usr/local/bundle/gems/pact-1.14.0/bin/pact:4:in `<top (required)>' # /usr/local/bundle/bin/pact:17:in `load' # /usr/local/bundle/bin/pact:17:in `<main>' 1.2) Failure/Error: tear_down_provider_state interaction.provider_state, options[:consumer] RuntimeError: Could not find provider state "" for consumer Consumer # /usr/local/bundle/gems/pact-1.14.0/bin/pact:4:in `<top (required)>' # /usr/local/bundle/bin/pact:17:in `load' # /usr/local/bundle/bin/pact:17:in `<main>'```

li.poltorak

There's the output of the tests.

matt.fellows

hmm interesting

matt.fellows

in that case, could you please raise a bug there :stuck_out_tongue:

li.poltorak

Absolutely, will do!

matt.fellows

thank you

matt.fellows

presumably it works without the states defined, yes?

li.poltorak

2019-08-13 23:17

I'm not sure how to not define them. If I leave the line out of the consumer test, it fails.

li.poltorak

2019-08-13 23:19

Here's the error: ```self = <pact.pact.Pact object at 0x10bfed080>, scenario = 'a request for reservation 12345' def upon_receiving(self, scenario): """ Define the name of this contract. :param scenario: A unique name for this contract. :type scenario: basestring :rtype: Pact """ > self._interactions[0]['description'] = scenario E IndexError: list index out of range```

matt.fellows

2019-08-13 23:23

Is that the description or the state? The description is definitely mandatory

li.poltorak

2019-08-13 23:25

I'm working off of the example from the pact-python github page (with specifics changed out for our particular test case of course) ```(pact .given('UserA exists and is not an administrator') .upon_receiving('a request for UserA') .with_request('get', '/users/UserA') .will_respond_with(200, body=expected))```

li.poltorak

2019-08-13 23:25

And it seems like whatever I put in the `.given('UserA exists and is not an administrator')` is what fails when I try to run the verification.

li.poltorak

But if I try to leave that line out, it will fail in the above manner.

li.poltorak

I'm not sure if that's the description or the state.

matt.fellows

weird

matt.fellows

because https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-python#verifying-pacts-against-a-service says to do it without provider states (to start with)!

li.poltorak

2019-08-13 23:29

It looks like it fails with a different error (authentication, which I expected) if I run the verification command as shown in that example, using pact-python, from the consumer API's repo, so I imagine it's either a bug or a misconfiguration in the docker verifier I was trying to use from the provider. Running the verification from that python project won't work in the long run, but it's perfectly fine for local testing and can unblock me to keep exploring pact, so that's good! :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

ok perfect

li.poltorak

Thank you so much for your help! I really appreciate it.

matt.fellows

apologies, sometimes the language implementations have their minor differences

matt.fellows

we?ll get it sorted - if you raise the issue typically it?s sorted within a day or two

li.poltorak

Thank you!

matt.fellows

FYI if you need a quick space to test pact publishing / workflows with e.g. can-i-deploy, you should checkout http://pactflow.io :wink:

matt.fellows

if you need more than a few contracts let me know and I can bump up the plan (we?re reviewing the free tier at the moment)

li.poltorak

https://twitter.com/bethesque/status/1151615816820908032

I'll look into it!

bethskurrie

2019-08-14 04:07

Ah, if you're messing with the docker one, you just need to set the right env vars @nathan2oo3

bart.schotten

2019-08-14 06:40

I prefer keeping my (functional) unit tests entirely separate from my contract tests, so I never felt the need to have a single interaction handle multiple test cases.

antonello

2019-08-14 07:47

Is there a piece of documentation that explains which versions of the DSLs are compatible with v3 of the pact specification?

uglyog

2019-08-14 07:49

This is the only docs I know of: https://docs.pact.io/feature_support

antonello

2019-08-14 07:50

Thank @uglyog. I know it existed but could not find it. Still :sleeping:

antonello

2019-08-14 07:52

Is v3 supported in pact-jvm 3.6.x or only in v4?

bethskurrie

2019-08-14 07:52

No pressure, but @tanle.oz may be having a go at v3 for Ruby ;-)

antonello

2019-08-14 07:52

I was reading your recent blog post on provider states @uglyog

uglyog

2019-08-14 08:29

V3 is supported since 3.2+

nikolajs.cmihuns

2019-08-14 09:52

Hi, is there some documentation on how to read error message when pact test fails. E.g I use https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/blob/b370475f0107c16ab498d488fe09c005cff037ad/provider/pact-jvm-provider/src/main/kotlin/au/com/dius/pact/provider/junit/JUnitProviderTestSupport.kt#L24 And output looks to me unreadable. Does pact-jvm have some human readable processor of error output string ?

nikolajs.cmihuns

2019-08-14 10:00

I mean, does one have to manually cast what is in place of Any (mismatches: Map<String, Any>), and act accordingly further

nikolajs.cmihuns

2019-08-14 10:00

Is it the only option available currently ?

matt.fellows

2019-08-14 12:15

V3 in Ruby btw means we get it in JS, Go, python, PHP and . NET

hendrik.diel

2019-08-14 12:29

has joined #general

hendrik.diel

2019-08-14 12:52

Hi, i wonder if there is a planned release date for 4.0.0-beta.5? We are waiting for the fix of issue #908 and #912.

sandro.schifferle

2019-08-14 13:04

has joined #general

richard.jones

2019-08-14 22:42

Interesting! Our pact mocks are just part of our regular test suite mocking. As in, we don?t mock downstreams in any other way other than in exceptional circumstances (like ensuring a 500 response is handled well)

bethskurrie

2019-08-14 22:44

Are you talking about the consumer side or the provider side Richard? I think Bart is talking consumer side.

uglyog

2019-08-14 22:52

I see about getting a release out for you

marius.maaland

2019-08-14 23:50

no I don't believe so

richard.jones

2019-08-15 00:04

I?m talking consumer side, yes.

nikolajs.cmihuns

2019-08-15 06:15

@uglyog

uglyog

2019-08-15 06:18

Are you referring to the actual values which are displayed as `List(Map(code -> 101, order -> 1, timestamp -> 1970-01-01T00:00:11.113Z)`?

nikolajs.cmihuns

2019-08-15 06:22

yes, it is taken from real test if I've got you correct

nikolajs.cmihuns

2019-08-15 06:25

looks like we need additional case for List inside JUnitProviderTestSupport.generateErrorStringFromMismatches

nikolajs.cmihuns

2019-08-15 06:26

I will recheck

uglyog

2019-08-15 06:27

I think the JUnit error output needs to be better presented in general

uglyog

2019-08-15 06:27

Done

bart.schotten

2019-08-15 06:55

I try to keep my api client code (the code that I test with Pact) very minimal. The only thing it should do is perform a request to the right path and correctly deserialize the response. All the functional handling around that is done by other code, in which I can then mock the api client, so I don't need Pact (or another http mock service) to test it.

mdilts11

2019-08-15 14:18

has joined #general

itsmanishahere

2019-08-15 14:33

has joined #general

pijush.debnath

2019-08-15 17:54

has joined #general

marius.maaland

2019-08-15 19:07

is pact-go trying to use SSLv2/v3 ? cause that's disabled in my certificate

vinay.luz

2019-08-15 20:24

has joined #general

richard.jones

2019-08-15 22:19

Cool, thanks for the info, and your usage is something I have definitely seen around. FWIW my intent is to ensure that the data going to/from the API call reflects the code using that API, rather than whether I can call the HTTP library correctly.

david862

2019-08-15 22:48

has joined #general

chuck

2019-08-16 18:03

has joined #general

sgriffiths1975

2019-08-19 03:21

has joined #general

archana.rachuri

2019-08-19 23:24

has joined #general

getsreerag22

2019-08-20 05:33

@here Is there anyway I can convert Swagger into Pact????

uglyog

2019-08-20 05:36

Not currently. The problem is that swagger is defined in terms of the API endpoint. I.e. here is an endpoint, it accepts these parameters and here is the list of possible responses. But there is no automatic way to know which request corresponds to which response.

bethskurrie

2019-08-20 05:45

See https://docs.pact.io/faq#can-i-generate-my-pact-file-from-something-like-swagger @getsreerag22

getsreerag22

2019-08-20 05:48

Thank you @bethskurrie

matt.fellows

2019-08-20 05:53

As an aside though, we are working on and thinking about how to marry Pact and Swagger better together at Pactflow. Ping one of us offline if you?d like to be part of this discovery and product development process

vaishnavi.boyidi

2019-08-20 07:38

has joined #general

fil.tmb

2019-08-20 10:58

has joined #general

philusd

2019-08-20 11:46

has joined #general

simon.waterhouse

2019-08-20 14:12

has joined #general

vinoth.raman

2019-08-20 15:26

has joined #general

vinoth.raman

2019-08-20 15:32

Vinoth Raman [4:29 PM] I am trying to setup a pact test for one of the project. unfortunately, I could not PACT dal file created after the successful build.Here is my code

vinoth.raman

2019-08-20 15:32

package com.test; import au.com.dius.pact.consumer.Pact; import au.com.dius.pact.consumer.PactProviderRuleMk2; import au.com.dius.pact.consumer.PactVerification; import au.com.dius.pact.consumer.dsl.PactDslWithProvider; import au.com.dius.pact.model.RequestResponsePact; import org.junit.Ignore; import org.junit.Rule; import org.junit.Test; import java.util.HashMap; import java.util.Map; public class consumertest { @Rule public PactProviderRuleMk2 mockProvider = new PactProviderRuleMk2("test_provider", "localhost", 8080, this); @Pact(consumer = "test_consumer") public RequestResponsePact createPact(PactDslWithProvider builder) { Map<String, String> headers = new HashMap<String, String>(); headers.put("Content-Type", "application/json"); return builder.given("test GET").uponReceiving("GET REQUEST").path("/pact").method("GET").willRespondWith().status(200).headers(headers) .body("{\"condition\": true, \"name\": \"tom\"}").given("test POST").uponReceiving("POST REQUEST").method("POST") .headers(headers).body("{\"name\": \"Michael\"}").path("/pact").willRespondWith().status(201).toPact(); } @Test @PactVerification() public void givenGet_whenSendRequest_shouldReturn200WithProperHeaderAndBody() { } }

vinoth.raman

2019-08-20 15:33

Vinoth Raman [4:30 PM] <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <project xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0 http://maven.apache.org/xsd/maven-4.0.0.xsd%22> <modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion> <groupId>com.test</groupId> <artifactId>test</artifactId> <version>1.0-SNAPSHOT</version> <dependencies> <dependency> <groupId>au.com.dius</groupId> <artifactId>pact-jvm-consumer-junit_2.11</artifactId> <version>3.4.1</version> </dependency> <dependency> <groupId>au.com.dius</groupId> <artifactId>pact-jvm-consumer_2.11</artifactId> <version>3.4.1</version> </dependency> <dependency> <groupId>au.com.dius</groupId> <artifactId>pact-jvm-model</artifactId> <version>3.5.0</version> </dependency> </dependencies> <build> <plugins> <plugin> <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId> <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId> <version>2.18</version> </plugin> </plugins> </build> </project>

vinoth.raman

2019-08-20 15:33

Could some possibly point me where the issue is please?

mail.colin.smith

2019-08-20 19:20

has joined #general

lgaete.astudillo

2019-08-20 19:30

has joined #general

afrancoh

2019-08-20 19:34

has joined #general

kyle.hammond

2019-08-20 20:43

You have no code in the givenGet_whenSendRequest_shouldReturn200WithProperHeaderAndBody method. In that method you should have your client code connect to the mock server, make the network request, and assert that your code behaves correctly with the expected response.

matt.fellows

2019-08-20 22:04

Could you please ask this on #pact-jvm ?

matzalew

2019-08-21 05:46

has joined #general

ben.minter

2019-08-21 08:26

has joined #general

samuel.hodgkinson

2019-08-21 11:12

has joined #general

matchehot

2019-08-21 17:42

has joined #general

matchehot

2019-08-21 17:49

Hi, has anyone used jvm XmlBodyMatcher to match response body?

matchehot

2019-08-21 17:49

looking for examples

danavery

2019-08-21 22:23

has joined #general

g.maguire85

2019-08-21 23:34

has joined #general

kresimir.kuren

2019-08-22 13:03

has joined #general

david862

2019-08-22 18:06

Hey, I?m curious about pact best practices (and I need to convince my team to use them). Does anyone have any good resources?

marius.maaland

2019-08-22 18:28

There's a section about this in the documentation: https://docs.pact.io/best_practices Is there anything in particular you're curious about?

david862

2019-08-22 18:31

Yeah - I had looked at that pretty thoroughly, but thanks. I?m specifically curious about how much of the consumer to include in the contract test. My team?s assumption is that we should only be including the API call to the provider, and ensuring the right data is returned, but I was under the impression you want to make sure the consumer actually does what you are expecting with the data (more than just deserialization, I mean.)

david862

2019-08-22 18:33

For example we have a service that tells us if a customer is blacklisted, should the pact test include just `service.get('/is-blacklisted?q=john+smith')` or something a bit higher up like a consumer method that calls that endpoint and returns a boolean?

thirumal.net

2019-08-22 21:11

Hi @david862 - i think your team assumption is correct . as a consumer ,we have to make sure provider is returring 200 Ok status and data we need to continue consumer logic. we can still go ahead and verify the data but i think that is not the purpose of contract testing . verifying data should be part of another testing not contract testing . if we have microservice architecture and lot of services are there , it is not ideal to check data instead we have to verify minimum things (200, mandatory attributes from provider) which will make the total CI/CD process quick

nathan2oo3

2019-08-23 09:16

Sorry for the late reply Beth. I noticed in the docs about setting http_proxy environment for executing via an http proxy but other than that is there any other environment variables I need to set? I have already set the PACT_BROKER_LOG_LEVEL: DEBUG in the docker compose file

bethskurrie

2019-08-23 20:44

Yes, https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-broker-docker/blob/master/README.md#webhook-whitelists @nathan2oo3

bethskurrie

2019-08-23 20:45

"PACT_BROKER_WEBHOOK_SCHEME_WHITELIST - a space delimited list (eg. http https). Defaults to https."

bethskurrie

2019-08-24 07:12

I like to include enough of the consumer to ensure that I'm not just testing an HTTP request. I generally have a "XYZClient" class that is responsible for translating between my internal domain and the way the provider represents the data. I like to check that my client does the right translations, serialises the data the right way (though I do tend to keep that serialisation logic in a separate class) and handles the different responses the way I want (eg. 404 might return a null object, a 500 might raise an exception)

bethskurrie

2019-08-24 07:13

I don't tend to include the service layer.

bart.schotten

2019-08-24 10:38

Can a v3 Pact include both messages and (request-response) interactions? This is not entirely clear to me from the spec.

uglyog

2019-08-24 23:34

No, they have to be separate. That?s something we?re planning for the v4 format

bart.schotten

2019-08-25 07:16

v3 isn't final yet is it? :wink: At least, the readme makes it seem like it's still in a "proposal" state, and not everything is covered by testcases.

uglyog

2019-08-25 07:25

V3 was released with Pact-VM over two years ago. It would not be fair to users to change it now

bart.schotten

2019-08-25 09:48

One other small question about the "include" matcher: does the check that the actual value is included in the expected value, or the other way around? And is it only supposed to work with strings?

uglyog

2019-08-25 22:45

Yes, it works on strings and checks that the actual value includes the value associated with the matcher.

jenpresly18.jps

2019-08-26 04:55

has joined #general

bart.schotten

2019-08-26 05:29

Thanks!

r.deboer

2019-08-26 14:37

has joined #general

gcao

2019-08-26 19:31

has joined #general

rikkiprince

2019-08-26 22:50

has joined #general

serge.a.silva

2019-08-27 07:09

has joined #general

serge.a.silva

2019-08-27 07:23

Hey everyone! Following up from this issue https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-net/issues/197#issuecomment-525138624 as suggested by Beth. Pact-net has been flagged for having a CVE that comes from the version of Ruby that was bundled with it. In the above thread, I mention two CVEs. The first one is a false negative, but the second is correct and it is flagged with maximum severity. We're trying to ramp up my team to use it, but having been flagged means we'll have to look at something else. Beth mentioned there's plans to port pact-net to switch over to the Rust implementation (instead of bundling Ruby in the DLL). I'd like to continue using Pact. What would be the best way to move forward and get green on pact-net? If rewriting part of it to rely on the Rust version, have there been other examples of pact implementations that are based off of the Rust one? Is there a quicker solution? Thanks!

matt.fellows

2019-08-27 07:55

hiya!

matt.fellows

2019-08-27 08:12

OK so we?d love some help on this

matt.fellows

2019-08-27 08:13

Here is an example PoC that Ron put together that implements an MVP pact JS interface build on the rust bindings: https://github.com/uglyog/pact-js-v3-poc

matt.fellows

2019-08-27 08:13

We literally discussed this today

matt.fellows

2019-08-27 08:16

I?ll ping you again a little later to discuss more, just getting to the end of my train journey :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2019-08-27 08:16

but sufficed to say - this is moving toward the top of my list for JS/Golang

serge.a.silva

2019-08-27 08:17

Nice, I'll take a look!

serge.a.silva

2019-08-27 08:17

Sure ping me when available, I'd also like to have a rough estimate of how long this will take me!

serge.a.silva

2019-08-27 08:31

Could code under native be reused?

serge.a.silva

2019-08-27 08:44

(I'm not a rust expert :smile:)

matt.fellows

2019-08-27 13:34

Anyone here based in Perth? Beth will be visiting next week... https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bethanyskurrie_activity-6571535304581312512-ElaI

matt.fellows

2019-08-27 13:35

Cc: @neil :point_up:

alvina.putri

2019-08-27 20:30

has joined #general

nathan2oo3

2019-08-27 21:21

Thanks @bethskurrie that helped a lot. One thing though I have tried running your Ruby script for inserting self signed certs but keep getting errors even after installing the dependent gems. Is it possible to manually import the certs into the database?

matt.fellows

2019-08-27 23:15

So the short answer is no, the code there wouldn?t be reusable, because it uses Neon which is a Rust to JS interface. This has benefits (no need for the ugly FFI bindings) but means that we?ll need a small wrapper for each language to achieve it. The alternative is a shared dynamic library, which means we can write it once, but will have some of the downsides of ?crossing the boundary?. It might be a situation that we start with that, and evolve to another interface

matt.fellows

2019-08-27 23:16

@uglyog might have other thoughts, however

serge.a.silva

2019-08-28 00:07

Since I'd like to keep using Pact, I'd prefer the quicker way (of course, in a way that can be improved overtime) :smiley:

uglyog

2019-08-28 00:12

A wrapper in each language over a shared library means that you can create DSLs and tooling that take advantage of the idioms specific to that language. A shared library designed to be used by everyone means the interface becomes the "lowest common denominator", in essence a C interface.

serge.a.silva

2019-08-28 00:18

So a shared library still seems useful?

uglyog

2019-08-28 00:19

There is an existing shared library. The interface still needs some work.

uglyog

2019-08-28 00:21

There is an example of using it with Javascript, Ruby and C here :point_right: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference

serge.a.silva

2019-08-28 00:21

Oh, which one is it? I'd like to at least plan out the work we'll need to do for a replaced C# version

serge.a.silva

2019-08-28 00:21

Nice :+1:

serge.a.silva

2019-08-28 00:27

Would the current C# dsl/library be a good end result to aim for (ie only change the implementation)? Or is it in your plans to change them too?

uglyog

2019-08-28 00:30

I would try to reuse what is there. That's what I did with the Javascript POC, I took an existing JS test and got it working using the shared library

serge.a.silva

2019-08-28 00:31

Great, I'll do that then.

uglyog

2019-08-28 00:32

If you need any help, let me know. I was planning at looking into the .NET implementation after I'm done with the JS one

serge.a.silva

2019-08-28 00:32

Thanks folks! I'll be sure to come back here with some news :smile: How stable is the Rust implementation btw?

uglyog

2019-08-28 00:32

It's been used by a few people

deshdeepdivakar

2019-08-28 08:27

hi @here can we generate `RequestResponsePact` automatically. So, that I don't have to write the json body myself. I read somewhere using jackson object mapper but not entirely sure. Please share your thoughts. ```package example.consumer import au.com.dius.pact.consumer.dsl.PactDslJsonBody object PactUtil { fun jsonRpcMethodRequest(methodName: String): PactDslJsonBody = PactDslJsonBody() .stringType("id") .stringType("jsonrpc", "2.0") .stringType("method", methodName) fun jsonRpcMethodResponse(): PactDslJsonBody = PactDslJsonBody() .stringType("id") .stringType("jsonrpc", "2.0") }```

evman182

2019-08-28 22:43

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-08-28 22:47

I'm not sure if a tool exists, but I suppose it's possible to write one?

matt.fellows

2019-08-28 22:47

As long as you still write the test case around it, it's a viable approach.

matt.fellows

2019-08-28 22:48

In go, we use tags (like an annotation) that dry the tests up in the way you describe

jing.song

2019-08-29 04:04

has joined #general

sarajcarbajal

2019-08-29 09:16

has joined #general

joao

2019-08-29 13:31

has joined #general

christopher.f.almanza

2019-08-29 15:17

People who are experienced with Pact, what do you find useful to put in the `upon receiving` property of a Pact Interaction object:

christopher.f.almanza

2019-08-29 15:18

1. a sentence that describe an operation: `uponReceiving: 'a latest news request'`

christopher.f.almanza

2019-08-29 15:18

2. the actual endpoint: `uponReceiving: 'GET /news'`

christopher.f.almanza

2019-08-29 15:19

please vote with a :thumbsup: emoji, and thank you very much :slightly_smiling_face:

enrique

2019-08-29 15:21

I?d reword a bit, something like `'a request to get the latest news'` or `'a query to get the latest news about the market'` or something similar

christopher.f.almanza

2019-08-29 16:07

Quick question, does matcher `like() / somethingLike()` will match by type also properties that are array of objects? ie: ``` student: somethingLike({ firstName: 'john', courses: [{ name: 'Math', }], }) ``` will the courses `name` be also matched by type?

david862

2019-08-29 17:54

Thanks for the feedback, how would you ensure that a mock return value for the XYZClient class, used in the test for some part of the service layer, stays in sync with the response in the contract test?

davidjgmendes

2019-08-29 18:11

Greetings, I am finding a weird (at least for me) behavior when validating contracts on the provider side using junit. The verifications results are only published whenever they are successful. For example: I forgot to implement a state change on the provider side that was defined on the consumer side. The test failed because i didn't implement it but because the result of that specific pact fragment was not published the matrix said i could deploy. I don't understand this behavior can someone clarify. Thanks in advance

davidjgmendes

2019-08-29 19:02

Is this behavior intended ?

akhteraa

2019-08-29 19:24

has joined #general

uglyog

2019-08-29 22:53

Yes, the matchers cascade

uglyog

2019-08-29 22:54

No, that seems like a defect

kian.leong

2019-08-30 08:08

has joined #general

davidjgmendes

2019-08-30 08:39

I thought so, I can PM u some more detailed information if that would help

uglyog

2019-08-30 09:37

Raise an issue for that, please.

simon.nizov

2019-08-30 09:53

Hi all, I was getting the following error when trying to publish verification results back to the broker: ``` Error returned from verification results publication 400 {"errors"=>{"provider_version"=>["can't be blank", "Version number '' cannot be parsed to a version number. The expected format (unless this configuration has been overridden) is a semantic version. eg. 1.3.0 or 2.0.4.rc1"]}} (Pact::Provider::VerificationResults::PublicationError) ``` Downgrading the `pact` gem version from `1.41.0` to `1.26.0` solved the issue. I?m running the official Dockerized broker version `dius/pact-broker:2.27.6-2`. What is this about? Were there braking changes since that release?

bethskurrie

2019-08-30 09:54

We're up to 2.36

bethskurrie

2019-08-30 09:54

That's a very old version.

bethskurrie

2019-08-30 09:55

The latest Pact Broker versions just order the provider version by date. You don't need a semantic version number

bethskurrie

2019-08-30 09:57

It does also look like your provider version is empty.

simon.nizov

2019-08-30 09:59

I think it's passed to the broker under a different name

simon.nizov

2019-08-30 09:59

Same exact configurations in pact_helper.rb but with the downgraded version works like a charm

bethskurrie

2019-08-30 09:59

It should be "providerApplicationNumber". Pretty sure the publishing code is fine. Just upgrade your broker.

bethskurrie

2019-08-30 10:00

Hm. I'd recommend upgrading to the latest.

simon.nizov

2019-08-30 10:00

Will do. Thanks!

bethskurrie

2019-08-30 10:00

There are performance and other issues with the older versions, including a vulnerability with the webhooks.

davidjgmendes

2019-08-30 10:04

Raised https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/issues/930

davidjgmendes

2019-08-30 10:04

if u need more info say something

apurvjpatel

2019-08-30 13:05

has joined #general

nyarasha

2019-08-30 18:37

has joined #general

priyank.shah217

2019-08-31 11:56

I am new to PACT, Have a question: In my consumer side, i am able to generate pact file with json array (2 entries) with some fields. The json contract uploaded to pact-broker successfully. But while running this file against producer, which basically ingest some random data on those json fields (entries may vary, and data could be any random). due to this eventually my contract test failed. returns a response which has status code 200 (OK) has a matching body (FAILED) So now question is i am more interested into json schema, not in content matching. Is there any way to just focus on those part using pact.

priyank.shah217

2019-08-31 12:03

Do i need to set state from provider side in order to get matched response ? (using directly ingesting data into repository)?

simon.nizov

2019-08-31 12:14

I suggest you have a look here: https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/matching#response-matching On one hand, ?it doesn?t matter what value the provider actually returns during verification, as long as the types match?. On the other, it?s not recommended to use random data for pacts because it will fool the broker into thinking that the pact has changed which will cause some unwanted behavior.

priyank.shah217

2019-08-31 13:30

Thanks @simon.nizov

priyank.shah217

2019-09-01 04:54

I really done my weekend exercise successfully by implementing pact for one of pet project. https://github.com/priyankshah217/ContractTestingExample.git Nice documentation @bethskurrie @uglyog and whole pact team...

simon.nizov

2019-09-01 14:18

@bethskurrie I upgraded our broker to the latest version and still getting the same error :cold_sweat:

simon.nizov

2019-09-01 14:18

Is there an easy way to log the full HTTP request sent to the broker?

serge.a.silva

2019-09-01 21:11

a bit challenging to build pactnet on a mac :slightly_smiling_face:

simon.nizov

2019-09-01 21:29

More on my issue above.. I managed to track down the specific change that is causing my issue. In the release of `v1.27.0` of the Pact gem there is a change in the way the gem calls the broker. `#to_json` is not called on `verification_result` anymore. See here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby/compare/v1.26.0..v1.27.0#diff-2aa19ad532bad3f2050ce3b3aff47b0dL94 The `to_json` method is critical because it translates `provider_application_version` to `providerApplicationVersion`. Not calling it causes the payload sent to the broker to change from what it?s like in `v1.26.0`: `{success:false, providerApplicationVersion": "1.0.0.fake"}` to what it?s like in `v1.27.0`: `{publishable: true, success: false, provider_application_version: "1.0.0.fake", test_results_hash: {?}}` The broker then throws a validation error due to not finding the `providerApplicationVersion` key. As can be seen in the following spec: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/blob/master/spec/lib/pact_broker/api/contracts/verification_contract_spec.rb#L74 But if what I?m saying is correct, how is publishing provider verification results working for anyone that is using the latest versions of pact? Am I going crazy here? Any help is welcome!

matt.fellows

2019-09-01 21:43

Thank you! :pray:

milleniumbug

2019-09-02 09:09

has joined #general

milleniumbug

2019-09-02 14:08

I am interested in the efforts of writing a C# wrapper over a Rust library myself. @serge.a.silva is your repository public anywhere?

serge.a.silva

2019-09-02 14:21

I was working on top of pactnet (which is public) but didn't get very far.

milleniumbug

2019-09-02 14:25

Fair enough. I'm gonna do the same approach for now.

serge.a.silva

2019-09-02 14:26

Do create a branch when you get somewhere!

milleniumbug

2019-09-02 14:27

sure

florian.nagel

2019-09-03 07:46

I'm unfortunately based in Germany, but I'd still like to see the talk. Will it be recorded and published online afterwards by any chance?

matt.fellows

2019-09-03 08:02

Beth has given this talk before, I?ll dig up the link?

florian.nagel

2019-09-03 08:02

Ah! Thanks a bunch

matt.fellows

2019-09-03 08:05

matt.fellows

2019-09-03 08:06

It?s not quite the same talk, but the gist is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79GKBYSqMIo&feature=youtu.be

florian.nagel

2019-09-03 08:06

Thanks Matt! Will check it out :smile:

emils.solmanis

2019-09-03 12:56

has joined #general

patryk.skrzymowski

2019-09-03 13:01

has joined #general

thomas.rappos

2019-09-03 23:19

has joined #general

abhishek04002

2019-09-04 01:35

has joined #general

matt400

2019-09-04 03:39

has joined #general

lotsabackscatter

2019-09-04 03:39

has joined #general

simon.nizov

2019-09-04 07:47

@bethskurrie @matt.fellows - I would love your input on this

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 07:51

Hey. Let me have a look.

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 07:58

Yes, you can turn --verbose on @simon.nizov

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 07:59

Ok, so the results I just published look like this: ``` { "providerName": "Pact Broker", "providerApplicationVersion": "0ec26e835373b56410e2b69371e99fa254943e76", "success": false, "verificationDate": "2019-09-04T10:36:21.885+10:00", ```

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 07:59

I'm on version 1.41.0 of pact

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:00

If you're on 1.27, then I think there was a bug in that version that has been fixed since.

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:02

Which language are you running your verifications in?

simon.nizov

2019-09-04 08:08

Ruby, Pact v1.41.0

simon.nizov

2019-09-04 08:10

Which component is responsible for building that payload?

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:10

``` class VerificationResult def initialize publishable, success, provider_application_version, test_results_hash @publishable = publishable @success = success @provider_application_version = provider_application_version @test_results_hash = test_results_hash end def publishable? @publishable end def provider_application_version_set? !!provider_application_version end def to_json(options = {}) { success: success, providerApplicationVersion: provider_application_version, testResults: test_results_hash }.to_json(options) end def to_s "[success: #{success}, providerApplicationVersion: #{provider_application_version}]" end private attr_reader :success, :provider_application_version, :test_results_hash end ```

simon.nizov

2019-09-04 08:11

So where are `providerName` and `verificationDate` coming from in your payload? :S

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:12

good question

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:13

oh, that's the response

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:13

they get added

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:13

let me find the request

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:14

``` opening connection to localhost:9292... opened <- "POST /pacts/provider/Pact%20Broker/consumer/Pact%20Broker%20Client/pact-version/dd27a7b453e63d32428f48f772eb93cd7e525e7f/verification-results HTTP/1.1\r\nAccept-Encoding: gzip;q=1.0,deflate;q=0.6,identity;q=0.3\r\nAccept: application/hal+json, */*\r\nUser-Agent: Ruby\r\nContent-Type: application/json\r\nAuthorization: [redacted]\r\n" <- "{\"success\":false,\"providerApplicationVersion\":\"0ec26e835373b56410e2b69371e99fa254943e76\",\"testResults\":{\"tests\":[{\"testDescription\":\"has status code 200\",\"testFullDescription\" ```

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:14

I just hacked `@verbose = true` in `lib/pact/hal/http_client.rb`

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:15

what version of ruby are you using?

simon.nizov

2019-09-04 08:15

2.6.3

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:16

hm. I don't have 2.6 on this machine, and I can't install it over hotel wifi to try it unfortunately.

simon.nizov

2019-09-04 08:17

That?s so weird that I?m getting this payload: `{publishable: true, success: false, provider_application_version: "1.0.0.fake", test_results_hash: {?}}` then

simon.nizov

2019-09-04 08:17

who is calling `to_json` on `verification_result`?

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:18

I'm not sure myself. I'm just investigating.

simon.nizov

2019-09-04 08:19

:thinking_face:

simon.nizov

2019-09-04 08:19

Which ruby are you using? I?ll install it and try

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:19

2.4.5

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:20

I've got 2.5.1 though

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:26

``` def post(payload = nil, headers = {}) wrap_response(href, @http_client.post(href, payload ? JSON.dump(payload) : nil, headers)) end ```

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:26

`lib/pact/hal/link.rb`

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:27

I wonder if the behaviour of JSON.dump has changed

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:28

I'm surprised I used json dump instead of to_json. Normally, I'd to_json things. I wonder what I was thinking.

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:30

In irb with ruby 2.6, run this code and tell me what you get @simon.nizov

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:30

``` require 'json' class VerificationResult def initialize publishable, success, provider_application_version, test_results_hash @publishable = publishable @success = success @provider_application_version = provider_application_version @test_results_hash = test_results_hash end def to_json(options = {}) { success: success, providerApplicationVersion: provider_application_version, testResults: test_results_hash }.to_json(options) end private attr_reader :success, :provider_application_version, :test_results_hash end JSON.dump(VerificationResult.new(true, true, "1", {})) ```

simon.nizov

2019-09-04 08:31

one sec, nokogiri is taking forever to install :smile:

simon.nizov

2019-09-04 08:31

(bundling for 2.4.4 that I already have)

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:32

ah nokogiri

simon.nizov

2019-09-04 08:34

``` [5] pry(main)> JSON.dump(VerificationResult.new(true, true, "1", {})) => "{\"success\":true,\"providerApplicationVersion\":\"1\",\"testResults\":{}}" ```

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:35

that looks fine! I dont' know what's going on.

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:36

that's the exact code that should be running.

simon.nizov

2019-09-04 08:36

yeah so weird

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:36

In `lib/pact/hal/http_client.rb` set `@verbose = true` and then run the publication.

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:37

I need to expose that flag in the api.

simon.nizov

2019-09-04 08:44

``` <- "POST /pacts/provider/Ecommerce%20Server/consumer/Rocky/pact-version/9915c87556e8a24e716f0e38140f9b983219ce01/verification-results HTTP/1.1\r\nAccept-Encoding: gzip;q=1.0,deflate;q=0.6,identity;q=0.3\r\nAccept: application/hal+json, */*\r\nUser-Agent: Ruby\r\nContent-Type: application/json\r\nHost: localhost:9292\r\nContent-Length: 2576\r\n\r\n" <- "{\"publishable\":true,\"success\":false,\"provider_application_version\":\"1.0.0\",\"test_results_hash\":{\"tests\":[{\"testDescription\":\"has status code 201\",\"testFullDescription\":\"Verifying a pact between Rocky and Ecommerce Server A request to start a punchout new session with POST /api/punch_out/sessions.json returns a response which has status code 201\",\"status\":\"failed\",\"interactionProviderState\":null,\"interactionDescription\":\"A request to start a punchout new session\",\"exception\":{\"class\":\"RSpec::Expectations::ExpectationNotMetError\",\"message\":\"\\nexpected: 201\\n got: 400\\n\\n(compared using eql?)\\n\"},\"actualStatus\":400},{\"testDescription\":\"has a matching body\",\"testFullDescription\":\"Verifying a pact between Rocky and Ecommerce Server A request to start a punchout new session with POST /api/punch_out/sessions.json returns a response which has a matching body\",\"status\":\"failed\",\"interactionProviderState\":null,\"interactionDescription\":\"A request to start a punchout new session\",\"exception\":{\"class\":\"RSpec::Expectations::ExpectationNotMetError\",\"message\":\"Actual: {\\\"message\\\":\\\"param is missing or the value is empty: buyer_cookie\\\"}\\n\\nDiff\\n--------------------------------------\\nKey: - is expected \\n + is actual \\nMatching keys and values are not shown\\n\\n-{\\n- \\\"start_page_url\\\": \\\"String\\\"\\n-}\\n+{}\\n\\n\\nDescription of differences\\n--------------------------------------\\n* Could not find key \\\"start_page_url\\\" (keys present are: message) at $\"},\"actualBody\":{\"message\":\"param is missing or the value is empty: buyer_cookie\"},\"differences\":[{\"description\":\"Could not find key \\\"start_page_url\\\" (keys present are: message) at $\"}]},{\"testDescription\":\"\\\"Content-Type\\\" which equals \\\"application/json; charset=utf-8\\\"\",\"testFullDescription\":\"Verifying a pact between Rocky and Ecommerce Server A request to start a punchout new session with POST /api/punch_out/sessions.json returns a response which includes headers \\\"Content-Type\\\" which equals \\\"application/json; charset=utf-8\\\"\",\"status\":\"passed\",\"interactionProviderState\":null,\"interactionDescription\":\"A request to start a punchout new session\",\"actualHeaders\":{\"Content-Type\":\"application/json; charset=utf-8\",\"Cache-Control\":\"no-cache\",\"X-Request-Id\":\"bb2794c8-bad5-4df2-b151-150d107fc24a\",\"X-Runtime\":\"0.341292\",\"Vary\":\"Origin,Accept-Encoding\",\"Content-Length\":\"66\"}}],\"summary\":{\"testCount\":3,\"failureCount\":2},\"metadata\":{\"warning\":\"These test results use a beta format. Do not rely on it, as it will definitely change.\",\"pactVerificationResultsSpecification\":{\"version\":\"1.0.0-beta.1\"}}}}" ```

simon.nizov

2019-09-04 08:45

:cold_sweat:

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:45

so confused

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:45

so, you used the same ruby to do that little experiment as to run that code?

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:46

In `lib/pact/hal/link.rb:47` add a `puts JSON.dump(payload)`

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:46

also do a `puts payload.to_json`

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:46

see if they're different

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:47

also, do you have active record in this project?

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:47

or any other JSON libraries?

simon.nizov

2019-09-04 08:49

in debug from within the project JSON.dump doesn?t call to_json

bethskurrie

is there a JSON library you're using that might have monkeypatched JSON dump?

simon.nizov

I have active record as a dependecy of rails but we use mongoid instead

bethskurrie

If you view the source of JSON.dump what do you get?

simon.nizov

Maybe `Oj`

simon.nizov

let me check

bethskurrie

https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/user-interface/#contract-published-with-changed-content-or-tags

Ah, Oj is a likely candidate.

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:51

I've had issues with it before

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:51

``` $ JSON.dump From: /Users/bethanyskurrie/.gem/ruby/2.4.5/gems/json-2.2.0/lib/json/common.rb @ line 384: Owner: #<Class:JSON> Visibility: public Number of lines: 20 def dump(obj, anIO = nil, limit = nil) if anIO and limit.nil? anIO = anIO.to_io if anIO.respond_to?(:to_io) unless anIO.respond_to?(:write) limit = anIO anIO = nil end end opts = JSON.dump_default_options opts = opts.merge(:max_nesting => limit) if limit result = generate(obj, opts) if anIO anIO.write result anIO else result end rescue JSON::NestingError raise ArgumentError, "exceed depth limit" end ```

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 08:55

Ok, I've just released 1.41.1 with to_json instead of JSON.dump. Can't think of a good reason why it's JSON.dump, and no tests broke when I changed it.

simon.nizov

2019-09-04 09:05

Yeah it looks like it?s Oj although I?m not sure what exactly is happening

simon.nizov

2019-09-04 09:05

Thanks!!

bethskurrie

2019-09-04 09:06

NP.

milleniumbug

2019-09-04 12:27

I managed to build Rust reference library and wrote some C# P/Invoke bindings here https://github.com/milleniumbug/pact-rust-net However, it seems that the exposed C API from Rust isn't enough to replicate current Ruby-based implementation features - among other things, selecting a specific IP address (e.g. localhost) instead of listening to any, adding and clearing interactions, and so on. Also no C API for pact verifier. How should I approach this? Should I create my own Rust crate that provides a C API for this first?

milleniumbug

2019-09-04 12:58

Or should I send PRs to pact-reference project with additional C API functions? @uglyog

milleniumbug

2019-09-04 13:08

I'm also exploring the idea of using pact-matching library from C#, so it would be possible to use http://ASP.NET Core's TestServer with contract tests. This is, OTOH, is optional for now, since it means partially reimplementing Pact features in C#.

nathan2oo3

2019-09-04 16:31

Hi @bethskurrie I managed to get the certs imported but still it gives us ssl errors when executing the webhooks. Is there a way to verify that the ssl certs have been imported into the database successfully?

guillermo.castro

2019-09-04 18:26

has joined #general

priyank.shah217

2019-09-05 03:32

Have a question, Shall i used pact for CDC if my producer and consumer deployed in AWS lambda?

bethskurrie

2019-09-05 03:38

How are your lambdas operating @priyank.shah217? Are they returning a synchronous response, or are they just accepting and sending messages?

priyank.shah217

2019-09-05 03:52

Its sync APIs

bethskurrie

2019-09-05 03:53

We're working on support for this, but it's not done yet unfortunately.

priyank.shah217

2019-09-05 03:53

I just referred https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/tree/master/examples/serverless but its moreover about async API..can we have something for sync apis also?

bethskurrie

2019-09-05 03:54

We realise it's a great use case for pact.

priyank.shah217

2019-09-05 04:12

:+1:

dvallabhuni206

2019-09-06 01:02

has joined #general

kiranpatel11

2019-09-06 01:31

has joined #general

kiranpatel11

2019-09-06 02:54

has anyone considered pact consumer library for http://force.com apex language? not sure if it is even feasible considering ruby dependency and apex being cloud/interpreted language. (I am not http://force.com/apex guy, but experienced pact user now)

rafael.santos.193

2019-09-06 17:20

has joined #general

thirumal.net

2019-09-06 19:25

@kiranpatel11 - i don't think there is a out of box support for SFDC but i think still you can use below CLI tools to accomplish the same

thirumal.net

2019-09-06 19:25

There is no pact native support to C++/SFDC/SAP but still it is possible to write pacts for C++/SFDC/SAP projects https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference How to write a consumer test, without a consumer language / DSL support https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service/blob/master/script/example.sh how to write a provider test, without provider language / DSL support https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases

uglyog

2019-09-06 23:03

If your lambda functions are deployed via API gateway, you can just treat them like a normal HTTP server

uglyog

2019-09-06 23:22

Please send any PRs. I'm also happy to help. We need to work out a good interface.

uglyog

2019-09-06 23:23

I'm going to split the Rust mock server library into a core one and an FFI one which we can expand as you need

serge.a.silva

2019-09-08 06:22

@milleniumbug how?s it going? can I help with anything?

kiranpatel11

2019-09-09 00:10

Thanks for the response, I did looked at the example.sh earlier, but it mentions that interactions to be written by respective pact DSL. Since there is not DSL for SFDC, what's the best way to write. I am considering to keep it along with SFDC codebase and integrating with CI/CD pipeline.

florian.nagel

2019-09-09 08:05

Hello beautiful Pact people, quick question. Have any of you used Pact in an async communicating environment in larger projects? If so, what difficulties did you encounter? And what do you think has to happen to have async CDC testing be as good as sync CDC testing? (@matt.fellows I'll just tag you as well so I don't clutter your mail inbox) Any and all feedback or experiences are welcome! Have a wonderful day.

sahil.goyal2

2019-09-09 12:22

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-09-10 02:42

Sorry all if I haven?t returned any messages for a little bit - was away for the past 4 days. Ping me if I?ve ignored you :stuck_out_tongue:

matt.fellows

2019-09-10 02:42

> And what do you think has to happen to have async CDC testing be as good as sync CDC testing? What do you mean by this, sorry?

serge.a.silva

2019-09-10 05:30

Keep in mind, using the Ruby version might get you flagged for a couple of nasty CVEs depending on your SDL/compliance practices.

gigo1980

2019-09-10 08:48

has joined #general

gigo1980

2019-09-10 08:57

Hi, i have seen that the pact broker ui reference to an external project `pactflow`. Will they contribute the ui changes also back to the project?

bethskurrie

2019-09-10 09:04

Hi Enrico. There are no plans to open source the Pactflow UI, as it is part of a commercial product offering.

gigo1980

2019-09-10 09:05

Ok, and will be a onprem solution available in the future ?

kimsia

2019-09-10 09:13

has joined #general

uglyog

2019-09-10 09:40

We are looking into how to offer an on-prem version of Pactflow. At the moment it is tied to a cloud provider?s services, so would need to be decoupled from that.

milleniumbug

2019-09-10 14:46

I'm currently evaluating Pact, and I have a question regarding its use case. My situation is that I have several microservices, each one has its own existing test suite, with the test suite launching the HTTP microservice, and sending it a request, and examining its response. In production, the service calls other services, but in tests, we're using mocks instead. I believe that using Pact mock services instead of regular mocks here will improve coverage across multiple services, since these tests will make each service "cross-check" requests/responses against each other (instead of the service assuming in its own tests what will the other service respond). I am new to contract testing, however, and I'm not sure if this is intended approach, and whether this approach is right (if it's not an anti-pattern)

milleniumbug

2019-09-10 15:02

I am currently trying out this approach on our two services, and it seems to work on consumer side, but provider side is a bit involved, since it involves a single call to `.Verify()` which issues provider state change POST requests, and the requests stored in the pact json, but our existing tests are running xUnit-style arrange-act-assert way. I understand that since the provider has to be aware of what provider states it has to set up, the contract tests could also be done that way, except that pact verifier would have to 1.) read the pact file, to collect all request/response pairs 2.) allow to "emit" a stored request based on the (description, state) pair, and then verify the response 3a.) raise an error in case not all of the requests stored in the pact file would be emitted (which would mean the consumer added a case, and team responsible for provider need to write code to handle that provider state) 3b.) issue requests for the remaining, not "emitted" previously, and see if the provider handles it 4.) send the overall results to the pact broker

milleniumbug

2019-09-10 15:16

@uglyog A separate FFI lib is a great idea. I have a question wrt stability of the lib. Is it fine if I introduce breaking changes in the pull requests?

milleniumbug

2019-09-10 15:19

Asking because I wrote this a few days ago https://github.com/milleniumbug/pact-reference/commit/b48ee725205cfcd1874c5f15a5368509cb7d09a4 while attempting to FFI the lib from C# I was boggled why I get firewall prompts from Windows, and it turned out that by default in PactNet we're listening on localhost, rather than any (so requests never leave the computer they're sent on)

milleniumbug

2019-09-10 15:23

My Rust skills are limited, but I know C# and C++, and I'm comfortable with writing bindings

milleniumbug

2019-09-10 15:36

My plan is: - "ripping away" the Ruby guts from the lib, and replacing anything that calls into the process with stub calls, so I can see where these parts are - compiling all the features that we need to have in order to achieve feature parity with the original Ruby code, in a comprehensive list - evaluate features and see what FFI interface would be most suitable for these - implement the FFI on Rust side (and possibly the features that aren't there yet in Rust code itself) - replace the stub calls with calls to FFI - make existing PactNet test suite pass with the new Rust implementation - extend the PactNet library with my use cases

milleniumbug

2019-09-10 15:46

I'm not sure *where* are the Ruby parts in particular yet, so these parts (point 1 and 2) are where I could use some help Also I don't know yet how to bundle native .dlls in a way that will work in both 32-bit and 64-bit windows - this is a new thing in comparison with the Ruby implementation, which didn't have that requirement (separate processes are launched just fine because there's no shared address space, but a 32-bit process must load a 32-bit library, and 64-bit process must load a 64-bit library)

lwillmeth

2019-09-10 21:03

has joined #general

swu

2019-09-10 21:10

has joined #general

ckotyan

2019-09-10 21:17

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-09-10 21:36

What would he the main barrier to not go with a SaaS product here?

matt.fellows

2019-09-10 21:37

Be*

jasonbarr.za

2019-09-11 07:20

has joined #general

german.schnyder

2019-09-11 15:38

has joined #general

athayes.ca

2019-09-11 20:19

has joined #general

anthony.hayes

2019-09-11 20:19

has joined #general

sankarkumar.ponnusamy

2019-09-11 23:39

has joined #general

dan184

2019-09-12 12:29

has joined #general

dan184

2019-09-12 12:38

Hi all, thanks in advance for helping out and providing pact as open source :slightly_smiling_face: I'm trying to get a consumer test running on my linux machine, which I'm pretty sure worked on my mac yesterday, but I keep getting ``` Pact verification failed - expected interactions did not match actual. ``` I can see that Pact is hitting the provider with the right method, path and the right body is being returned. I suspected that headers weren't matching, but I can't see where. 1) Is there any reason this shouldn't work on linux versus mac? can't think of one 2) Any way of debugging how the matching is determined? Loglevel at debug doens't provide any clues - just says missing request

weina.liu

2019-09-12 15:23

has joined #general

weina.liu

2019-09-12 15:28

hello, everyone. we are working on researching tool of gRPC contract testing. does PACT support gRPC?

jainvarz

2019-09-12 17:22

has joined #general

dperez

2019-09-12 17:23

hi @neil hope everything goes good on your end. I was wondering if you could help us merging the latest master into the branch message-pact. Thanks a lot!

neelofer.tamboli

2019-09-12 22:06

Hi Beth. We have a similar situation where two different versions of our web application can be in prod at the same time. How can we ensure any new PRs support both versions? I am still understanding the pact tags. We have a gradle task to verify the pact using `pactTag=production`. How can we verify both production tags every time? We are using a CD workflow so the production tags can change rapidly.

bethskurrie

2019-09-12 22:08

@weina.liu no it doesn't, through we're interested in how it might be added.

bethskurrie

2019-09-12 22:09

@dan184 can you provide an executable example please?

bethskurrie

2019-09-12 22:10

What's else is in the logs in the log file?

bethskurrie

2019-09-12 22:13

@milleniumbug One way to simplify this is to use a "normal" mock to mock downstream calls when you are verifying the upstream pact. Then use a shared artifact in the pact tests for the downstream pact to make sure that you're keeping the two sets of tests in sync.

bethskurrie

2019-09-12 22:14

Or, you could generate the downstream pact first, and then parse the requests/responses from that pact to set up your "normal" mocks in the upstream pact verification.

bethskurrie

2019-09-12 22:16

@neelofer.tamboli we're releasing a new verification api soon that will allow you to say "all pacts with the prod tag" instead of just "the latest Pact with the prod tag". You'll need to remove the prod tag from the versions you no longer wish to verify to make this work.

bethskurrie

2019-09-12 22:17

For now, the easiest way might be to keep track of the version numbers explicitly.

bethskurrie

2019-09-12 22:18

@nathan2oo3 yes, look in the database.

bethskurrie

2019-09-12 22:19

I think there's a way to disable ssl checks entirely.

bethskurrie

2019-09-12 22:20

It may not be exposed via an env var in the docker container though.

bethskurrie

2019-09-12 22:22

Oh yes it is

bethskurrie

2019-09-12 22:22

PACT_BROKER_DISABLE_SSL_VERIFICATION

neelofer.tamboli

2019-09-13 02:11

Thank you. Do you know when it will be out?

p0deje

2019-09-13 03:58

Hey folks, I?m in the process of building a proper ?Pact Nirvana? (https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vRf1kSDccImNipOOm1G-bjcSs-ifbZjf1v54K-dIcq8BLKeFPAAm_bf_p71UKqkRMIx30QWWL-kN8TI/pub) for 2 services and things work perfectly fine until I start dealing with _production_ tag verification. After thinking about how to develop services independently, I thought that every Git feature branch of every service (regardless if it?s provider or consumer) needs to be checked against _production_ version of the other service. This seems to be easily done on the provider side, but not on the consumer. On the consumer side, I set up 2 _contract_content_changed_ webhooks: 1. The first webhook triggers the provider verification on provider?s _master_ Git branch (or feature branch). 2. The second webhook triggers the provider verification on provider?s _production_ revision (step #8 of the document). The problem is reporting the results back to the Github? I tried using _contract_published_ webhook, but it only checks the latest version of the provider, so it can?t ensure that consumer is compatible with the provider?s _production_ if the contract is not changed. And when the contract is changed, it doesn?t know about provider version tags, so it reports to Github with any tags at all. And only after verification results are published, they are shown in Github. Has anyone faced similar issue? I?m attaching few screenshots to explain it more.

p0deje

2019-09-13 04:00

This is how it looks when contract_published and the content is not changed. Only _master_ is reported.

p0deje

2019-09-13 04:00

This is how it looks when contract_published and contract content is changed.

p0deje

2019-09-13 04:01

And finally this is how it looks when verification results are published from CI. The first is for master provider. The second is for production provider.

matthias.laug

2019-09-13 05:56

has joined #general

p0deje

2019-09-13 06:42

I guess it worths checking out #protobufs

bethskurrie

2019-09-13 06:48

I'm hoping to release it Thursday week.

bethskurrie

2019-09-13 06:49

I've scheduled a day in!

bethskurrie

2019-09-13 07:16

@p0deje I don't have time to sit down and work through the details of your challenge, but try reading the updated document here: https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/pact_nirvana#d-configure-pact-to-be-verified-when-contract-changes

bethskurrie

2019-09-13 07:17

It might have something that the old doc doesn't explain.

bethskurrie

2019-09-13 07:17

You can pass the tags of the pact in the webhook template.

bethskurrie

2019-09-13 07:18

The other thing to consider is, sometimes putting the full logic of what you want to achieve into the webhook is not possible. In that case, it's best to trigger an intermediate build which can do the logic of which branch to test against which branch.

p0deje

2019-09-13 07:21

Thanks @bethskurrie, I?ll go through the doc you pointed out.

p0deje

2019-09-13 07:22

I know that I can pass the tags in the webhook template, but it seems like Broker is unaware of the tags when contract is changed. Like in https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1568347257107500?thread_ts=1568347127.106900&cid=C5F4KFKR8

bethskurrie

2019-09-13 07:29

There was a bug in some of the implementations where the tagging was done after the pact was published, instead of before.

bethskurrie

2019-09-13 07:29

It should have been fixed in all the impls now. Try upgrading.

p0deje

2019-09-13 07:50

I?ll try, thanks. Just to be sure, _contract_published_ webhook only checks latest revision, right? It?s impossible to use to ensure the contract is also verified against provider?s _production_ tag.

bethskurrie

2019-09-13 07:54

Contract published doesn't check anything. It gets triggered each time.

bethskurrie

2019-09-13 07:55

Contract content changed goes through each of the tags that it has, and sees if the previous version with that tag is different

bethskurrie

2019-09-13 07:56

I'm confused as to your problem. The only way to ensure a new contact is verified against the prod version of a provider is to check out that version of the provider and verify the changed pact against it.

p0deje

2019-09-13 07:57

Oh, so if provider has revision that has both _master_ and _production_ tag, contract_content_changed will check both tags?

p0deje

2019-09-13 07:59

I?ll read the guide now again, I?m confused as well :disappointed:

nathan2oo3

2019-09-13 09:37

Great. Thanks Beth I figured it out had to modify your script to pull the script from another location and cat it into the DB. We don't want to have to turn off ssl verification.

robin

2019-09-13 09:38

*edited*

bethskurrie

2019-09-13 09:48

Hi @robin it will help if you ask in the channel for your language. The techniques will vary based on which language you're using.

robin

2019-09-13 09:48

Hi beth, got it, I?ll transfer my message in the appropriate channel

bethskurrie

2019-09-13 09:50

> Oh, so if provider has revision that has both _master_ and _production_ tag, contract_content_changed will check both tags? Yes

bethskurrie

2019-09-13 09:52

lauri.vaeaenaenen

2019-09-13 09:53

has joined #general

p0deje

2019-09-13 11:34

> If your pact is published with tags applied to the consumer version, then you can think of all the pacts that share the same tag name as forming a time ordered ?pseudo branch?. So I?m confused. It will only check consumer version tags, not provider. So if I work in consumer?s feature branch, contract_content_changed will never be triggered for _production_ tag because consumer version doesn?t have it.

bethskurrie

2019-09-13 23:10

Why would it check the provider tags?

bethskurrie

2019-09-13 23:12

The pact doesn't have provider tags.

bethskurrie

2019-09-13 23:13

The contract_content_changed will be triggered for the production tag when you tag the consumer version you just deployed to prod.

bethskurrie

2019-09-13 23:14

It won't get triggered on pact publication, no.

tati.shep

2019-09-15 11:49

has joined #general

kiranpatel11

2019-09-16 07:32

see if this visualization helps...!! happy to be corrected. We are using this model and seems to be good enough. In adition, consumer can publish pact from specific feature branch when provider isn't ready with implemenation yet.

bethskurrie

2019-09-16 08:35

Fantastic diagram @kiranpatel11

admin

2019-09-16 13:17

has joined #general

neelofer.tamboli

2019-09-16 20:49

Cool. Thank you. Please let me know when it is available. I'll be looking at the release notes meanwhile.

simonmeulenbeek

2019-09-17 08:41

has joined #general

gs201m

2019-09-17 12:31

Error throws as HTTP BAD RESPONSE. STatus message says wrong number of arguements. Can someone help?

gs201m

2019-09-17 12:32

#general Guys recently all our pact tests are failing with weird error. We tried to find root cause by just adding response 200 assertion it?s still failing

matt.fellows

2019-09-17 22:32

what have you tried to diagnose? What language are you using? What?s changed?

catrionamcgarvey

2019-09-17 22:32

has joined #general

jfister

2019-09-17 23:00

has joined #general

tjones

2019-09-18 05:15

Could you paste the full error message, please?

tsalvin

2019-09-18 08:14

has joined #general

tsalvin

2019-09-18 08:19

Hi, has anyone used .and/.or with the Lambda DSL object? I'm not sure it's supported like in the non lambda version after checking the docs, but i'd like to check that value is either null or a stringtype https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/consumer/pact-jvm-consumer-java8

borsuk.artem034

2019-09-18 08:33

Hi, it's not supported at all, check this https://docs.pact.io/faq#why-is-there-no-support-for-specifying-optional-attributes

tsalvin

2019-09-18 08:37

That explains it perfectly, thanks for the response!

tom.mcardle

2019-09-18 10:33

has joined #general

p0deje

2019-09-18 11:05

@kiranpatel11 Thanks for this awesome diagram! May I just clarify one point related to ?Verify Consumer Change?? The consumer publishes the contract with ?master? tag and Pact-Broker will check if contract is changed only for ?master?, ignoring ?prod?. So, is it theoretically possible that contract is _not_ changed for provider?s ?master? but is changed for provider?s ?prod??

vhbsouza

2019-09-18 20:10

has joined #general

vhbsouza

2019-09-18 20:53

@matt.fellows I searched in this channel and couldn't find how to do it (I think is due to the slack 10k message history limit). Do you have a link or something else about it? And I'm using Java.

matt.fellows

2019-09-19 01:51

Java supports XML, but doesn?t have the same richness in the DSL as JSON (see https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/issues/243)

matt.fellows

2019-09-19 01:52

I?m not aware of any public example using it

matt.fellows

2019-09-19 01:52

You need to use the `XmlBodyMatcher`

uglyog

2019-09-19 02:07

See https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1564502864138100

tritorto

2019-09-19 02:10

has joined #general

wongso_a

2019-09-19 07:14

has joined #general

talshoef

2019-09-19 07:22

has joined #general

dianaszaharia

2019-09-19 10:22

has joined #general

kiranpatel11

2019-09-20 01:36

@p0deje There are two things that can potentially break the working contract 1. Consumer (master) or 2. Provider (master) When consumer publishes new contract, verification should happen against _head_ and _prod_ codebases of the provider. When provider introduces a new change, it verifies the same against the _head_ and _prod_ pacts of the consumer. That way, we can keep the changes from both pacticipants in check by mean of ensuring all combinations !! That's what is famously refferred as Pact Metrics !! I hope it makes sense.

kiranpatel11

2019-09-20 01:37

I assumed the branching strategy to be trunkbaseddevelopment here. As i mentioned earlier, in addition to this you may also use feature branches for early feedback on compatibility, however, they are not expected to be verified always due to WIP implementation.

kiranpatel11

2019-09-20 01:40

@p0deje I think your assumption is incorrect, when consumer publishes new contract, you get a trigger using a webhook. As part of that trigger, you should perform verification against the _head_ and _prod_ version of provider codebase.

kiranpatel11

2019-09-20 01:45

While publishing verification results to pact-broker, we can provider provider version, However, I did not find any documentation on tagging at the same time. is it possible to tag provider upon publishing verification results to pact-broker ?

bethskurrie

2019-09-20 01:46

Yes, that's the way it's meant to happen.

bethskurrie

2019-09-20 01:46

What library are you using?

kiranpatel11

2019-09-20 01:52

pact-jvm

bethskurrie

2019-09-20 01:53

maven or gradle?

kiranpatel11

2019-09-20 01:53

maven

bethskurrie

2019-09-20 01:53

I'd have a look at the code for the maven pact publishing. It may be that the tags are just not exposed in that task yet.

bethskurrie

2019-09-20 01:54

They should be however - if they're not, raise an issue (or even better, I can help you work on a PR, as I know Ron is super busy at the moment).

bethskurrie

2019-09-20 01:54

You can also just call the tagging API directly. It's just a PUT to http://broker/pacticipants/PACTICIPANT/versions/VERSION/tags/TAG.

bethskurrie

2019-09-20 01:55

You need to do the tagging before the verification publication however, so that the right info is present in the webhooks when they get kicked off.

kiranpatel11

2019-09-20 01:57

At the moment, I am explicitly using cli to tag once the verification is performed - success or failed.

bethskurrie

2019-09-20 01:57

if you're relying on the tags in the webhooks, then they won't be present.

bethskurrie

2019-09-20 01:58

Otherwise, you'll be ok.

kiranpatel11

2019-09-20 01:58

I think i will need to rely on the webhooks to retry can-i-deploy on consumer side, its WIP.

kiranpatel11

2019-09-20 02:00

let me check the docs again, if needed I will work on PR

bethskurrie

2019-09-20 02:01

We appreciate everyone's contributions. It's a big job to keep everything going and up to date.

kiranpatel11

2019-09-20 02:06

Sure, btw I am in Melbourne only, hope to catch up with you guys someday.:slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2019-09-20 02:06

That would be awesome :slightly_smiling_face:

kiranpatel11

2019-09-20 02:26

I found this is flagged as an enhancement https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/issues/823

neelofer.tamboli

2019-09-20 03:47

This is what I should be looking at right? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md

bethskurrie

2019-09-20 03:48

yes, it will be in there

neelofer.tamboli

2019-09-20 03:57

How do we ensure backward compatibility? What we are doing right now: 1. Create a webhook for Provider which invokes provider Jenkins build when a contract changes. This calls the Jenkins pipeline of the provider, latest master branch. 2. When a contract is changed by consumer, the provider build runs and posts result back to the consumer build. I am not sure I understand how backward compatibility works with this if the master branch of provider has more changes than the provider service deployed on production.

p0deje

2019-09-20 04:43

Right, thanks for clarifying, Kiran

kiranpatel11

2019-09-20 04:48

~<@UHPHAN078> Hope this diagram helps you understand.~

kiranpatel11

2019-09-20 04:52

Please check this good old blog by @bethskurrie https://www.rea-group.com/blog/enter-the-pact-matrix-or-how-to-decouple-the-release-cycles-of-your-microservices/

kiranpatel11

2019-09-20 04:55

https://www.rea-group.com/blog/enter-the-pact-matrix-or-how-to-decouple-the-release-cycles-of-your-microservices/

nithinmohan114

2019-09-20 07:42

has joined #general

yuma.higashiyama

2019-09-20 11:58

has joined #general

neelofer.tamboli

2019-09-20 14:14

Perfect, thank you. Exactly what I was looking for.

simonmeulenbeek

2019-09-20 14:46

hey Pact-users, I have a (hopefully) simple question... I'm using pact-jvm-consumer-java8_2.12, and i'm trying to generate pacts on my consumer side. I'm encountering an error where my requests don't get matched with the expected requests, because i'm sending objects with extra key-value pairs. I was under the assumption that creating a expectation will create a sort-of 'minimum viable request', where extra key-value pairs are accepted as long as the expected fields are present

simonmeulenbeek

2019-09-20 14:47

am i wrong in this assumption??

simonmeulenbeek

2019-09-20 14:47

relevant part of my dsl:

simonmeulenbeek

2019-09-20 14:48

` PactDslJsonBody() .stringValue("service_operation", OPERATION_CANCEL_ITEMS) .eachLike("items", 1) .uuid("id") .closeArray()

simonmeulenbeek

2019-09-20 14:48

`PactDslJsonBody() .stringValue("service_operation", OPERATION_CANCEL_ITEMS) .eachLike("items", 1) .uuid("id") .closeArray()`

simonmeulenbeek

2019-09-20 14:48

hmm code tags apparently don't work

simonmeulenbeek

2019-09-20 14:49

the 'eachLike' array holds objects that contain at least an id. When I send objects that also contain other keys it fails with error: " mismatch=Expected a Map with 1 elements but received 2 elements"

simonmeulenbeek

2019-09-20 14:51

I'm probably not using the right arraytype. But tbh it's pretty confusing, there are no docs for the DSL language, and The javadoc isn't that much clearer either

borsuk.artem034

2019-09-20 15:30

Hi, can you share exaple of json?

neelofer.tamboli

2019-09-20 16:53

... but never found a link from anywhere online.

matt.fellows

2019-09-21 02:35

Can you please move this to #pact-jvm ?

uglyog

2019-09-21 03:30

That is true when verifying the provider extra fields will be ignored. But in the consumer test, you are in control of the test so you should be sending the correct attributes to match your expected request.

hoangthaikt07

2019-09-21 08:48

has joined #general

abubics

2019-09-22 23:35

You want to use the triple ` for multi-line code :slightly_smiling_face:

kanaga.chinnappan

2019-09-23 13:19

has joined #general

bart.schotten

2019-09-23 14:12

For a large international company that has to integrate both Java and .NET services I have developed an alternative Pact implementation for .NET that is more compliant with Pact-JVM. It has (at least for our practical purposes) full support for Pact Specification V3, so that includes Message Pacts. From a user perspective it works a bit like a mix of Pact-NET and Pact-JVM (it has a similar DSL). It's not quite a 1.0 version yet, but it's currently already being used in practice, so feel free to check it out: https://github.com/bartschotten/com-pact I want to note that although this goes against the Pact policy of using a common (ruby/rust) core for each implementation, I hope the effort is still appreciated. If nothing else, developing a new implementation from the ground up raised some questions about the details of the Pact Specification that may help to sharpen its definition.

rajendra.sidhu

2019-09-23 16:29

has joined #general

tkimia

2019-09-23 18:31

has joined #general

mpglover

2019-09-24 01:52

As someone who has been toying with a native implementation for Elixir I just want to :+1: your efforts. I agree that it's a good way to ensure the specification is really solid.

uglyog

2019-09-24 02:19

It's not so much a policy as a way to quickly get a language implementation working. Could you announce it in the pact-net channel?

rootuid

2019-09-24 08:58

has joined #general

rootuid

2019-09-24 09:04

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-python/ it's a year since the last commit to that repo. Wondering if there is an alternative fork that is progressing ?

simon.nizov

2019-09-24 09:06

Have a look at https://github.com/reecetech/pactman

rootuid

2019-09-24 09:07

ahh excellent, thanks @294simon

fabio

2019-09-24 09:08

has joined #general

fabio

2019-09-24 09:11

hello

s.roodhorst

2019-09-24 09:46

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-09-24 10:28

:wave: hello new friends!

matt.fellows

2019-09-24 10:29

Awesome stuff Bart. Thanks for getting involved!

george.papas

2019-09-24 11:41

has joined #general

tkimia

2019-09-24 14:30

Hey all, I'm looking for info about the state of message based contracts in ruby. It seems like there are a few repos in the pact-foundation https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-message-ruby that suggest that this is not usable yet.

mohsin

2019-09-24 14:55

has joined #general

mohsin

2019-09-24 15:00

hi, I'm unable to sign into my account. I just registered a few mins back and the email/temp password doesn't work

mohsin

2019-09-24 15:02

could someone please help me @here

mohsin

2019-09-24 15:52

nevermind, I figured it out.

k.sciana

2019-09-24 18:29

has joined #general

erica.kastner

2019-09-24 21:09

has joined #general

george.papas

Hello pactarians. Is anyone using pact or contract testing with grpc?

bethskurrie

Hi George!

bethskurrie

There's a channel for it.

george.papas

hey Beth!

bethskurrie

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/blob/master/script/prod/clean-up.sql

No implementation yet, but some discussion.

george.papas

2019-09-24 23:32

protbuf channel ?

george.papas

2019-09-24 23:32

cheers, i?ll take a look

bethskurrie

2019-09-24 23:33

There was another Matt working on an implementation. I'm not sure if our history goes back far enough for me to remember who though!

george.papas

2019-09-24 23:34

got it, looks like I can get back to may 7th

george.papas

2019-09-24 23:34

matt constable?

bethskurrie

2019-09-24 23:34

Could be!

jack

2019-09-25 10:23

has joined #general

fabio.sortino

2019-09-25 12:06

has joined #general

fabio

2019-09-25 12:13

hello i have a question regarding pact.........i have that problem that the pacts generated cannot be replayed against the mock..the consumer is written in pact js...the pact will be generated and also published on the pact broker. when i run pactVerify the contracts will be verified against the original provider this is working..but i am not able to run the tests against the mock..what i am doing wrong???

fabio

2019-09-25 12:13

Request Failed - Connect to 127.0.0.1:8114 [/127.0.0.1] failed: Connection refused: connect

fabio

2019-09-25 12:14

i always get the error connection refused

fabio

2019-09-25 12:18

logfile output

jorge.florian

2019-09-25 13:12

has joined #general

zoeabryant

2019-09-25 15:20

has joined #general

mbieganski.infomatt

2019-09-25 16:24

has joined #general

tritorto

2019-09-26 04:35

Hi Guys, im after a bit of guidance on `best practices` for consumer versioning - I read that using the git-sha is a possibility to use for the consumer version when publishing to the pact broker - I'm wondering if it means that upon a commit to our dev or master branch for example, we would set the consumer version to the git-sha (with the corresponding branch tag) and push that up via our CI/CD- this would happen irrespective of if a pact file change has happened or not?

bethskurrie

2019-09-26 04:37

Correct.

bethskurrie

2019-09-26 04:37

The broker handles the versioning of the pact content for you.

uglyog

2019-09-26 04:38

When you say "replayed against the mock", what do you mean?

bethskurrie

2019-09-26 04:38

You just push it and tell it which consumer version it belongs to, and it will deal with the rest.

tritorto

2019-09-26 04:39

excellent - I think im finally getting my head around versioning and tagging. I suppose we would see our matrix get fairly big over time, is there something we should be doing to manage that maybe?

bethskurrie

2019-09-26 04:39

yes, there is a clean up script.

bethskurrie

2019-09-26 04:39

I've been meaning to add it to the docker container and have it run at a regular interval.

bethskurrie

2019-09-26 04:40

tritorto

2019-09-26 04:40

oh nice - we are using docker for local development but pactflow will be our dev environment, once I finish up my POC and demo it to my team... is this something to handle in Pactflow also?

bethskurrie

2019-09-26 04:41

If you notice your queries taking too long, let us know, and we can clean it up for you.

tritorto

2019-09-26 04:41

yea makes sense! thanks :slightly_smiling_face:

angela.gloyna

2019-09-26 05:54

has joined #general

s1apped

2019-09-26 06:00

Hi I have some problem with junit provider , pactbroker and gradle. I try to set PactBroker properties in gradle like test { systemProperty 'pactbroker.tags', 'test' systemProperty 'pactbroker.host', 'url' systemProperty 'pact.provider.version', 'version' systemProperty 'pact.verifier.publishResults', 'true' I'm getting error : Did not find any pact files for provider This works just fine @PactBroker(host = "url", scheme = "http", tags = {"ests"}). Am I missing something?

bethskurrie

2019-09-26 06:01

@s1apped best to ask in #pact-jvm

s1apped

2019-09-26 06:03

thanks!

liam.williams

2019-09-26 11:11

has joined #general

schmittol

2019-09-27 10:58

has joined #general

peter.lockwood

2019-09-27 13:14

has joined #general

rbhati

2019-09-27 13:44

has joined #general

pkuang

2019-09-30 02:43

Hi, I was wondering if there is any plans for a C++ DSL ?

matt.fellows

2019-09-30 02:48

It?s come up, but no specific plans yet

srinivasan.anusha

2019-09-30 03:09

has joined #general

ckaptan

2019-09-30 13:34

Hello everyone. I am running into the following error when publishing to pact broker `PactBroker::Client::Error - {"error":{"message":"The maximum number of integrations has been added to your account."}}`. Any idea how to resolve this? Thanks.

samuel.hodgkinson

2019-09-30 14:41

Are you using PactFlow? If so, there's a limit of 5 contracts on the free developer instances (https://pactflow.io/pricing/)

alex.thayn

2019-09-30 20:41

has joined #general

me_pact

2019-09-30 20:54

has joined #general

andreas.thurn

2019-10-01 05:30

has joined #general

andreas.thurn

2019-10-01 05:33

We are having the same issue. We are using DiUS hosted pact. We've got 14 integrations so far.

bethskurrie

2019-10-01 05:42

Hi guys. @andreas.thurn you will be one of our beta customers, from before the official "Pactflow" launch, when it was just a hosted version of the OSS codebase.

andreas.thurn

2019-10-01 05:44

That's existing. Does that mean we are falling into the 5 integrations limit or do we have unlimited contracts?

bethskurrie

2019-10-01 05:44

@ckaptan you will be on our Pactflow free developer plan, which has a limited number of integrations (as Sam pointed out, this is noted on the pricing page). This plan is meant to allow developers to do an effective proof of concept to work out if Pactflow is the right product for them, but you will need to choose one of the paid plans if you would like to use Pactflow at scale.

bethskurrie

2019-10-01 05:47

@andreas.thurn your contracts will not be limited, however, if you would like to use some of the fancy new features (webhooks editing and testing UIs, secrets management, SSO, lovely new UI that isn't built with jquery ... :laughing: ) then you'll need to move to one of the paid plans. As one of our beta users though, you would be offered a discounted rate. Feel free to send us an email about it.

bethskurrie

2019-10-01 05:48

Actually, Andreas, I'm confused as to how you're getting limited at 14 contracts. The only limit we have is 5 - all other plans are unlimited.

andreas.thurn

2019-10-01 05:49

I guess that we added 14 contracts before the limit was set in place :thinking_face:

bethskurrie

Ah, that would make sense.

nayaksurajr

has joined #general

bethskurrie

You must have been one of our very first offical Pactflow customers, after we launched.

bethskurrie

https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/pact_nirvana#d-configure-pact-to-be-verified-when-contract-changes

You get 9 bonus contracts then!

iago.quirino

2019-10-01 09:39

has joined #general

reachbharathan

2019-10-01 09:58

has joined #general

mtimbs91

2019-10-01 12:04

has joined #general

nouri.tawfik

2019-10-01 12:34

has joined #general

phall

2019-10-01 13:23

We (@ckaptan and I are in the same organisation) are on the DiUS-hosted non-pactflow version. Is this a new limit?

phall

2019-10-01 13:24

This has encouraged us to move to Pactflow proper, so I guess it worked :wink:

rbhati

2019-10-01 18:17

@here need a quick help, I'm trying to use pack in one of our contract test and the simple ask is to know how can I set `pact_json_filename` variable, goal is to specify the filename

rbhati

2019-10-01 18:23

@bethskurrie ^^ please help

hande.sagar

2019-10-03 04:15

has joined #general

hande.sagar

2019-10-03 04:26

Hi All , currently I am facing one problem , when trying to publish pact contract for rest provider.

hande.sagar

2019-10-03 04:26

This is the mvn Command we are using in our Jenkin pipeline: MVN cmd: mvn pact:verify -P contract-tests,no-asciidoc -Dpactbroker.host=http://kube-pact -Dpact.verifier.publishResults=true -Dpact.provider.version=fc7194df2b341fbada3c7c2fa0f1ef96abe5f59d -Dpact.tag=feature/FMPSU-236-pact-for-phase-3-4 This is the Error we are getting: 1 @PactVerification then " Verification Failed - No annotated methods were found for interaction 'A GET request to retrieve package with id `04398eb4-0f57-4056-b2ea-aa45bf5c4bfd`.'. You need to provide a method annotated with @PactVerifyProvider("A GET request to retrieve package with id `04398eb4-0f57-4056-b2ea-aa45bf5c4bfd`.") that returns the message contents. " 2. We have added @PactVerifyProvider with method verifyPackage then we got another error ?Verification Failed - Failed to invoke provider method 'verifyPackage'?. If any one has some idea about this issue please revert back to me.

bethskurrie

2019-10-03 04:27

Best to ask on the #pact-jvm channel @hande.sagar

hande.sagar

2019-10-03 04:30

Thanks

bethskurrie

2019-10-03 04:39

@rbhati best to ask on the channel for your language. We have 8+ different implementations and I don't know which one you're talking about.

phillip.goff

2019-10-03 13:16

has joined #general

rootuid

2019-10-03 13:42

Hi @channel, I'm making a requests.get to the pactman mock server but I get a 500 + "received but no interaction registered" back. It appears the mock server is up,returns a 500 and the message as per this code https://github.com/reecetech/pactman/blob/67e17532dc0dff4e41c33cb98cb747670fa6adf2/pactman/mock/mock_server.py#L104 . I don't however know why it's happening :disappointed:

rootuid

2019-10-03 13:43

any advice or code examples much appreciated :slightly_smiling_face:

rootuid

2019-10-03 14:30

more testing: ... talking to the the mock server using any string receives the same response. What defines a registered interaction ?

rootuid

2019-10-03 15:08

my code for reference `import atexit` `from pactman import Consumer, Provider` `import requests` `pact = Consumer('Consumer').has_pact_with(Provider('Provider'), use_mocking_server=True)` `pact.start_mocking()` `print('server on {}'.format(pact.uri))` `atexit.register(pact.stop_mocking)` `def testabc():` ` path = '/test/123')` ` pact.given(` ` 'blah'` ` ).upon_receiving(` ` 'a GET request'` ` ).with_request(` ` method='GET',` ` path='/test/123'` ` ).will_respond_with(200, body={'status': 'FAILED'})` ` response = requests.get(pact.uri+path, "")` ` print(response.status_code)` ` print(response.text)` ` assert (response.status_code == 200)`

rbhati

2019-10-03 17:06

@bethskurrie i'm working on python

dhiral.kaniya

2019-10-03 20:01

has joined #general

dhiral.kaniya

2019-10-03 20:53

Hello everyone, I am new in Pack.

dhiral.kaniya

2019-10-03 20:53

I want to implement pack for my dropwizard application. Can anyone suggest the resource link ?

abubics

2019-10-03 23:29

First, I'd jump in #pact-jvm :slightly_smiling_face:

abubics

2019-10-03 23:31

Then I'd start looking at readmes here: https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm

abubics

2019-10-03 23:32

Also, some getting started guides here: https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/jvm

bethskurrie

2019-10-04 00:04

@rbhati which python implementation? Pact-python or pactman?

matt.fellows

2019-10-04 02:48

Pact?

ttola

2019-10-04 09:26

has joined #general

joseph.haig

2019-10-04 13:35

has joined #general

joseph.haig

2019-10-04 13:48

I have a question that I suspect may have the answer (a) that is not what Pact is for or (b) that has already been answered ? (and possibly also (c) why would you want to do that?). Sorry if this is the the case. For an API (pact provider, I think is the correct terminology) I would like to have a wrapper library that deals with all the http calls. This wrapper library would then be used by the client application instead of making all the API calls explicitly. I know that I can create the contract between the wrapper library and the API but, in terms of checking the contract during deployment, I want to do this in the client application. Is there a correct way to set this up? Should I (and is it possible to) create a contract between the client application and the wrapper library? I have already done this (some time ago) and the solution I came up with is that the client application copies the contract from the wrapper library and submits that as its own, but this doesn?t feel right.

david862

2019-10-04 16:12

Funnily enough we?ve run into the same issue this week. Agree copying the contract is weird yeah.. :shrug:

dhiral.kaniya

2019-10-04 16:35

Thanks @abubics for update

swaroopshere

2019-10-05 17:59

has joined #general

stewart.henderson

2019-10-05 21:50

has joined #general

sabino_lrs

2019-10-06 03:15

has joined #general

dannybrown2710

2019-10-07 10:24

has joined #general

dannybrown2710

2019-10-07 10:31

Hi , Can anyone help me with setup of pact broker. I dont find sufficient content to setup locally. Also, is there any wrapper available to setup using nodejs? Thanks in advance

matt.fellows

2019-10-07 10:41

Hi Danny. There is no NodeJS wrapper (it's a Ruby app). The wiki itself is pretty clear, the only prerequisite is a working Ruby setup

matt.fellows

2019-10-07 10:42

Alternatively you could use something like Pactflow to save you managing your own

iruben91

2019-10-07 12:50

What opinions are out there about mocking internal code dependencies for Provider tests? In our APIs, we already have component tests that should test the application?s real code behaviour (such as ?return 404 if no entity found?). Our controllers receive the request and send it to a query handler, take the result, and convert it to the response model. In this scenario, could mocking out the application?s query handler and just return what?s expected be enough? Would you see any major flaws in this approach?

jack.middleton

2019-10-07 13:39

has joined #general

tony.ibbs

2019-10-07 14:13

has joined #general

yosevuk

2019-10-07 18:13

has joined #general

yosevuk

2019-10-07 18:18

Hello! I have a question about when to use `pactBrokerUrl` versus `pactUrls` when setting up provider [verification options](https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js#verification-options). Are you supposed to use `pactUrls` when you have a provider with more than one consumer pact broker URLs that you want to be able to verify independently?

yosevuk

2019-10-07 18:26

Oh, I should ask this in the pact-broker channel :blush:

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-10-07 18:28

Hi Yosevu, we have the same setup (1 provider, multiple consumers). In case when provider verification CI job is triggered by a change in provider codebase, we simply verify that all consumer contracts are satisfied (we pass `pactBrokerUrl`, `consumerVersionTag`, `pactBrokerUsername`, `pactBrokerPassword`) In case when provider verification is triggered by pact broker (when contract is changed for a specific consumer), we pass `PACT_URL` of a changed contract to provider?s CI job as a build param and then start provider verification with the following opts: `{ pactUrls: [process.env.PACT_URL], pactBrokerUsername, pactBrokerPassword }`. This allows us to verify only a changed contract. Hope, this answers your question

sabitha_alamaddi

2019-10-07 19:08

has joined #general

sabitha_alamaddi

2019-10-07 19:11

Hi, Does Pact support Spock framework?

yosevuk

2019-10-07 19:43

Hey Vitalii, thanks for sharing! Yes, it looks like we have a similar setup. So, as I understand you verify all the consumer contracts with `pactBrokerUrl` when the provider changes, but only individual consumers when they change the contract with `pactUrls`?

ruben.perezg

2019-10-07 20:10

That's the same approach I've implemented :man-shrugging: I'm not an expert by any means, so take it with a grain of salt... But as far as I understand it, it should be just what these tests would need

abubics

2019-10-07 21:39

Sounds like a #pact-jvm question :) But yes, it's possible to write pact consumer tests using Spock. But how you prefer to run them may change whether you want to.

bethskurrie

2019-10-07 22:12

@yosevuk yes, exactly. You can read about this in the Effective Pact setup guide on http://docs.pact.io

bethskurrie

2019-10-07 22:13

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-10-08 07:27

yes, @yosevuk

hefnat

2019-10-08 10:03

has joined #general

carolin.wiechert

2019-10-08 11:53

has joined #general

yosevuk

2019-10-08 14:31

Great, thank you both!

pkuang

2019-10-08 15:54

Hi, is there a recommended/supported workflow for a consumer who is also a library that is a dependency of another consumer? eg. Consumer A integrates with Provider X (A -> X) Consumer B pulls in the Consumer A library so by transitivity, B -> X so we need to make sure the current version of A used in B is compatible with Provider X Currently we establish this relationship by having library A publish its pacts with every release and having consumer B source these pacts, overwrite the 'consumer' field to B, and publishes it along with any pacts generated from B. This allows the provider X to verify against all use cases of its API possibly hit by B to ensure B is using a compatible version of the library A As a side note, we only require the provider verify against the latest version of library A but ensure compatibility with older versions of A only if they are actively used by other consumers via the pact merging method above. Our current solution is not scalable since we don't have an automated way for B to detect which of its library deps contains pact integrations and it is even more complex when there is a longer dep chain, eg. For provider X and provider Y, there exists library consumer A -> X and library consumer C -> Y, where consumer B deps on A and A deps on C, so the resulting integrations are C -> Y, A-> X, A -> Y (transitively), B -> X & B -> Y (transitively) Let me know if we're doing something wrong here or if there is some established workflow that supports this. Thanks!

rbhati

2019-10-08 17:17

hi @bethskurrie appreciate your response, I'm on pactman

rbhati

2019-10-08 17:18

I think in last few days i burned all my brain juices to understand how pact works, however now i'm brain dead after I been blocked by pact-verifier

rbhati

2019-10-08 17:22

my test script is ``` import unittest from pactman import Consumer, Provider import requests import atexit pact = Consumer('Joor-UI').has_pact_with(Provider('Atlas'), file_write_mode="overwrite", # pact_dir=, port=8155, use_mocking_server=True) pact.start_mocking() atexit.register(pact.stop_mocking) class AtlasRetailerName(unittest.TestCase): def test_get_retailer_name(self): expected = { "errors": [ { "extensions": { "code": "UNAUTHENTICATED" }, "message": "Context creation failed: Missing auth" } ] } pact.given( 'test_data_setup' ).upon_receiving( 'a request for UserA' ).with_request( 'POST', '/' ) .will_respond_with(400, body=expected) with pact: response = http://requests.post(pact.uri) print(response.json()) ```

rbhati

2019-10-08 17:24

this works with -> ```pact-verifier``` however I want to make a http request for test data setup that returns a json and I must retrieve values out of json to proceed

rbhati

2019-10-08 17:25

#pact-python please help ^^

ckotyan

2019-10-08 17:52

Oops

ckotyan

2019-10-08 17:55

sorry wrong window

dannybrown2710

2019-10-08 18:34

Thanks for your help. Was facing issues with sqlite

matt.fellows

2019-10-09 00:15

:+1:

matt.fellows

2019-10-09 00:15

For a real app you should use Postgres or MySQL

tmok01842

2019-10-09 00:20

Hi all - I've got an error to report. My company has a pact broker account and when people are attempting to view the matrices they're getting 'internal server error'

uglyog

2019-10-09 00:22

Please ask in the #pact-broker channel

tmok01842

2019-10-09 00:23

Ah, ok. Thanks

jovallep

2019-10-09 05:41

has joined #general

olaniyanayobamijr

2019-10-09 06:34

has joined #general

nsshinde27

2019-10-09 10:05

has joined #general

grzegorz.polek

2019-10-09 14:22

has joined #general

catrionamcgarvey

2019-10-09 14:47

Hi - are there any pitfalls if I have a service which is both a provider and a consumer using Pact? specifically if I publish/verify it in the broker with the same name as a consumer and provider respectively?

mauricio.galeas

2019-10-09 15:38

has joined #general

pravera

2019-10-09 17:27

Hi! We?ve worked with many services which are consumer and provider at the same time, and there?s no issue with that. You will have to do the proper consumer/provider configuration and that?s it! They will appear in the pact-broker as different rows for each role.

pravera

2019-10-09 17:30

As you can see, each pact will have the provider and consumer specified in the URL, so in this case, so if the service is consumer and provider, the URL?s are going to be different. `https://broker-base-url/matrix/provider/provider_name/consumer/consumer_name`

matt.fellows

2019-10-09 23:02

The broker should handle this scenario just fine. It?s very common.

bethskurrie

2019-10-10 00:37

Make sure the names match, or you won't be able to use can-i-deploy @catrionamcgarvey

giuseppemath

2019-10-10 01:24

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-10-10 01:44

Sorry, I started responding properly to this and then got sidetracked (:baby: ). Thanks Beth

tritorto

2019-10-10 06:17

I?ve done something similar - in that we are using a nuget package of the provide library which contains the ?models? and httpclient (generated via refit) that the client consumes - this of course is all .net packaging, but it seems to work well for us and we use that in the consumer side with type matching to generate the pacts

alexander.schwartz

2019-10-10 07:21

has joined #general

catrionamcgarvey

2019-10-10 09:28

thank you! :slightly_smiling_face:

elain.kelly

2019-10-10 14:50

has joined #general

elaine.kelly

2019-10-10 14:51

has joined #general

harshavardhan.kavuri

2019-10-10 15:25

has joined #general

harshavardhan.chowdar

2019-10-10 15:27

has joined #general

ryan.dens

2019-10-10 16:06

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2019-10-10 20:31

@rbhati you'll need to talk to the pactman author. That's not the same as pact-python

stanko.s.petkovic

2019-10-10 21:32

has joined #general

sai.bolam

2019-10-11 09:43

has joined #general

florian.nagel

2019-10-11 10:27

Hey all! Apart from the multiple language support offered by Pact, what other benefits are there to use Pact in favor of for example Spring Cloud Contract?

p0deje

2019-10-11 10:29

~AFAIK The latter doesn?t support messages (e.g. pub/sub, websocket)~

p0deje

2019-10-11 10:30

AFAIK The latter doesn?t support messages (e.g. pub/sub, websocket)

florian.nagel

2019-10-11 10:50

@p0deje That's what I believed as well. Do you know if they have introduced that recently? As I can recall I didn't see it the first time I was making inquiries about CDC testing.

gabriel.pichot

2019-10-11 10:57

has joined #general

antonello

2019-10-11 11:19

IT does support messages https://cloud.spring.io/spring-cloud-contract/reference/html/project-features.html#features-messaging

florian.nagel

2019-10-11 11:39

Sorry, I misphrased that. Do you know *when* they introduced that feature? Sorry about the confusion

vsoto26

2019-10-11 13:41

has joined #general

vsoto26

2019-10-11 13:44

Hello! Has anyone used Pact with the Quarkus framework? Is it supported?

p0deje

2019-10-11 14:41

@antonello As far as I understand, Spring Cloud Contract is limited to a particular message protocol that is used by Spring, isn?t it? Pact on the other hand allows to use messages for any kind of asynchronous communication (e.g Kafka, WebSocket).

matt.fellows

2019-10-12 22:52

If it works on the JVM it should, but I don?t know enough about the specifics. I believe it?s JVM binary compatible, so in theory it should right?

mark.chambers

2019-10-13 13:31

has joined #general

florian.nagel

2019-10-13 13:46

The Spring cloud contract documentation does state that it supports integration for various messaging queues like for example Kafka, or RabbitMQ, but don't quote me on this.

florian.nagel

2019-10-14 08:43

@matt.fellows What's your take on this? You are probably more informed on this topic than I am.

darragh.grace

2019-10-14 10:59

has joined #general

venkateshmca2002

2019-10-14 11:03

has joined #general

venkateshmca2002

2019-10-14 11:12

Hi... I am trying out pact JVM. I want to test a resource accepting POST request and expects JSON as payload. I wish to validate the contents of the payload. Is it possible to do it pact. Am i right to expect this out of pact... would appreciate any inputs in this regard. thanks

hstene

2019-10-14 11:56

Yes. Yes, it is. All of this should be documented on http://pact.io and on the pact-jvm github

matt.fellows

2019-10-14 13:48

They are roughly equivalent as stated above. SCC have done a great job, and have also worked hard to get integration with Pact happening via serialising to a pact file (thereby allowing more choice of tools/hybrid Pact/SCC rollouts and also integration with our pact broker. The big differences outside of language specific are tighter integration with the Pact Broker workflows (CI/CD) and the approach to messaging / async. SCC is tighter integrated into Spring libraries and common tools, whereas we decouple ourselves from the various tools and focus more on the payload moving between them

matt.fellows

2019-10-14 13:49

It's been a while since I've looked deep into SCC, there are likely differences in how to do the matching.

florian.nagel

2019-10-14 14:42

Thank you for the input! Appreciate it. It's more or less what I thought, but it's great to have some confirmation. Cheers!

akazantseva2

2019-10-14 16:16

has joined #general

safiyya

2019-10-14 16:47

has joined #general

novyludek

2019-10-14 17:39

has joined #general

kah.goh

2019-10-14 21:44

has joined #general

gaurav.chhabra

2019-10-15 02:24

has joined #general

mateusz.zalewski

2019-10-15 07:41

has joined #general

dannybrown2710

2019-10-15 09:49

Hi Team, I have a doubt, is there any way to categorize pacts for projects in Pact broker(open source)? The UI to show pacts looks over populated and is alphabetically sorted, which doesn't help in categorizing. Thanks in advance.

matt.fellows

2019-10-15 10:22

Unfortunately not, sorry!

colin.bean

2019-10-15 14:08

has joined #general

tjones

2019-10-15 23:57

You could achieve this by prefixing consumer names with projects

neil.syrett

2019-10-16 09:37

has joined #general

akiro

2019-10-16 10:26

has joined #general

akiro

2019-10-16 10:57

Hi Team Could you please help me to clarify next part of documentation https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/provider#only-stub-layers-beneath-where-contents-of-the-request-body-are-extracted How deep is better to stub in three-tier architecture (transport details => business logic => data resources)? I have two options: 1). Stub business logic completely - it will allow me to keep tests simple, but at the same increase possibility of someone forgetting about them during code changes, which would lead to an incorrect contract, because stub would still return old version of the data. 2). Stub only third-party interacted to which we don't access to - for example, we are using a real database without any stubs, but still stub interactions with other microservices (maybe with pact as well). As minus it would make the provider side of contact tests similar to API testing of the microservice. From my perspective first one better reflects the essence of contract testing, but narrowing the scope only to the transport interaction.

florian.nagel

2019-10-16 11:22

For anyone wondering when the feature was introduced. I have asked on their gitter and apparently they have supported messaging queues before Pact did. I neither know why I have missed it nor why it only recently came to my attention. @p0deje Pinging you because you were holding the same belief as I were :sweat_smile:

colin.bean

2019-10-16 14:25

has joined #general

joshwakefield45

2019-10-16 18:09

has joined #general

sliu7

2019-10-17 02:31

has joined #general

phillip.goff

2019-10-17 12:38

@here Noob question - Please can someone help identity what is the 'Dynamic variable substitution' to POST in a webhook the verification status. At the moment I can only see ${pactbroker.githubVerificationStatus} or ${pactbroker.bitbucketVerificationStatus}

phillip.goff

2019-10-17 12:48

for ref https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/blob/master/lib/pact_broker/doc/views/webhooks.markdown#dynamic-variable-substitution

phillip.goff

2019-10-17 14:43

I meant Please can someone help identify not identify...

phillip.goff

2019-10-17 16:23

ignore my question above as I have jumped the gun and I am still working my way through the guides https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/pact_nirvana

jennifer.molis

2019-10-17 16:25

has joined #general

okereke.ruth

2019-10-17 20:55

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2019-10-18 04:07

@akiro I tend to use approach 2, unless there are serious complications that would make it unviable. @tjones was telling me the other day that they had some pact tests that all passed, but then the services failed in real life because they'd stubbed out their business logic during pact verification.

bethskurrie

2019-10-18 04:09

Pact people, especially newbies. I'm just having a look at the "was this helpful" results for http://docs.pact.io, and this page rates poorly. I'm not sure why! Does anyone have any opinions? https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/sharing_pacts

abubics

2019-10-18 04:21

It feels like more of a sales page than a helpful information page? Like, it talks about all the benefits (and a tiny bit about the problems it aims to solve), but not much about how to use it, or a workflow, etc

bethskurrie

2019-10-18 04:22

Hm. It is just basically a copy paste of the Pact Broker's readme.

simon.nizov

2019-10-18 10:30

Perhaps an illustration would make the concept clearer?

tkimia

2019-10-18 14:05

I agree with Simon. In my opinion, this page covers too much to be a subpage of the "Getting Started" portion. (You even have a "Getting Started" section on the page itself). Might be good to expand on the basics in this page and move specifics into another page.

travis.anderson

2019-10-18 17:59

has joined #general

me_pact

2019-10-18 19:25

Why does `pact-broker` prefixes the versions with the letter `v`? Very often services are prefixed by the `v` in their version, and when they publish the version to `pact-broker` it's shown as `vv1.2.3` in the frontend. Does it make sense to open a PR to remove this?

bethskurrie

2019-10-18 19:45

OK, I'll have a go at updating it with that on mind. Thanks everyone.

matt.fellows

2019-10-19 00:49

That's interesting. I use the prefix on libs with semantic versions (but not APIs generally). If you can demonstrate the issue it's worth raising, thanks

me_pact

2019-10-19 14:33

For example, this happens with non-semantic versions as well:

me_pact

2019-10-19 14:33

The original tag starts with `4fd...`, but as you can see, the prefix is still there.

slawomir.radzyminski

2019-10-19 19:33

has joined #general

slawomir.radzyminski

2019-10-19 19:34

Hi :slightly_smiling_face: I'm struggling a lot with `State Change Request Failed - ContentType.get(entity) must not be null` errors on pactVerify step. Has anyone experienced this? Some implementation and details in thread :point_down:

slawomir.radzyminski

2019-10-19 19:35

```@Profile("pact") @RestController public class PactController { @RequestMapping(value = "/pactStateChange", method = http://RequestMethod.POST) public void providerState(@RequestBody Map body) { if (body.get("state").equals("No nationality")) { Nationality.setNationality(null); } else { Nationality.setNationality("Japan"); } } }```

slawomir.radzyminski

2019-10-19 19:37

``` project(':example-provider') { apply plugin: 'au.com.dius.pact' jar { version = '1.0.0' } task startProvider(type: SpawnProcessTask, dependsOn: 'assemble') { command "java -Dspring.profiles.active=pact -jar ~/IdeaProjects/Pact-JVM-Example/example-provider/build/libs/example-provider.jar" ready 'Started ContractProvider' } task stopProvider(type: KillProcessTask) { } pact { serviceProviders { ExampleProvider { protocol = 'http' host = 'localhost' port = 8080 path = '/' stateChangeUrl = url('http://localhost:8080/pactStateChange') startProviderTask = startProvider hasPactsFromPactBroker("http://localhost:9292") terminateProviderTask = stopProvider } } }```

slawomir.radzyminski

2019-10-19 19:38

```> Task :example-provider:pactVerify_ExampleProvider FAILED Verifying a pact between Miku and ExampleProvider [from Pact Broker http://localhost:9292/pacts/provider/ExampleProvider/consumer/Miku/version/1.0.0] Given State Change Request Failed - ContentType.get(entity) must not be null Skipping publishing of verification results as it has been disabled (pact.verifier.publishResults is not 'true') Verifying a pact between Nanoha and ExampleProvider [from Pact Broker http://localhost:9292/pacts/provider/ExampleProvider/consumer/Nanoha/version/unspecified] Given State Change Request Failed - ContentType.get(entity) must not be null Given No nationality State Change Request Failed - ContentType.get(entity) must not be null Skipping publishing of verification results as it has been disabled (pact.verifier.publishResults is not 'true') Failures: 0) Verifying a pact between Miku and ExampleProvider - Pact JVM example Pact interaction ContentType.get(entity) must not be null 1) Verifying a pact between Nanoha and ExampleProvider - Default nationality ContentType.get(entity) must not be null 2) Verifying a pact between Nanoha and ExampleProvider - No nationality ContentType.get(entity) must not be null```

slawomir.radzyminski

2019-10-19 19:39

Tests pass from IntelliJ

slawomir.radzyminski

2019-10-19 19:40

Spring boot 2.2.0 pact 4.0.1

matt.fellows

2019-10-19 21:05

Looks like just a display thing. Does it affect API calls via CLI or otherwise?

me_pact

2019-10-20 11:43

I wouldn't say so. I checked the pact-broker code, looks like it's rendered with `v` from the Ruby code only, and not persisted with `v` in the database.

matt.fellows

2019-10-20 20:13

:+1:thanks for looking

me_pact

2019-10-20 21:42

Is there a way of getting a specific revision of a published Pact version through the Pact broker API?

bethskurrie

2019-10-20 21:48

Yes

bethskurrie

2019-10-20 21:49

@me_pact the same way its published https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/blob/master/lib/pact_broker/doc/views/index/publish-pact.markdown

abubics

2019-10-20 22:15

Good idea to move this to #pact-jvm :)

abubics

2019-10-20 22:17

Just going by the error message, it sounds like something is missing a content type, or the content type in a request doesn't match the body?

abubics

2019-10-20 22:20

What content type does your state change endpoint expect?

me_pact

2019-10-20 22:30

Hey Beth! Looks like this will only return the latest Pact version, but I can't specify a revision of the version. This happens in cases where the version of the Pact is overwritten, which is my case.

me_pact

2019-10-20 22:36

I'm building a integration for Concourse CI, and I would like to point to the most specific version of a resource, in this case a Pact contract revision. I can see that they are stored in the database, but I couldn't find a way to get a specific revision through the API.

bethskurrie

2019-10-21 00:09

don't overwrite things :stuck_out_tongue:

bethskurrie

2019-10-21 00:11

If you're overwriting pacts because you're re-publishing them with the same consumer version, you're going to get race conditions, which make can-i-deploy return different results depending on when it gets executed.

bethskurrie

2019-10-21 00:13

There is a form of the pact URL that uses the *pact* version (not the consumer version) that is like a permalink - it will never change.

bethskurrie

2019-10-21 00:14

`/pacts/provider/PROVIDER/consumer/CONSUMER/pact-version/SHA` but there isn't really a great way of getting that URL.

bethskurrie

2019-10-21 00:14

Can you explain the goal you're trying to achieve?

bethskurrie

2019-10-21 00:15

Or maybe, the problem you're facing that you're trying to get around by doing something this unusual?

bethskurrie

2019-10-21 00:22

Hey Pact people. Here at Pactflow, we're doing some research into whether we could use OpenAPI to provide a Pact-like experience for people who can't/don't use Pact (eg. when there are too many consumers to make Pact feasible) @uglyog has written a blog post about our current thinking here: https://blog.pactflow.io/the-curious-case-for-the-provider-driven-contract/ We're trying to get input from as many OpenAPI users as we can, so to that end, I've put together a short survey. We'd really appreciate your input! We're offering a 10% discount on a year of Pactflow as a sign of our appreciation. https://dius.typeform.com/to/Dd66SC

ruben.perezg

2019-10-21 07:06

I was wondering about this, because we use the _approach 1_... Could you help me understand what issues could you make tests pass, but "break" your contract in production?

bethskurrie

2019-10-21 08:36

@tjones can you remember the details of your example?

ppaduch

2019-10-21 10:32

has joined #general

kalpana.k

2019-10-21 11:28

has joined #general

ppaduch

2019-10-21 12:08

Hi All , I am using javascript wrapper. I am struggling with a basic function eachLike for MessagePact. It seems to be a defect: Pact Matchers are not respected in eachLike, any created contract uses only type matching. The basic example from documentation does not work as expected . In the documentation there is an example https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js#match-based-on-arrays: pact.eachLike(obj, { min: 3 }) . It?s written that *Where obj can be any javascript object, value or Pact.Match.*. In the attached example *animalBodyExpectation* we use Pact.Match term, however the contract is built according to ?types? not regexp . I would expect that *gender* would be built using regexp matcher.

roi.otero.morales

2019-10-21 12:27

has joined #general

saranyabalaji13

2019-10-21 12:43

has joined #general

akiro

2019-10-21 13:36

@bethskurrie Thanks for the answer, I will rework my POC to use real data. Also as far as I understand as minus of not using stubs I will have to directly specify important fields (like id for getById to check exactly specific record during validation of contract) within a provider state name to use them in consumers.

me_pact

2019-10-21 16:00

I responded in the other thread in #pact-broker. Speaking of the SHA endpoint, why is it exposed if there is no good way of getting the SHA for the Pacts? This might be a be a good way of solving the issue that I have. Edit: Looks like this is exactly what I need, a unique identification for each Pact, so I don't have to rely on the `createdAt` field. I had to dig the SHAs from the DB, as I'm unsure where else can I get them from.

me_pact

2019-10-21 16:51

Looks like this issue https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/issues/307 is very similar to what the resource does at the moment.

stevi.deter

2019-10-21 17:15

has joined #general

mohsin

2019-10-21 20:11

oliver.nautsch

2019-10-22 08:08

has joined #general

bartlomiej.twarog

2019-10-23 12:49

has joined #general

mateusz.zalewski

2019-10-23 12:52

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2019-10-24 00:09

@me_pact The pact version sha is primarily used to make sure that the verification results are matched up to the right content. (eg. if someone publishes a pact for consumer version 1, the provider verifies, and during verification, the consumer overwrites the pact for consumer version 1 with different content - we have to make sure that the verification results get associated with the right content, regardless of which consumer version is associated with it.)

bethskurrie

2019-10-24 00:10

During verification, the URL usually used to get a pact is the one that gives the latest one for a tag. Having the "permalink" to the exact pact content is not really a "thing".

bethskurrie

2019-10-24 02:56

@ppaduch it should work. Can you make a executable example using a fork of the example directory in the pact-js repository?

erfana.sikder

2019-10-24 03:43

has joined #general

erfana.sikder

2019-10-24 03:46

hey Pact folks, I have a consumer project in clojure - do you have any demo project in clojure or does pact work with clojure?

uglyog

2019-10-24 03:54

There is an example test https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/blob/master/consumer/pact-jvm-consumer-junit/src/test/clojure/au/com/dius/pact/consumer/example_clojure_consumer_pact_test.clj

uglyog

2019-10-24 03:54

There is also a provider module for Leinigen

ryan.dens

2019-10-24 04:07

any good examples of small services created which accept provider states? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-provider-verifier#api-with-provider-states

erfana.sikder

2019-10-24 04:08

awesome thanks

monch1962

2019-10-24 07:10

Hi @bethskurrie we looked at doing that NAB a few months back, but there's are few problems and shortcomings: - OpenAPI is inherently provider-side only; it describes what a provider delivers, and has no way of capturing what consumers are consuming - OpenAPI has no concept of providerState, so the best it can do is e.g. generate a random 9-digit string in response to requests. From the consumer side, you typically want to have a capability to generate different responses based on different sets of request data, but OpenAPI doesn't support that - because OpenAPI is provider-only, you lose traceability between what providers provide and what consumers consume. The impact is that there's no automated mechanism to track what the implications are of e.g. the provider removing a field from a JSON response, or changing the structure of the response. This means you now need a separate tool to help you manage these changes through the lifecycle of the provider - following on from the last point, you can't implement a Pact broker-like capability due to that lack of traceability. The best you can do is have sets of consumer-side tests that hit an OpenAPI-defined stub - again from the same point: it becomes difficult to decommission old versions of provider APIs, because there's no mechanism to track (over time) which consumers are using which versions of those APIs

ppaduch

2019-10-24 13:54

Yes, I can. I will do it and let you know, thanks

matt.fellows

2019-10-24 21:32

Hi Ryan, would you mind elaborating a bit further? Which language are you using? Generally speaking, this libarary is only used where we don?t have natural language bindings (e.g. JS, .NET, Python, Ruby, Go, PHP ?)

ryan.dens

2019-10-24 21:56

Hey Matt, I?m looking to setup and teardown various states on the provider from the pact-jvm maven plugin. As I understand it, my consumer pact specifies some state and the jvm maven plugin specifies a stateChangeUrl which accepts a `ProviderState` describing the state to setup or teardown. The service that receives this request is then responsible for setting up and tearing down the state

ryan.dens

2019-10-24 22:00

We?re not looking to modify our Provider to accept special pact json to setup and teardown state, so I?m looking at setting up a separate service which listens for requests at the ?stateChangeUrl? specified in the maven provider plugin and modifies the state of the provider by connecting directly to the DB, rather than using the Provider?s API

ryan.dens

2019-10-24 22:01

Is that the correct approach? If it is, I?m simply looking for a sample project which has been setup to receive messages from the maven provider plugin about setting up and tearing down state in the Provider?s database

ryan.dens

2019-10-24 22:03

@matt.fellows

matt.fellows

2019-10-24 22:42

I?ll double check, I?m not sure from memory.

ryan.dens

2019-10-24 22:43

Thanks! I have something simple working now, but don?t want to deviate too far from the norms. So far I?ve gotten the maven plugin to send a message to the service describing the desired state, but i haven?t gotten it to send a ?teardown? message, which i presume should happpen after verification?

ryan.dens

2019-10-24 22:44

Perhaps a better question for Ron?

matt.fellows

2019-10-24 22:44

ok cool, I was about to suggest the same thing

matt.fellows

2019-10-24 22:44

hmm Teardown, I?m not sure. the Ruby one doesn?t do that from memory, as each state should be self sufficient

ryan.dens

2019-10-24 22:46

Am i misunderstanding the tear_down step here?

ryan.dens

2019-10-24 22:46

https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/ruby/provider_states#ruby

ryan.dens

2019-10-24 22:49

my initial thought was to add the data to the DB necessary to verify this pact but that best practices would dictate I should remove the item from the DB after the pact verification

gajjarbee

2019-10-25 01:06

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2019-10-25 02:20

@monch1962 we've been though exactly the same thought process as you. We think we have a technical solution, but we're trying to work out if there is demand for it. Have you read this? https://blog.pactflow.io/the-curious-case-for-the-provider-driven-contract/

bethskurrie

2019-10-25 02:22

> OpenAPI is inherently provider-side only Providers could write OAS, consumers could write pacts, and the two can be verified against each other using the swagger pact verifier that Atlassian open sourced (or even better, inside the broker itself) > OpenAPI has no concept of providerState This would either have to be defined elsewhere (eg as dredd does it) or added to the OAS with custom extensions. > because OpenAPI is provider-only, you lose traceability between what providers provide and what consumers consume Pact/OAS verification would provide this

ryan.dens

2019-10-25 04:16

update: got this working. There?s a config called `stateChangeTeardown` which adds an `action` attribute to the state change server. This config is documented in the gradle plugin readme, but since I was using the maven plugin I had to dig through source to find it

mangesh.sam18

2019-10-25 08:00

has joined #general

rbhati

2019-10-25 19:20

hello @bethskurrie need a quick suggestion, we have a ecosystem where one of our consumer is an ios app and I need help to under how can we write consumer sider unit test using pact which end up generating pact json files

rbhati

2019-10-25 19:20

any pointers will he highly appreciated

ryan.dens

2019-10-25 21:41

Made a simple example here that works with the pact-jvm maven plugin if others ask about this in the future: https://github.com/ryandens/pact-provider-state

bethskurrie

2019-10-25 23:47

@rbhati try #pact-swift

matt.fellows

2019-10-26 01:44

Have you looked at https://github.com/DiUS/pact-consumer-swift?

matt.fellows

2019-10-26 01:44

Awesome, thanks @ryan.dens!

agarwalatrisha1212

2019-10-26 12:22

Java

agarwalatrisha1212

2019-10-26 12:23

Could you share me details about workshop @matt.fellows

matt.fellows

2019-10-26 12:23

https://github.com/DiUS/pact-workshop-jvm

matt.fellows

2019-10-26 12:24

JS one too https://github.com/DiUS/pact-workshop-js

matt.fellows

2019-10-26 12:24

Take a read through http://docs.pact.io also if you haven?t already

vince.grossi

2019-10-26 19:41

has joined #general

brandontylerwilliams

2019-10-27 20:15

has joined #general

brandontylerwilliams

2019-10-27 20:25

~Hi all!~

tjones

2019-10-28 00:24

Apologies for the slow response - the problem we had was the whole controller was being stubbed. We were testing the translation from the domain objects to the Pact response

tjones

2019-10-28 00:24

This is good practice, because it's not testing the business logic, but if we had put the stub further down (say, beyond the domain layer), we would have discovered that some of the domain objects we tested in the Pact test could never be produced by any code path

tjones

2019-10-28 00:25

(not sure I explained that well, let me know if you'd like more details)

tjones

2019-10-28 00:25

For practical purposes, I think I prefer option 2

tjones

2019-10-28 00:25

but, for a "pure contract test", option 1 is more correct

bethskurrie

2019-10-28 00:26

I take a pragmatic approach, and default to option 2 unless there are performance issues to make it untenable.

tjones

2019-10-28 00:26

Contract testing isn't provider functional testing - but that doesn't mean your contract tests can't naturally include some functional testing.

tjones

2019-10-28 00:27

I would get worried if you started to try to enumerate your provider functional code paths through a contract test

erfana.sikder

2019-10-28 03:53

Hi, my provider depends on multiple microservices to generate a result and same goes with my consumer it depends on multiple microservices to make a request. In this case, should I mock all the dependencies on additional services using any mock framework? If you have any documentation/resource can you please send me the link. Curious to know what is the right approach in this scenario where the microservice u are testing is dependent on others.

bethskurrie

This is always a tricky question to answer. It is definitely recommended to mock downstream dependencies, but if you do, you need to ensure that you are sure that the responses you are mocking are valid ones.

bethskurrie

To do this, you would then generally add a pact with the downstream service.

bethskurrie

How you do this depends on which language you are using.

bethskurrie

https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/provider#only-stub-layers-beneath-where-contents-of-the-request-body-are-extracted

Which one is it?

matt.fellows

2019-10-28 04:18

This section of our docs might also be useful: https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/provider#stub-calls-to-downstream-systems

bethskurrie

2019-10-28 04:20

You remember what I've written better than I do @matt.fellows :stuck_out_tongue:

erfana.sikder

2019-10-28 04:22

@bethskurrie the provider is Golang and consumer clojure

erfana.sikder

2019-10-28 04:22

@matt.fellows thanks for the link, having a look at it

bethskurrie

2019-10-28 04:23

Unless Matt has done a heap of work since I last checked, go wraps the generic provider verifier that operates at the HTTP level, so you'll need to either stub out your downstream providers within the code, or provide running HTTP stubs.

erfana.sikder

2019-10-28 04:28

I am thinking of spinning up docker with mocked responses from all the dependencies

matt.fellows

2019-10-28 04:33

Any reason you couldn?t just mock the interfaces in memory?

matt.fellows

2019-10-28 04:33

(that works too, btw, but obviously will have tradeoffs on time/setup etc.)

erfana.sikder

2019-10-28 04:52

I can do in memory as well but I thought docker with setup would be more reliable and for the huge amount of dependencies we have

lalin1982

2019-10-28 10:04

has joined #general

prabhuramchennai

2019-10-28 10:44

has joined #general

lalin1982

2019-10-28 10:44

Hi, I am new using Pact and this trying to define good practices within my team. We currently have one microservice that consumes two different providers, we have created two contracts and we have raised doubts whether the name of the contract should be the same for both or should be different. What would be the best way to define it? Regards,

matt.fellows

2019-10-28 10:54

You don't name the contract, you name the consumers and providers

matt.fellows

2019-10-28 10:55

If it's the same consumer or provider being used in different situations, use the same name

matt.fellows

2019-10-28 10:55

What's the actual problem?

lalin1982

2019-10-28 11:34

I have one microservice that manages user accounts, this is my consumer. The microservice calls two APIs, one to recover user activity (activity-provider) and another to manage subscriptions to external services (external-service-provider), then we have two pacts (one for each provider) and we have the doubt whether to define a consumer for each pact or should be the same. Looking for examples in Github we have seen examples of both approaches.

matt.fellows

2019-10-28 11:40

You just have one consumer the ?user accounts? component. You should have two pacts, but the `consumer` property should be the same in both of them

matt.fellows

2019-10-28 11:41

What you just described sounds like a perfectly normal

matt.fellows

2019-10-28 11:41

> we have the doubt whether to define a consumer for each pact or should be the same What does this mean? How are you creating the pacts without defining a consumer in the first place?

matt.fellows

2019-10-28 11:41

Sorry if I?m misunderstanding something

lalin1982

2019-10-28 11:57

We are still defining the pacts and reading documentation. And we had doubts about how to define it. With the answer you have given me you have clarified all my doubts. Many thanks.

matt.fellows

2019-10-28 12:00

ah cool

matt.fellows

2019-10-28 12:00

sorry you were just speaking sense, so hence my confusion - glad you?re here. All the best! :slightly_smiling_face:

prabhuramchennai

2019-10-28 12:39

Hi, there is often question from my teams on who should create the contract. From the principles I understand it should be the consumers but often the consumers will not know all about the services. If the provider is creating and maintaining the services shouldn't they be creating the Contract/Pact for the first time and then maintained by consumers?

kyle.hammond

2019-10-28 19:13

Warning: long post First, the provider and consumer obviously need to communicate prior to the contract being created at all. The two sides need to work out in general what services the provider will handle. Second, generally the provider exists because of the consumer?s need for it. If there were no consumers that needed the service, there?s no need for a provider at all. From that perspective, it makes sense for the consumer to create and maintain the contract. The contract formalizes the consumer?s needs and expectations for that provider. You said ?often the consumers will not know all about the services?. You?re exactly right; each consumer will only know about their part of the contract with the provider. As far as each consumer contract is concerned, that?s all the service has to provide. If as an implementation detail you have two (or more) consumers that have very similar contracts, then by all means share the provider. When developing the provider you can do so in such as way as to satisfy and test both (or multiple) contracts. A contract is not the same as complete documentation of the provider. Contracts are, by design, very specifically between a single consumer and a single provider. In fact, a single contract is often not the complete documentation of a consumer either. The consumer may reach out to multiple providers in order to perform the consumer?s work. In that scenario, multiple contracts are in place both on the consumer and provider sides. Hope that helps to explain why consumer-driven contracts are the way they are.

monch1962

2019-10-28 20:18

I think there's definitely value in using OpenAPI in combination with Pact, even if only because many large companies already have a big investment in OpenAPI that they don't want to lose. If you can position Pact as an addition to, rather than a replacement for, OpenAPI they're far more likely to give Pact a try. With respect to the the idea of adding vendor/custom extensions to OpenAPI, my personal preference would be to make the providerState "object" (? - is that what you'd call it?) more "formal". I've already got code that can parse Pact's requests/response pairs and generate executable test cases and/or stub configs in any language or framework. (Chasing permission to open source it now...) I'd love it if I could take the same approach to parse a generic Pact's providerState, generate the necessary state data and then execute the test - without writing any app-specific code. As a very simple example, if providerState had to be e.g. an array of SQL CREATE or UPDATE statements, I could extract that SQL, execute it against a datastore to load the necessary data to support a test, then run the test. Unfortunately that wouldn't work for anything but SQL databases, but I'd have a self-maintaining test case that could be created and executed directly out of a Pact.

matt.fellows

2019-10-28 20:27

So, the _pact_ contract is generated by the consumer - our tooling basically enforces this. The only way for it not to be the consumer, were if the Provider team wrote your unit tests for you that tested your code. So by definition, it seems unlikely this would happen

matt.fellows

2019-10-28 20:28

Everything Kyle said stands, but also consider that using tools like OAS doesn?t preclude the use of Pact/CDC either. They are complementary technologies

matt.fellows

2019-10-28 20:28

In fact, we are exploring even further how we support OAS as a first class citizen in this contract testing ecosystem

matt.fellows

2019-10-28 20:29

The most important statement that applies to any mode > First, the provider and consumer obviously need to communicate prior to the contract being created at all.

bethskurrie

2019-10-28 21:07

Great answer @kyle.hammond

acooper106

2019-10-28 22:18

is anyone using pact with spring boot app? I'm trying to use it but we are seeing flaky tests. I have 2 tests and one will pass or fail depending on if its ran 1st or 2nd

bethskurrie

2019-10-28 22:23

Is it the provider? Sounds like the provider state data isn't being cleaned properly between interactions.

uglyog

2019-10-29 07:07

See https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/issues/342 for a possible cause

prabhuramchennai

2019-10-29 08:42

~Nice answers. Thanks. When it's a new service or when there is a change it makes sense. Suppose there is a team with existing services and which wants to adopt contract testing, that's where the difference starts. With a huge list of contracts to be created, consumer expects the provider.. In the tools like Spring cloud contract, we create the contract file first which can be either~

prabhuramchennai

2019-10-29 08:45

Nice answers. Thanks. 1. When it's a new service or when there is a change it makes sense. Suppose there is a team with existing services and which wants to adopt contract testing, that's where the difference starts. With a huge list of contracts to be created, consumer expects the provider.. 2. In the tools like Spring cloud contract, we create the contract file first which can be either be created by a consumer or provider. Eventhough PACT enforces it the PACT.Json could still be created by the provider and consumer can create a test for it later. Overall, what you say absolutely makes sense but since this will be an additional work for existing services, there's is always this confusion of who creates them. If I read you write, you say that even in this situation it must be the consumer who creates the contract..?

bethskurrie

2019-10-29 08:46

Does this help? https://docs.pact.io/faq#can-i-generate-my-pact-file-from-something-like-swagger

prabhuramchennai

2019-10-29 08:49

sounds interesting if the pact file could be generated from a swagger spec. Is this already developed?

bethskurrie

2019-10-29 08:49

No, sorry.

bethskurrie

2019-10-29 08:50

Again, the pact file would not be generated from the swagger document. That defeats the purpose.

bethskurrie

2019-10-29 08:50

The *test code* that generates the pact would be generated from the OAS.

bethskurrie

2019-10-29 08:50

The point of the contract is not to have the contract - it's to keep two sets of tests in sync.

matt.fellows

2019-10-29 09:52

I think there?s something in that. For us, the _contract_ file is an (important) artifact/side-effect, whereas an OAS is a specification that is useful in its own right

monch1962

2019-10-29 20:45

With respect to @kyle.hammond?s excellent response, let me give an different view. Many companies that work in regulated spaces (e.g. banks, wagering companies, some government departments) are creating APIs designed to be consumed by the general public. Realistically, no consumer is going to create and maintain contract tests for a banking API; the bank is going to publish APIs that they're prepared for consumers to use. The bank _could_ also publish a set of contract tests that those consumers could work with when writing code. These providers _could_ also provide a provider-side sandbox environment (either hosted, or downloadable) that supported execution of that set of contract test cases, helping consumers of their APIs to do their thing without having to create stubs. There's nothing inherent in Pact that makes it consumer-driven

adrian.mace

2019-10-30 01:10

has joined #general

sankalan.13

2019-10-30 06:05

has joined #general

sankalan13

2019-10-30 06:20

Hi @bethskurrie The current product I am testing pulls in game data in real time from a third party provider using APIs and we display it in the UI of our product. I will not be able to set up provider states in the code for the third party API provider. I have multiple services running, the gaming service communicates with the third party provider. Will I be able to write Pact tests between a third party provider and my UI consumer? If yes, how will I be able to set up provider states for certain APIs? (given that the APIs to test is only GET APIs) Could I leave my provider state end point to not do anything and verify the API responses with the third party provider in real time?

bethskurrie

2019-10-30 06:55

Does this help @sankalan13 https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby/wiki/Why-Pact-may-not-be-the-best-tool-for-testing-public-APIs

sankalan13

2019-10-30 08:10

Yep this helps. I will probably still go for Pact on this case instead of using VCR. Thanks Beth!!

acooper106

2019-10-30 15:01

this is actually the consumer side

acooper106

2019-10-30 15:02

Sounds like the solution is to add an @After teardown section. Any examples of this? What am I cleanning up after each test?

kyle.hammond

2019-10-30 19:50

Excellent points @monch1962. I both agree and slightly disagree. An organization may be creating APIs for the general public, but that organization isn?t creating API just to have an API. During API creation, they step into the role of an API consumer to think about what would be useful to expose in their API. They think about how a consumer could interact with the provider, and then document the API and test to that assumed consumer use. Even if they don?t have an explicit consumer-side application/service whose unit tests would drive the pact file creation, they still created their tests and documentation with a consumer mindset. I would love it if any public API would give me some specific tests that I could run from a consumer-side test that verified I was calling the API correctly without having to call the real API. I don?t know of any place that does that; I can set up sandbox or trial accounts with many places but then I would still be calling the real API; error states are particularly hard to test this way. It would be awesome if we could feed some OAS docs into a mock server (or convert OAS to pact first if needed), then have the consumer test against that. This theoretical mock server would verify that the consumer called the API correctly, but wouldn?t verify how much of the API it called (the consumer doesn?t have to hit every API endpoint).

rbhati

2019-10-30 19:59

I'm having a hard time getting this work, almost at the edge of give up

rbhati

2019-10-30 20:00

as soon as i uncomment line#13 `helloProvider = MockService(provider: "Hello Provider", consumer: "Hello Consumer")` test crash during compile time and no error thrown https://github.com/andrewspinks/PactSwiftExample/blob/master/PactSwiftExampleTests/PactSwiftExampleTests.swift

rbhati

2019-10-30 20:01

@matt.fellows and @bethskurrie ^^

rbhati

2019-10-30 20:20

we are on swift 5

rbhati

2019-10-30 20:56

All i'm trying to do is to write a consumer contract test that should end up generating pact json files that i can share with provider for verification

rbhati

2019-10-30 20:57

total block because of this issue, App build success but test fail and no log no message.

rbhati

2019-10-30 20:58

``` import UIKit import XCTest import PactConsumerSwift class PactSwiftExampleTests: XCTestCase { var helloProvider: MockService? // var helloClient: HelloClient? override func setUp() { super.setUp() helloProvider = MockService(provider: "Hello Provider", consumer: "Hello Consumer") // helloClient = HelloClient(baseUrl: helloProvider!.baseUrl) } override func tearDown() { super.tearDown() } func testItSaysHello() { helloProvider!.uponReceiving("a request for hello") .withRequest(method:.GET, path: "/sayHello") .willRespondWith(status: 200, headers: ["Content-Type": "application/json"], body: ["reply": "Hello"]) print("Hello") } ```

rbhati

2019-10-30 20:58

this is all i'm executing

uglyog

2019-10-30 21:25

The http client library used by your consumer app probably is caching the connections. Each test gets a new mock server, so for every second test the connection in the connection pool will be stale. You need to configure the http client to not cache the connections.

archana.rachuri

2019-10-31 01:46

Hey team I?m pretty much new to pact contract testing and I am setting up the framework in my team. I?m using jest to set it up. Apollo client is the consumer and provider is in graphql. Question: I have implemented contract testing using the jest example works well for one provider with global provider variable in pactSetup.js with beforeAll and afterAll setup in pacttestWrapper.js . Now I have same Apollo client with 2 providers. I am able to set up global provider variable for both providers in the pactSetup.js but I?m kinda stuck on how to setup it in a pactTestWrapper.js for two providers ?

matt.fellows

2019-10-31 02:08

You?re now going to have to manage the different pact providers separately. One approach is to create 2 providers in the pact wrapper (e.g. `provider1` and `provider2`) and then in your tests use each provider as required-

matt.fellows

2019-10-31 02:08

See this conversation for more: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9VBGLUM9/p1561959585255900-

archana.rachuri

2019-10-31 02:37

Thanks @matt.fellows I?ve defined it exactly this way but how do I manage it in pactTestWrapper.js ? beforeAll() and afterAll() ? One approach that I figured out now is to use beforeAll().setup and afterAll().finalize in test file instead of a separate wrapper.js file. You think of any other alternative?

kist

2019-10-31 12:37

has joined #general

rbhati

2019-10-31 16:02

``` dyld: Library not loaded: @rpath/BrightFutures.framework/BrightFutures Referenced from: /Users/rajivbhati/Library/Developer/CoreSimulator/Devices/780359F9-BF84-4A2F-8374-FB1025A260A5/data/Containers/Bundle/Application/D55499E3-771A-4F17-BC42-57FA665D34FE/Brand.app/Frameworks/PactConsumerSwift.framework/PactConsumerSwift Reason: no suitable image found. Did find: /Users/rajivbhati/Library/Developer/CoreSimulator/Devices/780359F9-BF84-4A2F-8374-FB1025A260A5/data/Containers/Bundle/Application/D55499E3-771A-4F17-BC42-57FA665D34FE/Brand.app/Frameworks/PactConsumerSwift.framework/Frameworks/BrightFutures.framework/BrightFutures: no matching architecture in universal wrapper ```

ryan.dens

2019-10-31 16:30

:wave: I have a general question about ?pact nirvana?. We?re in the process of trying to figure out our ideal workflow. Right now, our plan is: 1. a provider publishing pacts to a broker on staging deploy (merging PR to master) 2. webhook to trigger a build which verifies and publishes verification results 3. Using `can-i-deploy` in the provider prior to deploying to make sure that there wasn?t a verification failure However, is there an ?ideal way? for the provider to know, prior to merging a PR to master, if a changed contract will break a build?

ryan.dens

2019-10-31 16:33

The only way I can think of is to publish pacts to the broker on a PR as well, with staging and production contracts tagged as such, but not sure if that is ?correct?

rbhati

2019-10-31 18:56

Any help here

ryan.dens

2019-10-31 20:08

ah, i see i missed some info in https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/pact_nirvana#5-allow-contracts-to-change-without-breaking-your-builds, i believe that answers my question!

matt.fellows

2019-10-31 20:45

I'm not a iOS developer and nothing stands out to me. If you have a build failure you can reporoduce and share on GitHub is suggest raising an issur

tjones

2019-11-01 00:13

Yes, perfect. This is a common question - are there other places in the documentation that we should add this info?

ryan.dens

2019-11-01 00:38

No pact nirvana seems like the one stop shop for this kinda thing, I just skimmed over it the first couple of times

ryan.dens

2019-11-01 00:42

Perhaps it would makes sense to make a comment in the section about versioning?

monch1962

2019-11-01 05:02

Has there been any discussion around adding an optional "tags" field to each interaction e.g. `{..., "tags": ["smoketest", "nondestructive", "performance", ...], ...}` ? It'd be handy to be able to select different subsets of tests from a Pact contract, for different circumstances

bethskurrie

2019-11-01 06:02

It's been briefly mentioned, but we've never had a strong enough reason for it to be added.

bethskurrie

2019-11-01 06:03

Thanks for the feedback Ryan.

douglasortego

2019-11-01 06:08

has joined #general

monch1962

2019-11-01 06:44

Would "please implement this feature" be enough? :grin: Seriously: what sort of justification would be necessary to add it? I'm happy to put something together

bethskurrie

2019-11-01 06:50

The problem is, we've semantically versioned the pact specification.

bethskurrie

2019-11-01 06:51

And Ruby (and hence js, go, php etc that wrap Ruby) are stuck on an old version because Time and Effort.

bethskurrie

2019-11-01 06:52

So, to add it to everything, we'd either have to add it to the semantically versioned specification, or throw in the towel on the sem versioning and just go wild like HTML.

bethskurrie

2019-11-01 06:53

Personally, I'm all for dropping the spec numbers, as they're holding us back, imo, but I'm not sure others share my view.

monch1962

2019-11-01 06:59

Hmm, OK. In the short term, it sounds like I need to think through the implications of adding a custom tags field if I want to implement a test suites capability across my Pact contracts

marius.maaland

2019-11-01 11:51

Is there currently an issue with the Pactflow broker? I'm getting a `503` error when trying to publish a Pact with tags. Publishing without tags works fine. Publishing *with* tags to a locally hosted Pact broker works fine. I am using `pact-go` to publish the Pact This is the error I am getting: ``` 2019/11/01 11:25:18 [ERROR] service: Failed to tag version b04ade69141427904b87b40f4d14f3e8561f2fb5 2019/11/01 11:25:18 [ERROR] service: of TestClient due to error: PactBroker::Client::Error - <html> 2019/11/01 11:25:18 [ERROR] service: <head><title>503 Service Temporarily Unavailable</title></head> 2019/11/01 11:25:18 [ERROR] service: <body bgcolor="white"> 2019/11/01 11:25:18 [ERROR] service: <center><h1>503 Service Temporarily Unavailable</h1></center> 2019/11/01 11:25:18 [ERROR] service: </body> 2019/11/01 11:25:18 [ERROR] service: </html> 2019/11/01 11:25:18 [ERROR] service: } 2019/11/01 11:25:18 [ERROR] service: One or more pacts failed to be published 2019/11/01 11:25:18 [INFO] 2019/11/01 11:25:18 [INFO] Tagging version b04ade69141427904b87b40f4d14f3e8561f2fb5 2019/11/01 11:25:18 [INFO] of TestClient as "PR-8" ```

marius.maaland

2019-11-01 11:52

Another error that might be related: when I click on "View pact" in the Pactflow UI, I get the following error page

ryan.dens

2019-11-01 14:03

Happy to help! Thanks for having great docs :thumbsup:

toby.brown

2019-11-01 14:48

has joined #general

rbhati

2019-11-01 20:39

Hi @matt.fellows & @bethskurrie, I wipe out everything and reinstall from scratch and it seems like things are working, Appreciate your thoughts and help

matt.fellows

2019-11-01 21:24

:+1:

bethskurrie

2019-11-01 21:27

Hi @marius.maaland, sorry for the slow response, we're in Australia, and Pager Duty didn't report anything overnight.

bethskurrie

2019-11-01 21:27

I'll look into it now.

bethskurrie

2019-11-01 22:06

@marius.maaland I can see two 503s in the ELB metrics from Friday 11:22 and 11:25 UTC (you'll have to convert that to your TZ) which from my calculations is about 30 minutes before you reported it on the slack channel.

bethskurrie

2019-11-01 22:11

I can't see any 503s in the application logs, and our semantic monitor hasn't raised a blip. Can you let me know if you're still seeing the issue? It may just be coincidence that it happened to be those tagging requests, as I can see no errors for any other tagging requests.

bethskurrie

2019-11-01 22:12

Also, i'm kind of confused that the tag publishing failed because I was sure it had retries in it. I'll double check.

bethskurrie

2019-11-01 22:14

Hm, it does. ``` Retry.while_error do pact_broker_client.pacticipants.versions.tag pacticipant: pacticipant_name, version: version, tag: tag end ``` I'm assuming you've only copied part of the logs in then.

bethskurrie

2019-11-01 22:19

I got this error report yesterday @marius.maaland - the resource in that URL doesn't exist, and the code needs to gracefully handle the 404.

marius.maaland

2019-11-01 23:15

hmm no that should be all of the pact publishing logs

bethskurrie

2019-11-01 23:30

:thinking_face:

bethskurrie

2019-11-02 04:21

@marius.maaland what was the name of the tag? We're wondering if it was rejected by the WAF.

bethskurrie

2019-11-02 04:26

That would be the main difference between a locally hosted broker and Pactflow.

bethskurrie

2019-11-02 05:27

OK, looks like there is a line feed in the consumer version of the tag request. Not sure if this is causing the problem, but try stripping it out to see.

forestcarlisle

2019-11-02 19:34

has joined #general

erik

2019-11-04 00:16

has joined #general

mangesh.sam18

2019-11-04 06:31

Can anyone help me on this : https://stackoverflow.com/q/58688074/5015103

shero86

2019-11-04 09:06

has joined #general

mahadi087

2019-11-04 09:18

has joined #general

marius.maaland

2019-11-04 09:36

But the fact that it does not exists is a little concerning, since it was just published... Maybe there's a connection between this and the `tag` error above

marius.maaland

2019-11-04 09:37

The tag was `PR-8`

bethskurrie

2019-11-04 09:57

The error text at the end says the pact failed to publish.

bethskurrie

2019-11-04 09:58

What happens when you strip the new line out of the consumer version number @marius.maaland?

marius.maaland

2019-11-04 10:01

oh there is a newline? I didn't realize that. Let me check

marius.maaland

2019-11-04 10:02

True, but this error appeared when I deleted the pact, and republished with no tags, which works.

marius.maaland

2019-11-04 10:07

yup that seemed to do the trick!

marius.maaland

2019-11-04 10:17

Does not seem to be the case anymore then tags are working, so maybe it was that after all

lukembarton

2019-11-04 15:35

has joined #general

rbhati

2019-11-04 16:25

Hey @matt.fellows any pointer for : `Error setting up pact: The resource could not be loaded because the App Transport Security policy requires the use of a secure connection.`

alan.nichols

2019-11-04 16:45

has joined #general

rbhati

2019-11-04 18:01

background: After, I got success to make pact example work and not throw exception I move to next step and follow exact same steps in my actual project, and i'm getting this exception, i looked into `pact-mock-service control-start` but unable to find details around how to use https

fbromley

2019-11-04 18:12

has joined #general

rbhati

2019-11-04 19:36

i create a certificate and now i'm getting: ``` pact-mock-service control-start -o --ssl --sslcert=_wildcard.joor.local.pem --sslkey=_wildcard.joor.local-key.pem --host=pact.joor.local --port=5123 /usr/local/Cellar/pact-ruby-standalone/1.69.0/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-mock_service-3.1.1/lib/pact/mock_service/server/spawn.rb:21:in `call': ERROR: Port 5123 already in use. (Pact::MockService::Server::Spawn::PortUnavailableError) from /usr/local/Cellar/pact-ruby-standalone/1.69.0/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-mock_service-3.1.1/lib/pact/mock_service/cli.rb:185:in `start_server' from /usr/local/Cellar/pact-ruby-standalone/1.69.0/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-mock_service-3.1.1/lib/pact/mock_service/cli.rb:123:in `control_start' from /usr/local/Cellar/pact-ruby-standalone/1.69.0/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in `run' from /usr/local/Cellar/pact-ruby-standalone/1.69.0/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/invocation.rb:126:in `invoke_command' from /usr/local/Cellar/pact-ruby-standalone/1.69.0/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor.rb:387:in `dispatch' from /usr/local/Cellar/pact-ruby-standalone/1.69.0/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/base.rb:466:in `start' from /usr/local/Cellar/pact-ruby-standalone/1.69.0/lib/app/pact-mock-service.rb:15:in `<main>' ```

rbhati

2019-11-04 19:37

no matter what port i mentioned I get same error

rbhati

2019-11-04 19:37

i even tried without specifying a port # but still same error

bethskurrie

2019-11-04 19:43

Cool. I've raised an issue in the pact broker client code to handle new lines better.

rbhati

2019-11-04 19:56

a working example of starting server specifying : `certificate , port and host name` will be helpful

rbhati

2019-11-04 20:06

@bethskurrie, @matt.fellows any pointers on above ^^

rbhati

2019-11-04 20:21

i looked into https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases but no directions

rbhati

2019-11-04 21:09

Never mind i find the solution, in pace of equal use space :exploding_head: , pact is painful for sure :ghost:

bethskurrie

2019-11-04 21:20

Typically, in a CLI spaces are used for separating the argument from the value. Unfortunately the output of the CLI help command puts equals in. I'm not sure why.

bethskurrie

2019-11-04 21:20

You don't need to use the control server. Just start the service with the service or start command.

bethskurrie

2019-11-04 21:21

The control server is for a flow that isn't used by any libraries at the moment.

bethskurrie

2019-11-04 21:24

Here is the spec for SSL usage https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service/blob/master/spec/integration/cli_ssl_spec.rb

bethskurrie

2019-11-04 21:24

Generally, it's much easier to make the ssl configurable, and run the specs without it if you can.

bethskurrie

2019-11-04 21:25

It's not a meaningful part of the contract.

bethskurrie

2019-11-04 21:28

Your question is not very clear @mangesh.sam18. It seems that you are asking for help understanding how pact works. Have you read everything in https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/how_pact_works

bethskurrie

2019-11-04 21:28

If that isn't clear, I'm not sure how better to explain it.

mangesh.sam18

2019-11-05 07:11

@bethskurrie Thanks for your reply. I Will understand the concepts of pact first.

neelofer.tamboli

2019-11-05 08:25

Is there anyway we can check for test coverage from Contract tests? Test coverage in both ways: 1. Lines or % code covered by contract test 2. Number or % of APIs covered by contract test

matt.fellows

2019-11-05 08:27

How do you measure test coverage now? Just use that, Pact just works within whatever test framework you use

matt.fellows

2019-11-05 08:28

As for API test coverage, we can't really know this in advance easily. Short answer is no, but we'd like to help more in this space

neelofer.tamboli

2019-11-05 08:38

Thank you.

matt.fellows

2019-11-05 08:50

Ideas welcome :thinking_face:

bethskurrie

2019-11-05 08:51

What would you compare it to?

lukembarton

2019-11-05 09:32

Is returning a mock from a provider the right way to satisfy a provider test? I'm working on a project where there is a disconnect between the API output and the mock that the provider returns during the pact test. A provider test was failing, but the API was working fine, the issue being that the mock response returned when the provider was under test was out of date and needed updating. Is this a common workflow?

bethskurrie

2019-11-05 09:33

You need a downstream contract, and tie that contract with the mock for the upstream contract.

bethskurrie

2019-11-05 09:34

There's some notes on it somewhere that Matt found recently.

bethskurrie

2019-11-05 09:34

bethskurrie

2019-11-05 09:34

Read the gist it mentions

lukembarton

2019-11-05 09:37

the direction of up and down streams in software talk always make me laugh - you never know which variant you're dealing with

bethskurrie

2019-11-05 09:45

Ha, true!

neelofer.tamboli

2019-11-05 10:01

I was thinking maybe swagger spec if available.

lukembarton

2019-11-05 10:03

ok so we are indeed mocking `CService`. My problem is that the mock doesn't actually look like the kind of thing that `CService` returns. It's 'enforced' through the type system -- the mock is of type `CServiceResponse` but the problem is that `CServiceResponse` type can't adequetly constrain the shape of the response that `CService` returns (which eventually ends up as a `ProviderResponse` and is expected to satisfy the contract with the consumer)

lukembarton

2019-11-05 10:14

(for those curious about the details as to why, it's due to go's `nil` types - an array/slice of strings `[]string` will initialise to `nil` which `json.marshal`s to `null` so you might create a mock of type `CServiceResponse` with `[]string`'s initialised as `nil` which then end up being `json.marshal`ed to `null` -- and the only way to force them into a real empty array/slice of strings`[]string{}` (which will marshal to `[]` as required by the consumer contract) is to pass the object through a function which creates _real_ empty slices, but unfortantely appears to be completely unenforcable through the type system and thus why the mock satisfies the type checker but fails to satisfy the contract that the consumer expects)

matt.fellows

2019-11-05 10:48

What would you want to know by doing that? (FYI we are working/researching a separate swagger process if you're interested in chatting further)

neelofer.tamboli

2019-11-05 10:56

Yes I'd like to discuss further. To ensure teams are following test pyramid and teams themselves know they are testing everything and nothing important is missed or delete unused code.

samuel.hodgkinson

2019-11-05 16:11

Does anyone know which DSLs for pact support V3 spec?

luchillo17

2019-11-05 16:13

Has anyone tried to use Pact with sockets? like for example with http://Socket.io?

antonello

2019-11-05 17:20

Hey @samuel.hodgkinson https://docs.pact.io/feature_support

greg.pappas

2019-11-05 17:40

has joined #general

crajcan

2019-11-05 19:55

has joined #general

bernardoguerr

2019-11-05 20:20

has joined #general

crajcan

2019-11-05 21:30

Does anyone know of any documentation on how to use the Pact Mock Service Docker container with the "@pact-foundation/pact" consumer library for js? Namely, do I need to replace the call to `provider.setup()` if I already have the dockerized mock service running? `provider.addInteraction()` won't work without it but `provider.setup()` is redundant in this case, right?

matt.fellows

2019-11-05 21:59

It?s complicated but something like that might work. Pact JS is not really designed that way, so you?ll probably need to bend it to make it work. May I ask why you would want to do that?

stevi.deter

2019-11-05 22:04

I would also like to know how to make this work, or how it's recommended to actually work. Trying to get this into our CI/CD pipeline and haven't yet had any luck actually getting our jest consumer tests to work outside the dev laptop.

crajcan

2019-11-05 22:05

Well, locally I was just running the mock server on localhost, and had no problems, but I'm trying to setup the consumer CI tests (on circleci) and was having trouble opening another port on the container my consumer tests were running in. After some googling (new to docker too) it seemed like spinning up another container for the mock server would work nicely, but perhaps I should go back to trying to run both processes on the one container?

matt.fellows

2019-11-05 22:07

Pact has the option to dynamically choose an available port and return that to you in a Promise from `setup()`. You can then configure your client with the correct host/ip combination there. This is the recommended approach (see the e2e example in the readme for how to do this)

matt.fellows

2019-11-05 22:08

So yes, I would do this. If you start the service up externally, you then need to manage versions of the service yourself, the state of the server and so on

matt.fellows

2019-11-05 22:08

ideally, the mock server is hidden from you completely and is implementation detail

crajcan

2019-11-05 22:08

interesting. I'll give it a shot

matt.fellows

2019-11-05 22:22

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/master/examples/e2e/test/consumer.spec.js#L87-L92

matt.fellows

2019-11-05 22:22

@stevi.deter it?s not recommended for Pact JS at all. It?s really there for the case you need to run the mock service and don?t have a language DSL to do it. Basically a DIY Pact

matt.fellows

2019-11-05 22:22

You would need to manage the lifecycle of it all

matt.fellows

2019-11-05 22:23

Could you explain why you might want this also?

crajcan

2019-11-05 22:46

@matt.fellows That seems to have worked rather nicely! Thanks for the help.

crajcan

2019-11-05 22:51

Also, I can't speak for Stevi of course, but my original intention was to spin up and tear down a dockerized mock service in every ci run, not to maintain a long-running external instance. After researching how to assign another port on the first container, it seemed a lot of docker users were suggesting just to spin up a second container rather than run two processes in the first. I guess I then assumed that was what the mock service docker image was for. Thanks again for the assistance.

stevi.deter

2019-11-05 22:56

Trying to implement step 4.B of Pact Nirvana, run my Pact tests and publish them to the Pact Broker as part of the build pipeline. Our pipeline is transitioning to Jenkins, so focused on that. It's currently all dockerized - tests are run as part of the Dockerfile build, then trying to actually run the pact tests.

stevi.deter

2019-11-05 22:58

Don't know how much it's complicated by the fact that our testbed service is trying to run its pact tests against three separate providers.

matt.fellows

2019-11-06 00:30

What language are you using? I still don?t see a need to have a separate docker container for this, the language (JS/JVM whatever) should take care of this for you.

matt.fellows

2019-11-06 00:30

I?d suggest keeping it simple for now

sivasateesh9

2019-11-06 04:11

has joined #general

siaynoqmage

2019-11-06 04:45

Hey Pact-ers :slightly_smiling_face: It?s been a while? I resurrected my initiatives around using contract testing and based on one of our APIs I have a few questions :slightly_smiling_face:

siaynoqmage

2019-11-06 04:47

sooo, one of the response fields of a REST API is the ?current date? - how do I write the consumer pact for this? ``` .willRespondWith() .status(200) .headers(headers) .body("{\"date\": ????, \"otherField\": \"XYZ\"}") ```

siaynoqmage

2019-11-06 04:48

(this is mainly because the data contruct is shared and we CAN query data by date or just for ?today?)

siaynoqmage

2019-11-06 04:48

seems to be, ?response? is always static in a pact definition - is that a correct assumption?

tjones

No, response is not always static. In general, you want to avoid static responses as much as possible

siaynoqmage

so how do I define a Pact in this case?

tjones

You'll want to use matchers for whatever framework you are using

tjones

The matchers will let you specify what kind of responses you accept

siaynoqmage

oh, I thought matchers are for _requests_

tjones

is that Pact-JVM? I think there's a date matcher

siaynoqmage

coming from ?wiremock? :smile:

tjones

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js#matching

Matchers are best used in the response

siaynoqmage

2019-11-06 04:53

OK, where do I find documentation for the available matchers? (I used JVM, but I think Javascript will be used eventually)

tjones

2019-11-06 04:53

The example request you give Pact will be what is sent to your provider during verification

tjones

2019-11-06 04:54

https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/matching <-- this explains the purpose of the matchers

tjones

2019-11-06 04:54

hold on, I'll see if I can get you the JVM / js matcher links

siaynoqmage

2019-11-06 04:55

cool

tjones

2019-11-06 04:56

siaynoqmage

2019-11-06 04:57

ah, I think I found this (or similar) for JVM

siaynoqmage

2019-11-06 04:58

but it seems my scenario here isn?t valid? like I _should_ expect a `date()` to be sent back - but I _should not_ enforce current date in the verification part?

tjones

Ideally the pact describes the shape of the data, not the specific content

siaynoqmage

hmmm? contractually it doesn?t matter what the date is, right?

tjones

Correct

tjones

it being todays date is provider functionality, which isn't part of the contract

siaynoqmage

so that has to be covered elsewhere (other test phase)?

tjones

So your Pact would say "hey, this bit is a date expressed in this format"

siaynoqmage

maybe provider internal unit test?

tjones

yep, I would do it in a unit test in the provider

siaynoqmage

see: https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/consumer/contract_tests_not_functional_tests

hmmm, that?s actually cool, how contract testing enforces better software design principles :smile: :smile:

tjones

2019-11-06 05:01

if for some reason you really want to cover it with Pact, you could have a provider state that says "Todays date is 1/12/2019", then define specific data in the contract

tjones

2019-11-06 05:01

but that's the kind of test the documentation encourages you not to write - because, as you already said, that kind of test isn't the responsibility of the contract

siaynoqmage

2019-11-06 05:02

I see

tjones

2019-11-06 05:02

siaynoqmage

2019-11-06 05:02

thanks for the quick response :slightly_smiling_face:

tjones

2019-11-06 05:03

You're welcome

tjones

2019-11-06 05:03

there's a documentation page about the kind of data to bake in to the contract, as well

tjones

2019-11-06 05:04

I'm just trying to find it

tjones

2019-11-06 05:05

aha - it's the "Best Practice" section in the matching page I sent earlier:

tjones

2019-11-06 05:05

https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/matching#best-practice

tjones

2019-11-06 05:05

Also worth a read: https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/matching/gotchas

tjones

2019-11-06 05:06

We're working on improving the documentation, so if there's anything unclear after reading those (or if you already read those links but they didn't help), it's very useful to know

siaynoqmage

2019-11-06 05:11

awesome, thanks a bunch!

greg.pappas489

2019-11-06 06:50

has joined #general

samuel.hodgkinson

2019-11-06 10:34

Nice, thanks anto

vivek.prahlad

2019-11-07 04:22

has joined #general

antonello

2019-11-07 09:17

Are all the dius people on holiday? :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2019-11-07 09:18

Should we be? :laughing:

antonello

2019-11-07 09:20

haha. :grin: I have noticed less activity than usual in the last couple of days, but more selfishly @greg.pappas has found and fixed a pact-jvm issue (well, there is a PR) and we were hoping in a release soon.

bethskurrie

Cup day.

antonello

Right! :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

Long weekend. "The horse race that stops the nation".

antonello

So my intuition was right!

bethskurrie

2019-11-07 09:23

It's on the first Tuesday of November, and many people take the Monday off and make it a 4 day weekend.

bethskurrie

2019-11-07 09:23

Yes.

antonello

2019-11-07 09:27

On a different note, there has been an interesting move (one that the client I am working with wanted to get to but didn?t get time to work on it sooner) in the provider verification approach for some of their consumers. Inspired by what http://gov.uk are (or were?) doing, we?re now creating and publishing a jar that contains the provider verification tests and the code necessary to run them, so that the consumer?s pipeline can get immediate feedback on the provider verification.

bethskurrie

2019-11-07 09:28

Well that's clever!

antonello

2019-11-07 09:28

The verification runs for both the head of `master` branch and the version matching what?s in production (plus for a matching feature branch if it exists).

matt.fellows

2019-11-07 09:29

I think right move did something like that

matt.fellows

2019-11-07 09:29

(just doing the bed routine, back a little later but couldn't help myself)

antonello

2019-11-07 09:29

the tag verified is obviously only the one that matches the consumer?s pipeline that is running.

antonello

2019-11-07 09:30

I was there with them when they started using pact and I do remember that it was always the intention!

antonello

2019-11-07 09:30

They created a diagram that explains it much better. I?ll ask if it?s ok to share it.

bethskurrie

2019-11-07 09:30

We should add that as a suggested workflow in the docs.

matt.fellows

2019-11-07 09:42

Ahh ok. Maybe it was just the stubs they shared

matt.fellows

2019-11-07 09:43

I'd need to go back and look at Harry's talk

matt.fellows

2019-11-07 09:46

In case having a public holiday for a horse race wasn't enough, we also get one off for AFL grand final (both Victorian public holidays) :laughing:

matt.fellows

2019-11-07 09:50

But I've also been rather quiet on here. Had baby #2 a few weeks back so have just had a little less time / head space

bethskurrie

2019-11-07 09:51

Sleep

matt.fellows

2019-11-07 09:52

I'm actually about 20 mins away from dead batteries I think. I really shouldn't be so stubborn and still head to gym before work :grimacing:

bethskurrie

2019-11-07 09:53

I can't tell if you mean literal dead batteries or metaphorical ones.

bethskurrie

2019-11-07 09:53

Or, if we're speaking American, literal or literal...

matt.fellows

2019-11-07 09:54

Metaphorical

antonello

2019-11-07 09:54

Congratulations on :baby: #2 Matt!

2019-11-07 11:02

has joined #general

2019-11-07 14:23

has joined #general

luchillo17

2019-11-07 16:03

Is there a way to use Pact with http://Socket.io?

siaynoqmage

2019-11-07 22:33

is that a websocket based framework?

iammrrhodes

2019-11-07 22:36

has joined #general

iammrrhodes

2019-11-07 23:58

Ive a question... when i run my provider tests... and they pass.... my tagging doesn't seem to be saving to the broker.... im not sure what im not doing ...

tjones

2019-11-08 00:23

Yes. You can use a message pact to handle websockets. I've personally not done it, but you might find some inspiration in: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/tree/master/examples/messages

tjones

2019-11-08 00:24

Which platform? You might need to configure the publication of the verification results

iammrrhodes

2019-11-08 00:35

I'm using JavaScript, with gitlab-ci,

ayip

2019-11-08 02:01

has joined #general

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-11-08 07:33

provider app versions are not tagged when you publish verification results, @iammrrhodes You need to explicitly create a provider version tag

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-11-08 07:34

However, it would be nice to have such a feature

cbergstrom

2019-11-08 07:37

has joined #general

2019-11-08 08:03

coincidently at the same problem. Can you point me to the documentation on how to `explicitily create provider version tag`?

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-11-08 08:07

``` curl -XPUT -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -u $PACT_BROKER_USERNAME:$PACT_BROKER_PASSWORD \ ${BROKER_URL}/pacticipants/${PARTICIPANT}/versions/${VERSION}/tags/${TAG} ```

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-11-08 08:08

you can figure it out in HAL API browser.

bethskurrie

2019-11-08 08:59

@iammrrhodes provider tagging should be supported now. Are you using the latest version of pact-js?

bethskurrie

2019-11-08 09:00

@ml which implementation are you using? We need to add this if it's not in there.

bethskurrie

2019-11-08 09:02

Ok, I take it back - I can't see it in the pact-js documentation. Let me raise an issue for it. I'm sorry, I thought it was already there.

bethskurrie

2019-11-08 09:05

I've raised the issue here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/394

iammrrhodes

2019-11-08 09:33

Ok, thank you. I assume for now I need to be using other means.

bethskurrie

2019-11-08 09:33

Yeah, sorry about that.

bethskurrie

2019-11-08 09:33

The way Vitalii described will work.

iammrrhodes

2019-11-08 09:39

I?m assuming the CLI will work too?

bethskurrie

2019-11-08 09:39

Yes.

matt.fellows

2019-11-08 12:40

`v9.4.0` released: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/394

felipe

2019-11-08 16:46

has joined #general

felipe

2019-11-08 16:47

Hello! Anybody working with pacts and elixir?

rbhati

2019-11-08 20:22

Excellent news i knock this huddle out as well, and I decided to contribute to respective pact readme's based on my learning. Hope that's ok

rbhati

2019-11-08 20:23

@bethskurrie, @matt.fellows next i'm setting up pact broker and I'm using the docker-compose as described in https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker

rbhati

2019-11-08 20:24

wonder if there are any example's that I can refer to know how to stitch the consumer test to push result to pact brocker in swift

jks

2019-11-08 20:59

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2019-11-08 22:20

I would use the CLI tools from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/ to publish to the broker, or simply use API calls as described at https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/publishing_and_retrieving_pacts

mpglover

2019-11-09 02:32

I've used the standalone pact broker with it a bit. Also been tentatively messing with building a native elixir library for it but haven't had a lot of time for that recently.

sliu7

2019-11-11 05:53

Hi! I'm trying to implement pact in .NET .. not sure if I've overlooked some basic info, but how can I configure the provider to verify all the contracts associated with it? I'm able to successfully verify it when I specifically mention the consumer name but couldn't figure out how to run it for all contracts. Thanks in advance!

abubics

2019-11-11 06:09

Hi :slightly_smiling_face: Try in #pact-net

bethskurrie

2019-11-11 09:23

@sliu7 it seems that this might not be available in pact-net yet.

bethskurrie

2019-11-11 09:35

I've raised it here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-net/issues/223

felipe

2019-11-11 10:39

I ended up putting the pact verifier cli in a docker image and verifying from there

felipe

2019-11-11 10:39

Against a spinned up instance

jgfarias42

2019-11-11 13:23

has joined #general

acooper106

2019-11-11 13:39

Are there any examples of this?

ismael_rosas_sandoval

2019-11-11 14:43

has joined #general

rrosa171

2019-11-11 16:03

has joined #general

rrosa171

2019-11-11 16:14

Hello, I am having the most confusing Pact issue. I've two tests, locally they pass when run together, fail on their own. On the CI (GitLab) the first one always fails where the second one passes. After debugging them, it seems there is a "SocketTimeout" exception thrown when http client tries to make a GET request.

rrosa171

2019-11-11 16:15

I have run out of ideas, trying to solve it for the last two weeks. The tests were working perfectly fine until I edited some of the code in completely different part of the project.

felipe

2019-11-11 17:39

Sounds like wrong test data setup

rrosa171

@felipe What can I do to check my setup?

rrosa171

I can't really share the code, it's closed source

felipe

It?s an app related thing. You have to check which data is missing

felipe

And how your setup differs

felipe

https://docs.docker.com/compose/compose-file/#environment

That?s what it sounds like

rrosa171

2019-11-11 18:06

I am not sure how to check it, to be perfectly honest,

rbhati

2019-11-11 18:20

Hi @matt.fellows, @bethskurrie Thanks for helping so far i think the last and final mystery pac<t> is webhook in pact Brocker. following are my success steps: 1. Setup pact broker: a. clone `git@github.com:DiUS/pact_broker-docker.git` to local b. run `docker-compose -f docker-compose.yml up` 2. Wrote a consumer side contract test in ios repo 3. Once test execute it post pact json to pact broker using CLI tool 4. Add webhook as : ``` { "consumer": { "name": "Brand App" }, "provider": { "name": "Hyperion" }, "request": { "method": "POST", "url": "https://<user>:<password>@jenkins.server.com/job/contract.test.pact/buildWithParameters", "headers": { "Accept": "application/json" } }, "events": [ { "name": "contract_content_changed" } ] } ``` Problem statement: I made change in consumer side and push new version of pact.json to pactbroker nothing happened Moreover I see no option to execute webhook to check if its really going to work as when a new version of pact push to broker

rbhati

2019-11-11 18:23

And when I click `No run' i get below page and I have no clue what to do next The goal is pretty simple use pact-broker to trigger job if there is change in pact json. Otherwise I have to replace pact broker with git git repository to achieve same goal

rbhati

2019-11-11 18:23

Please help @bethskurrie @matt.fellows ^^

rbhati

2019-11-11 19:51

After I click `http://localhost/webhooks/jwfoN13ZXNR6yaMJoQne6Q/execute` I get below error: ``` { "request": { "headers": { "accept-encoding": "gzip;q=1.0,deflate;q=0.6,identity;q=0.3", "accept": "application/json", "user-agent": "Ruby" }, "url": "https://rbhati:11a228678b4ef47c016701a0edc455bce3@jenkins.server.com/job/contract.test.pact/buildWithParameters" }, "message": "For security purposes, the response details are not logged. To enable response logging, configure the webhook_host_whitelist property. See /doc/webhooks#whitelist for more information.", "logs": "[2019-11-11T19:47:43Z] INFO: HTTP/1.1 POST https://user:token@jenkins.server.com/job/contract.test.pact/buildWithParameters\n[2019-11-11T19:47:43Z] INFO: accept-encoding: gzip;q=1.0,deflate;q=0.6,identity;q=0.3\n[2019-11-11T19:47:43Z] INFO: accept: application/json\n[2019-11-11T19:47:43Z] INFO: user-agent: Ruby\n[2019-11-11T19:47:43Z] INFO: null\n[2019-11-11T19:47:43Z] ERROR: Error executing webhook jwfoN13ZXNR6yaMJoQne6Q. For security purposes, the response details are not logged. To enable response logging, configure the webhook_host_whitelist property. See /doc/webhooks#whitelist for more information.\n[2019-11-11T19:47:43Z] INFO: Webhook execution failed\n", "success": false } ```

rbhati

2019-11-11 19:57

i can trigger the same job with same command via postman

rbhati

2019-11-11 20:14

@bethskurrie i search on Slack on webhook and found https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Debugging-webhooks#testing-webhook-execution

rbhati

2019-11-11 20:15

I tried it and I still missing direction

psychopomp3x

2019-11-11 20:27

has joined #general

rbhati

2019-11-11 20:30

i have no idea how to set the `webhook_host_whitelist`, am I supposed to overwrite `pact_brocker-docker/pact_broker/config.ru`

rbhati

2019-11-11 20:30

total lost in setting up webhook again

uglyog

2019-11-11 21:13

The issue above has a comment at the bottom for a fix for their http client. You?ll need to work out which client is being used.

matt.fellows

2019-11-11 21:26

Is there a valid certificate installed on your broker? You don't need to whitelist https URLs

matt.fellows

2019-11-11 21:28

Also, we are based in Australia and so we're all asleep a few hours ago - there is no need to constantly @ us

matt.fellows

2019-11-11 21:29

If the certificate is self signed then you'll need to ensure the certificate authority is properly configured otherwise your broker won't be able to initiate the outbound call

matt.fellows

2019-11-11 21:30

Also check the broker logs on case of anything helpful there

bethskurrie

2019-11-11 21:30

@rbhati The Pact Broker Docker README contains documentation on configuring the webhook whitelist https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-broker-docker#webhook-whitelists

bethskurrie

2019-11-11 21:30

Please ask your questions in the relevant channel eg. #pact-broker

matt.fellows

2019-11-11 21:32

Which language are you using? Can you ask it in that channel so you get targeted help? Also, consumer or provider test?

bethskurrie

2019-11-11 21:33

There are other people who can help you who may be awake if you ask in the right place.

matt.fellows

2019-11-11 21:33

Either way, my suggestion is to create the simplest version that you can to reproduce the problem, and then sharing with the community here.

rbhati

2019-11-11 21:48

hey Beth are you saying I need to pass environment variable PACT_BROKER_WEBHOOK_SCHEME_WHITELIST as part of docker compose, because that actually where I'm lost how to set this

matt.fellows

2019-11-11 22:33

You?ll need to use an environment variable in your docker-compose setup to do that

matt.fellows

2019-11-11 22:34

sliu7

2019-11-11 22:36

Thanks! :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2019-11-11 22:40

Look in the example docker-compose file. You'll see some existing environment variables. Put in the same place.

bethskurrie

2019-11-11 23:03

added an integration to this channel: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/services/BQE9MSRH6

2019-11-11 23:04

Yay! Unlimited knowledge is now at your finger tips! Use the `/gitbook [search query]` command to search through https://docs.pact.io/.

bethskurrie

2019-11-11 23:05

I've turned on the gitbook search plugin ^^. Probably best to try it out under your own user in Direct Messages.

felipe

2019-11-12 04:38

Its not about pact it?s about the software you are testing. You have to know it and check the logs

felipe

2019-11-12 10:05

Hi all! I?m using pact as Json and I wanted to know if it?s possible to transfer properties between interactions in one pact. Does anybody have any idea or experience with that?

bethskurrie

2019-11-12 10:12

Thanks Matt!

ingo.griebsch

2019-11-12 12:02

has joined #general

ingo.griebsch

2019-11-12 12:14

Hi all, we are just investigating PACT and want to use it for our CDC. The first thing we want to understand is if there is a complete documentation about the structure of a pact/interaction and what is necessary/possible to describe. We found https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification and the description of the different versions but at a first glance it looks more like an overview instead of a detailed documentation of every aspect. We also had a look at the JSON schemas but it seems that only v1 and v2 are implemented at the moment. Therefore it would be really nice if someone could give us some hints and/or points us to the places we are currently searching for. :slightly_smiling_face:

roman.g.rodriguez

2019-11-12 12:37

has joined #general

fabio.iglesias

2019-11-12 13:44

has joined #general

bart.schotten

2019-11-12 14:27

No, I don't think that's possible. Interactions are meant to be completely independent.

bart.schotten

2019-11-12 14:30

The JSON schema for V3 is indeed missing, but another way to learn about the details of the specification is to look at the testcases: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/tree/version-3/testcases

bart.schotten

2019-11-12 14:31

The question is if you really *need* to know that level of detail though, unless you are creating your own Pact library.

ingo.griebsch

2019-11-12 14:32

Maybe not, we probably first need to understand more how to work with PACT.

ingo.griebsch

2019-11-12 14:33

We are currently doing a API first approach which means that we are sitting together to define the necessary API together. This currently results in several groovy files for Spring Cloud Contract.

ingo.griebsch

2019-11-12 14:33

Now we want to switch to PACT but to keep the process.

ingo.griebsch

2019-11-12 14:33

Therefore we thought if we could write down the PACTs while talking about the API.

ingo.griebsch

2019-11-12 14:35

And that resulted in the question what we need to provide and what are the things we could provide. Spring Cloud Contract is explaining it's DSL in detail therefore you don't need a tool/test/whatever to create a contract. You only need a text-editor.

ingo.griebsch

2019-11-12 14:36

Another nice thing would be to have an editor/tool which allows to 'click together' the PACTs. Like http://editor.swagger.io/ for example. But we did not found any editor until now.

ingo.griebsch

2019-11-12 14:55

@bart.schotten Could I explain myself?

bart.schotten

2019-11-12 14:58

Yeah I think such an editor would not be a bad idea at all. Only problem is that Pact does not really have one DSL. Each library may have a different DSL to generate the contract, as long as the resulting artifact conforms to the spec.

ingo.griebsch

2019-11-12 15:02

But if I would use one of the libraries and put a UI on top I should be fine if I now what the library needs to generate the pacts.

bart.schotten

2019-11-12 15:03

Sure that would be theoretically possible

ingo.griebsch

2019-11-12 15:03

I hope not only theoretically :slightly_smiling_face:

ingo.griebsch

2019-11-12 15:03

But such thing is not available right now, correct?

ingo.griebsch

2019-11-12 15:04

So we still need to find a way how to define the interactions while discussing the cases... :thinking_face:

bart.schotten

2019-11-12 15:06

No as far as I know it's not available now.

fabio.iglesias

2019-11-12 15:55

Hello :slightly_smiling_face: I am learning with @ingo.griebsch about PACT and I was wondering about Pacts structure. Maybe somebody can clarify. Given that a Pact contains several interactions is a Pact sufficient to cover a whole API of a service? Is there any way of organising deeper whithin a Pact its interactions (for example under each endpoint criteria)? Or would it be convenient to use more than one Pact for a given pair of consumer/provider? Thank you in advance!

abubics

2019-11-12 22:58

@ingo.griebsch The workflow for Pact is consumer-driven, and the pact file is a side-effect or output of exercising the API client through running tests. This is why there's no editor for the pact file; it's only an artifact :slightly_smiling_face:

abubics

2019-11-12 23:00

The design is that one pact file should cover all functionality of a consumer-provider pair. As a consumer-driven contract, it should only cover the needs of a consumer, so it may not be exhaustive on API functionality.

dschwartz

2019-11-12 23:46

has joined #general

fabio.iglesias

2019-11-13 09:03

Thank you, this helps me getting a brighter picture of the concept

fabio.iglesias

2019-11-13 09:12

Then I understand that PACT is not suitable for any provider-driven approach, or would it also work from that perspective?

rlabok

2019-11-13 21:37

has joined #general

abubics

2019-11-13 23:33

the base philosophy is to avoid building things that no one is using, but

abubics

2019-11-13 23:34

you can still build the provider first . . . you just have to drive the functionality through a sample consumer, which has dubious value :slightly_smiling_face:

abubics

2019-11-13 23:34

I've done it that way plenty of times, and it does help, but it's still not as good as an irl consumer

neelofer.tamboli

2019-11-14 06:01

Hi. I was wondering if there was any progress or update on this? This is something we are quite interested in.

bethskurrie

2019-11-14 06:03

@neelofer.tamboli which part? We don't have a time frame for the OAS contract testing flow yet, as we're still gauging interest. There's a post on it here: https://blog.pactflow.io/the-curious-case-for-the-provider-driven-contract/

bethskurrie

2019-11-14 06:04

If you're interested, it would be great if you could fill out this survey here: https://dius.typeform.com/to/Dd66SC

bethskurrie

2019-11-14 06:04

There are no plans for any coverage tools at this stage.

neelofer.tamboli

2019-11-14 06:07

Ok, thank you for the update. Will look into it.

m.kwiecien

2019-11-14 09:58

has joined #general

m.kwiecien

2019-11-14 10:48

Hi All. I have problem with *nullValue* in *PactDslJsonBody* (). I get Request mismatch: [BodyMismatch(expected=null, actual=null, *mismatch=Expected null (JsonNull) to be the same type as null (JsonNull)* when I run test so the pact is not created. From logs I see that expected request looks exactly the same as received. I I use *pact-jvm-consumer-junit5* version 4.0.0 and RestTemplate from *spring* org.springframework:spring-web:5.2.0 Anyone had such problem or know how to resolve it?

iamjoemooney

2019-11-14 11:00

has joined #general

bustamcnasty

2019-11-14 15:41

has joined #general

stevi.deter

2019-11-14 15:59

Just to follow up, the e2e example helped me figure out what I was missing and now I can run my consumer verifications and publish results as part of the docker build just like I was hoping! Thanks!

uglyog

2019-11-14 20:50

Please raise an issue for that at the Github project

kiranpatel11

2019-11-14 23:08

How to generate Pact file without writing a test case? I am dealing with multiple monolith consumer systems which are not capable to write pact tests using pact libraries(e.g. SFDC, BPEL engines). We are considering writing the pact separately using one of the supported language(pact-jvm or pact-js) and use it to 1. spin up mock server for consumers. 2. verify provider implementation. Is anyone using PACT in this way successfully? How is the challenge of keeping tests and code in synch addressed ?

rbhati

2019-11-14 23:26

Guys I'm super excited to let you know that I got pact setup, 1. Consumer side write test in swift 2. Push json to Pact Broker 3. Webhook in pact Broker sense change trigger Jenkins Job <-- Broker authentication in Progress 4. Jenkins run provider test [pact verifier] over kubernetes push result back to Broker 5. Broker push notification to CI pipeline - stop/proceed with build . <-- Pending Wonder if you have any enhancement in this setup, what if provider make changes??

bethskurrie

2019-11-14 23:28

Awesome Ray. The pact verification should also be part of the provider's default build. If the provider changes, then the pacts get run as part of the provider's own build.

bethskurrie

2019-11-14 23:28

https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/pact_nirvana#c-configure-pact-to-be-verified-when-provider-changes

matt.fellows

2019-11-14 23:52

So http://docs.pact.io has a section on generating Pacts not from test cases. TL;DR you should avoid it-

matt.fellows

2019-11-14 23:53

One option might be to have a tool that can ?capture and replay? what your engines do, and convert those into pact files

matt.fellows

2019-11-14 23:53

but I would think hard before doing this, because it will be hard to use some of the more useful features like matchers and so on, which make the tests way less brittle

kiranpatel11

2019-11-15 00:27

Thanks Matt, I am considering to use PACT DSL to write PACT interactions, but I consider that is not tests, Tests are where we assert the consumer's code output using the mocks defined in pact. Think of it as 2 seperate repo - consumer tests, pact interactions. Thinking of integrating them and keeping in synch using some CI pipeline magic.

kiranpatel11

2019-11-15 00:28

It would be interested to see if anyone else has attempted such scenario and been successful with it

felipe

2019-11-15 05:35

We started with it a month ago like this: - central repo for all pacts where all devs write them in json by hand - provider ci pipeline spins up the application with test data and verifies the pacts with the Ruby cli

matt.fellows

2019-11-15 05:38

> - central repo for all pacts where all devs write them in json by hand Can you explain why you do this? This is almost certainly a bad idea

rbhati

2019-11-15 22:53

hi @bethskurrie I found this http://blog.pact.io/p/d7c9601f-e2ca-4208-b1c0-f02eaf96c3c2/ and wonder if there are any examples you can point to displaying the difference and how to use pending state

kiranpatel11

2019-11-17 23:57

@matt.fellows @bethskurrie Do you guys think it makes sense to generate pact file from something like Karate Tests https://github.com/intuit/karate ?

bethskurrie

2019-11-17 23:57

Yes

bethskurrie

2019-11-18 00:06

As long as they're tests for real consumer code.

bethskurrie

2019-11-18 02:16

Pact Broker users, I'm about to release pagination for the index page (finally!). If you have enough pacts on your index page that you'd appreciate pagination, can you tell me how many pacts you have total, and what default page size you think would be useful.

kiranpatel11

2019-11-18 03:43

I would prefer auto-scolling than pagination, with option of text search filter

kiranpatel11

2019-11-18 03:45

We do have ~250 pacts

bethskurrie

2019-11-18 04:11

It's taken me 6 years to get pagination :stuck_out_tongue:

bethskurrie

2019-11-18 04:12

You make a good point though.

bethskurrie

2019-11-18 04:13

At the moment, the UI is server side rendered, and I do not have the time or energy to re-write it to be client side rendered, hence, pagination was the simplest option.

kiranpatel11

2019-11-18 04:14

I would consider text search filter is more useful than pagination or auto-scrolling

kiranpatel11

2019-11-18 04:14

I believe its relatively easier to impl as well, don't you ?

bethskurrie

yes

kiranpatel11

may be a candidate for backlog item

bethskurrie

I wish there was a "OSS feature prioritisation tool" where you could work out which things were the most important to the most people.

bethskurrie

Linked to github issues.

kiranpatel11

2019-11-18 04:17

that's good backlog item for github :wink:

bethskurrie

2019-11-18 04:18

:laughing:

bethskurrie

2019-11-18 04:18

Can you pop the name filter feature in the issues?

bethskurrie

2019-11-18 04:18

Hopefully it won't take me another 6 years...

kiranpatel11

2019-11-18 04:19

sure

felipe

2019-11-18 05:26

@matt.fellows : I know is not the best idea but I decided it for two aspects: We have only one provider so I integrated the pacts in the integration tests. My team is very bad at writing tests and getting motivated about it. So I just gave them the pact spec and told them to write them. What is exactly a bad idea? What would you do different?

bethskurrie

2019-11-18 05:28

@rbhati it's in beta currently. If you're using pact-js you can contact Matt Fellows to be part of the user group that is testing it out.

bethskurrie

2019-11-18 05:28

@felipe have you read this? https://docs.pact.io/faq#can-i-generate-my-pact-file-from-something-like-swagger

kiranpatel11

2019-11-18 05:32

@felipe I see two issues with this 1. Writing tests are easy, but keep it maintained is hard, so if teams are not motivated enough they are not going to get a value out of PACT. 2. I would prefer team use PACT DSL instead of writing it from scratch. In the end, you will have to see if your are really detecting compatibility issues through PACT and cutting down on your need of integration tests.

matt.fellows

2019-11-18 05:33

Well said Kiran

felipe

2019-11-18 06:02

You are right. But maybe I explained too less of the context. We have 3 consumers (two frontend and one app) which have no automated tests at all and the the developers are not very experienced with it. I?m introducing automated tests slowly but they are not that good right now. They still complain about the backend team changing structures and not telling them. So in told them they should write the pacts and commit them to a central repo and the backend would take that repo and validate them. That?s the story behind it. Of course I would prefer them to have automated tests for all integrations and be able to generate and publish the pacts from there but they are just not experienced with automated tests and if I tell them to get into it and into pact, it would be the overkill...

felipe

2019-11-18 06:08

So it?s kind of a manual process but I think it will fulfill our need in the short term and later on we will generate the pacts when we have automated tests for the consumers

kiranpatel11

2019-11-18 06:34

@felipe The tests should be used to ensure 1. consumer is using the API correctly 2. provider is behaving as per consumer expectations. You can't do just one of these (by nature), you would still have high probability of integration issues, and that defeats the purpose

kiranpatel11

2019-11-18 06:37

In your case, it seems you are not doing #1, and #2 can be outdated anytime. Another point is - why write pact file from scratch without assertions on consumer side !!

felipe

2019-11-18 08:05

If the consumer devs write the pacts is because the are doing that based on the api they are using. That would cover one in a very unautomated way. And #2 can be outdated anytime yes. This is what we have with the time and experience we can invest in (!!!!)

bethskurrie

2019-11-18 08:10

Well, give it a go and let us know what value you get from it.

felipe

2019-11-18 08:12

That?s the plan. Whenever we start with automated tests we will most probably change it

marco

2019-11-18 08:59

has joined #general

iammrrhodes

2019-11-18 11:31

I've a general versioning question here... on my consumer pipeline, I am tagging the consumer with a git sha... and then on my provider, I am doing the same when verifying the, using the git sha for my provider version.... someone on my team has just ask me ... "should we be publishing the PACT files even if they have not changed on the consumer..." and I'm just reading the docs and looking at examples, and I'm slightly confused now, from what I read in the docs, it says the pact file has a version? but this is hidden?

bernardoguerr

2019-11-18 12:43

The versioning of the pact files is taken care of behind the scenes for you, and you don't need to care about it. You version your applications, and when you publish a pact for a specific application version, it will figure out if it is a new contract or not. So even if you have a CI step to publish on your consumer every time, you don't need to worry about figuring out whether something has changed or not. The Pact Broker will do that for you. Which means the "contract_changed" webhook (triggering a provider build) won't be run unless there was an actual change to the contract

antonello

2019-11-18 13:00

Could it be configurable?

squarism

2019-11-18 19:31

has joined #general

felipe

2019-11-18 20:51

Hi! I ve an elixir provider and want to validate Json pacts v3 against it. Which is the best way? The ruby cli supports only pacts v2 Thanks

rbhati

2019-11-18 21:52

@bethskurrie i need a suggestion, I had pactman_verifier [https://pypi.org/project/pactman/] to verify pact; And I wonder if I can achieve same goal of validating pact [available on pact-broker] via pact-python

bethskurrie

2019-11-18 22:07

@rbhati can you please ask in the relevant channel for the language and stop tagging me for every question? We're happy to help, but we do have limits. Firstly, I am not the maintainer of either of those libraries. Secondly, if the maintainers got tagged for every question, we'd never have time to do any work. We have a community of experienced Pact users who can answer your questions.

bethskurrie

2019-11-18 22:10

Not sure if there's a way yet.

bethskurrie

2019-11-18 22:11

You can verify them, but you won't get any unsupported matching rules.

bethskurrie

2019-11-18 22:12

We do have someone working on v3 support at the moment though.

rbhati

2019-11-18 22:14

got it, thanks for all your help :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2019-11-18 22:28

Yep. So short answer: Always publish contract from CI, don?t worry about trying to detect if it has changed You probably want to read this if you haven?t already: https://docs.pact.io/best_practices/pact_nirvana

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 02:27

Yeah, easily. I'll probably add a drop down box for the size next to the pagination control.

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 02:58

@antonello I used your anonymize data set to ensure that the pagination code can handle the "view latest tags" index mode with a lot of data. With pages of 30 rows, your database has 643 pages :laughing:

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 03:03

@rbhati here is an example of the existing workflow compared to the new workflow with pending pacts.

kiranpatel11

2019-11-19 04:00

@bethskurrie Created https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/issues/318 Let me know if more details needed.

291636938

2019-11-19 06:13

has joined #general

291636938

2019-11-19 06:19

Hi @channel, I using version 3 of pact and is able to generate the pact json file and do the consumer test, but when I turn to run the provider test, it came out error with message "Exception: No tests found matching Method", I use the springboot 2.x , pact 3.6.0, and my demo project is located at https://github.com/wuhuanxing/pact_demo , Ive struggled it for few days, really hope some one can help me , Thank very much!

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 06:28

Thanks for putting together that demo @291636938. Try asking in the #pact-jvm channel.

291636938

2019-11-19 06:30

sorry for putting in the wrong place , thank you for mind~

felipe

2019-11-19 06:31

Hi all! im trying to verify pacts with the gradle plugin but im getting always a 400 bad request from nginx. From postman with https://myurl.com:443/service/path works perfectly. im out of ideas this is my gradle ```plugins { id "java" id "http://au.com.dius.pact" version "4.0.3" } task('getToken') { doLast { } } pact { serviceProviders { wmsBackend { protocol = 'https' host = 'http://myserviceurl.com' port = 443 path = '/' //insecure = true requestFilter = { req -> req.addHeader('Authorization', 'Bearer sometoken') } hasPactsWith('WmsFrontend') { pactFileLocation = file("$rootDir/../pacts/frontend") } hasPactsWith('Plentymarkets') { pactFileLocation = file("$rootDir/../pacts/plentymarkets") } } } reports { defaultReports() // adds the standard console output markdown // report in markdown format json // report in json format } } ```

felipe

2019-11-19 06:35

My pact makes a boring get: ```"request": { "headers": { "Authorization": "Bearer token", "Content-Type": "application/json" }, "method": "GET", "path": "/api/v1/entity/entty2/1", "body": {}```

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 06:36

Best to ask in #pact-jvm @felipe

matt.fellows

2019-11-19 07:03

Get with an empty body as an object

matt.fellows

2019-11-19 07:04

Is that intended?

felipe

2019-11-19 07:45

Will do. Thanks

felipe

2019-11-19 09:50

Hi all! im trying to use matchers but they are being ignored and my body is match to equality. Do you have any idea how to restrict that to the matchers? ```{ "consumer": { "name": "Get Warehouse" }, "provider": { "name": "wms" }, "interactions": [ { "description": "Get Warehouse", "request": { "headers": { "Authorization": "Bearer XXX", "Content-Type": "application/json" }, "method": "GET", "path": "/something/SOMEPATH/warehouses/" }, "response": { "status": 200, "body": { "total_results": 1, "warehouses": [ { "active": true, "city": "Berlin", "country": "Germany", "fax": "56270492786", "id": 1, "line1": "Test Address Line 1", "line2": "Test Address Line2", "name": "Test warehouse", "phone": "56270492786", "state": "Berlin", "tenant_id": 1, "zip_code": "7591538" } ] } }, "matchingRules": { "$.body.total_results": { "match": "type" }, "$.body.warehouses": { "min": 1, "match": "type" }, "$.body.warehouses[*].id": { "match": "type" }, "$.body.warehouses[*].city": { "match": "type" }, "$.body.warehouses[*].country": { "match": "type" }, "$.body.warehouses[*].fax": { "match": "type" }, "$.body.warehouses[*].line1": { "match": "type" }, "$.body.warehouses[*].line2": { "match": "type" }, "$.body.warehouses[*].name": { "match": "type" }, "$.body.warehouses[*].phone": { "match": "type" }, "$.body.warehouses[*].state": { "match": "type" }, "$.body.warehouses[*].tenant_id": { "match": "type" }, "$.body.warehouses[*].zip_code": { "match": "type" } } } ], "metadata": { "pactSpecification": { "version": "4.0.0" }, "pact-jvm": { "version": "4.0.3" } } }```

felipe

2019-11-19 09:50

it says: Failures: 0) Verifying a pact between Get Warehouse and wmsBackend - Get Warehouse returns a response which has a matching body Verifying a pact between Get Warehouse and wmsBackend - Get Warehouse returns a response which has a matching body=BodyComparisonResult(mismatches={$.total_results=[BodyMismatch(expected=1, actual=6, mismatch=Expected 1 but received 6, but im clearly matching it to type

bethskurrie

For the verification?

bethskurrie

Only JVM supports v4 on provider.

felipe

im using JVM

bethskurrie

Hm, should work then!

felipe

id "http://au.com.dius.pact" version "4.0.3"

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 09:52

If you can create a reproducible code example, you can raise an issue in pact JVM repo.

felipe

oki

bethskurrie

Also, best to ask questions related to pact JVM in the #pact-jvm channel

felipe

the matchers are there to avoid the hard coded data in the response the right? (asking for a friend)

bethskurrie

We try to keep the general channel for cross cutting concerns.

felipe

https://docs.pact.io/faq#why-is-there-no-support-for-specifying-optional-attributes

oki

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 09:54

The matchers stop the tests being brittle.

felipe

2019-11-19 09:54

cool thanks

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 09:54

We don't generally really care about specifics, just that the shape of the doc matches.

felipe

2019-11-19 09:55

can I add matchers to objects and it would macth everything in there or I have to match every single attribute?

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 10:00

You should just have to put the matcher on the parent, and all children inherit it

felipe

2019-11-19 10:01

in all versions?

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 10:01

Yes

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 10:01

Unless @uglyog has changed anything in v4

ncritah

2019-11-19 10:26

has joined #general

felipe

2019-11-19 11:45

is there any way to combine matchers in json? i want to make null or type

felipe

2019-11-19 11:45

i cannot find anything in the specification

matt.fellows

2019-11-19 11:50

that?s because it?s explicitly not allowed

matt.fellows

2019-11-19 11:50

bart.schotten

2019-11-19 11:55

It is technically allowed in v3 though: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/tree/version-3#allow-arrays-of-matchers-to-be-defined-against-a-matcher-path

bart.schotten

2019-11-19 11:56

But I agree that it should definitely not be used in that way

matt.fellows

2019-11-19 12:02

I think @bethskurrie had something to say about this. But yes

ncritah

2019-11-19 14:49

Trying to use pact with Karma and Mocha but without much success. I have updated my karma conf to match the example shown and the rest of my code is as shown below ```*====client.js====* const validate = (host) => { const { url, port } = host; return axios .request({ method: 'GET', baseURL: `${url}:${port}`, url: `/test/111`, headers: { Accept: 'application/json' }, }); }; *====test.js====* describe('Pacting away', () => { let provider; const port = 1331; before(done => { provider = new PactWeb({ consumer: 'KarmaMochaConsumer', provider: 'KarmaMochaProvider', port: port, host: 'http://localhost', }); setTimeout(done, 1000); provider.removeInteractions(); }); after(done => provider.finalize().then(() => done())); describe('', () => { before(done => { provider .addInteraction({ state: 'provider can validate entries', uponReceiving: 'a request to validate 111', withRequest: { method: 'GET', path: '/test/111', headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json', }, }, willRespondWith: { status: 200, headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json', }, body: { message:"Success" }, }, }) .then(() => { done(); }); }); it('should return 200 for 111', done => { validate({url: 'http://localhost', port: port}).then(response => { expect(response.status).to.equal(200); done(); }, done); }); }); });``` When I run the tests, it hangs after this log > `INFO [pact]: Pact Mock Server running on port: 1331` and when I manually try to access the endpoint in my terminal using curl, I get `{"message":"No interaction found for GET /test/111","interaction_diffs":[]}`

uglyog

2019-11-19 20:50

There is no V4 version (yet). How did that pact file get created?

uglyog

2019-11-19 20:52

The matching rules are in the incorrect format. That file will be treated as a V3 pact file, but the matching rules look like they are in the V2 format.

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 21:28

@ncritah can you ask in the pact-js channel please?

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 21:29

Usually when we see issues like that it's a timing issue with promises and callbacks.

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 21:29

I'm not a js expert though.

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 21:31

That snuck in while I was on mat leave, and it has been regreted @bart.schotten!

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 21:31

@felipe is this one of your handcoded ones?

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 21:32

I think it would be easier to write a fake pact test in Java than hand code it.

ncritah

2019-11-19 21:35

I just found `pact-js` a couple of minutes back and posted there but couldn't delete this

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 21:56

Please don't do it @felipe. If you can't control the data during provider verification, then contract testing isn't the right tool for you.

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 21:56

If you don't know if the element should be there, then leave it out of the expectations.

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 21:57

Thanks for the good answer @bernardoguerr!

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 21:58

@iammrrhodes which bit of the docs is unclear, and what could we do to make it clearer?

iammrrhodes

2019-11-19 22:02

Hey Beth, I'm not sure if I'm just struggling to figure out how the documentation fits to my use case... I'm being told by someone in my organisation how we _should_ be doing it, but I'm then trying to validate their instructions with actual PACT documentation... so I don't think it's a failing of documentation, maybe just my internal contradictions.

iammrrhodes

2019-11-19 22:04

I've spent the evening watching all the things I can find on PACT, but no one seems to go into detail on versioning and environment tags (which is what we're being told to do)

iammrrhodes

2019-11-19 22:04

and thankyou for the responses everyone, I'm very grateful.

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 22:17

There's a good page on it in the docs.

iammrrhodes

2019-11-19 22:17

I've read it several times.

bethskurrie

2019-11-19 22:18

Let us know, or submit a PR, if you can add some clarity.

iammrrhodes

2019-11-19 22:19

I need to get my head around it first, I need to figure out if what I'm being told to do is right or not in my current team...

matt.fellows

2019-11-20 02:33

> what I?m being told to do is right or not in my current team... What are you being told? If it would be useful, we?d be happy to help with any thinking for those who ar esuggesting it

ft1704602

2019-11-20 04:02

has joined #general

ft1704602

2019-11-20 04:18

Hi, I?ve just found out Pact CDC tests. It?s very interesting. I would like to know if my publisher api involves another external public api, is it still appropriate to use pact for testing? The basic flow is: consumer<->publisher<->externalApi.

tjones

2019-11-20 04:20

Yes, you have two choices: 1. you can describe the pact as consumer -> external API (essentially treating the publisher as part of the consumer)

tjones

2019-11-20 04:21

2. You can have two pacts, one from consumer -> publisher, and one from publisher -> externalAPI

tjones

2019-11-20 04:21

I think option 2 is probably best, but it depends on the relationship between the consumer and the publisher

tjones

2019-11-20 04:22

During provider testing for your publisher , you would mock out the externalAPI

tjones

2019-11-20 04:22

(probably by mocking the code that calls it)

ft1704602

2019-11-20 04:24

So every time the consumer modify the pact, I might need to modify the external api mock response ? It seems very bad for maintainability.

felipe

2019-11-20 04:25

Oki

bethskurrie

2019-11-20 04:25

If you use type based matching, it shouldn't be.

bethskurrie

2019-11-20 04:26

Compare it to your other option - e2e integration tests.

bethskurrie

2019-11-20 04:28

Remember, you should only really need one or two interactions per endpoint.

tjones

2019-11-20 04:36

You're not mocking the external API responses

tjones

2019-11-20 04:36

you're mocking the code that calls the external API from within the publisher codebase

tjones

2019-11-20 04:37

This is the same pattern as would be used if your publisher (say) wrote to a database

ft1704602

2019-11-20 04:37

for example: the consumer sends 1, the provider uses an external api mock to get external response ?one?, then append 1 to one and return one1. If in the next pact somehow the input becomes 2, i have to modify the mock to return two, right? I want to know this because the external api returns a very complex object, so I don?t want to modify the mock often.

ft1704602

2019-11-20 04:39

@tjones but my publisher api have to interact with external api response to generate the response.

bethskurrie

2019-11-20 04:59

@ft1704602 have a read of this, and the gist that it links to

bethskurrie

2019-11-20 04:59

https://docs.pact.io/faq#why-pact-may-not-be-the-best-tool-for-testing-pass-through-apis

bernardoguerr

2019-11-20 12:14

Can I ask what exactly do you mean by environment tags? Careful about tagging with environments, I ran into that trap before. To me tagging should be more about differentiating production vs non production, not necessarily tagging with environments like dev, test, etc.

roi.otero.morales

2019-11-21 13:56

Hello everyone! is there a way to not fail `pactPublish` when there is no folder containing pacts? (I want to run pactPublish even if the Repo doesnt have consumers and only providers to have a standarized pipeline) `Execution failed for task ':pactPublish'.` > `http://java.io``.FileNotFoundException: /<somepath>/build/pacts`

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-11-21 14:26

why don?t you wrap it yourself with a check if files/folder is there?

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-11-21 14:27

in most of use-cases people would like to be aware if they try to publish pacts that do not exist?

roi.otero.morales

2019-11-21 14:45

Hey, thanks for the answer, I will try to wrap it, the thing is that the pactPublish task comes from the pact puglin, and not from a task defined in my file, so i am having troubles adding the condition to only be run if folder exists. my gradle skills are not the best if you have any suggestion is welcome :smile:

vitaliy.grigoruk

2019-11-21 15:18

my gradles skills are 0.. but I?d try googling for https://discuss.gradle.org/t/trying-to-run-task-based-on-existence-of-a-file-or-not/15330

brendan.j.donegan

2019-11-21 16:00

has joined #general

vijay.chinthala

2019-11-21 18:46

has joined #general

vijay.chinthala

2019-11-21 19:03

Hi, I am facing Authorization error while executing pactVerify, the API expect the Authorization Bear token in the header; can someone please help pointing me to some example how to pass the Authorization

vijay.chinthala

2019-11-21 19:07

```10:28:28.630 [DEBUG] [http://au.com.dius.pact.provider.ProviderClient] Response: {statusCode=401, headers={X-Content-Type-Options=[nosniff], X-XSS-Protection=[1; mode=block], Cache-Control=[no-cache, no-store, max-age=0, must-revalidate], Pragma=[no-cache], Expires=[0], Content-Length=[52], Date=[Thu, 21 Nov 2019 18:28:27 GMT]}, contentType=application/json; charset=UTF-8, data={"message":"Null or Empty Authorization","code":401}}```

pavel.azarau

2019-11-21 19:10

has joined #general

vijay.chinthala

2019-11-21 19:12

@felipe I see you have used Authorization in the header, can you please help with some example code how did you generate the token, I had issues with Authorization while executing pactVerify

vijay.chinthala

2019-11-21 19:12

noel.chin

2019-11-21 19:37

has joined #general

bernardoguerr

2019-11-21 19:49

https://medium.com/dazn-tech/pact-contract-testing-dealing-with-authentication-on-the-provider-51fd46fdaa78 This should help you.

vijay.chinthala

2019-11-21 20:24

Thank you for this information

vijay.chinthala

2019-11-21 20:24

I am using gradle and Junit5, is there an example that I could use in gradle

felipe

2019-11-21 21:08

Remind me tomorrow please

noel.chin

2019-11-21 21:30

Is anyone currently stubbing the response from an external auth api instead of modifying the auth token present in the PACT file?

bethskurrie

2019-11-21 21:53

That's the way I would do it, personally

bethskurrie

2019-11-21 21:54

Much easier. And token is usage is unlikely to get much benefit from contract testing.

bethskurrie

2019-11-21 21:55

It's functionality that's unlikely to change, and will be quickly picked up by higher level tests if it's wrong.

bethskurrie

2019-11-21 21:56

@vijay.chinthala consider if it would be easier to stub out the auth.

bethskurrie

2019-11-21 21:57

It's often something that doesn't benefit much from contract testing, as it's generally pretty stable, doesn't change much, and is often hard to provide valid values when verifying.

bethskurrie

2019-11-21 21:57

It's also something that will get picked up pretty easily and quickly in e2e tests.

bethskurrie

2019-11-21 21:59

Really? What problems did you have with tagging all the envs @bernardoguerr? It's the way I would do it.

vijay.chinthala

2019-11-21 22:04

Thanks Beth

vijay.chinthala

2019-11-21 22:04

I have tried this in my gradle file and it worked..

vijay.chinthala

2019-11-21 22:04

``` hasPactWith('learningService') { pactFile = file('build/pacts/learningServiceClient-learningServiceProvider.json') // stateChangeUrl = new URI(PACT_BROKER_URL + '/v1/pactstates').toURL() // stateChangeUsesBody = true requestFilter = { req -> // Add an authorization header to each request // because of our system needs login first req.addHeader('Authorization', 'Bearer ' + System.getProperty('PACT_BROKER_TOKEN') ) } }```

vijay.chinthala

2019-11-21 22:06

I have used requestFilter in the gradle script and it worked fine

vijay.chinthala

2019-11-21 22:06

```hasPactWith('learningService') { pactFile = file('build/pacts/learningServiceClient-learningServiceProvider.json') // stateChangeUrl = new URI(PACT_BROKER_URL + '/v1/pactstates').toURL() // stateChangeUsesBody = true requestFilter = { req -> // Add an authorization header to each request // because of our system needs login first req.addHeader('Authorization', 'Bearer ' + System.getProperty('PACT_BROKER_TOKEN') ) }``` }

vijay.chinthala

2019-11-21 22:06

Thanks for your help

bethskurrie

2019-11-21 22:10

That confuses me. Why would the request have the pact broker token added to it?

bethskurrie

2019-11-21 22:10

The replayed request goes to the provider, not the pact broker

vijay.chinthala

2019-11-21 22:19

yes that is correct I have script included in the serviceProviders { } just for testing purpose I am using the local pactFile to test pactVErify

vijay.chinthala

2019-11-21 22:21

and please ignore the naming conversion, it should be named as PACT_SERVICE_PROVIDER_TOKEN

matt.fellows

2019-11-21 22:35

Request filter is probably the way to go

crummynz

2019-11-21 23:36

has joined #general

roi.otero.morales

2019-11-22 09:57

Thanks for your help, finally i end up doing this: ```task pactPublishIfProducedPacts(description: 'Wrapper to only execute the pactPublish task if the repository contains consumers', group: 'Verification') { if (new File("$buildDir/pacts").exists()) { dependsOn pactPublish } }```

roi.otero.morales

2019-11-22 09:57

Not pretty but works?

noel.chin

2019-11-22 13:15

yeah that's what I was thinking as well. Are you using a library like nock to stub the requests?

bernardoguerr

2019-11-22 15:07

@beth: In our case, in the beginning there was a lot of focus on running this on each environment (dev, test, stage, prod). In reality, all we really need, in my opinion, is a distinction between what's in production, and what's in master. Because as far as I understand it, in the end what matters more is what version of code (commit sha) you're testing against, not in which environment (except whether it's in prod or not). Especially if you're testing against local (undeployed) versions of the API's, which I think is ideal. I think environments would only matter if you were testing against deployed versions of the API's. But if you're going for a CI/CD model, then that version of code (commit) should be being promoted through environments, and then in one of those, you would run your Pact tests (even if it was against a deployed version), and then promote it to the next stage. If you're testing it with Pact against each deployed environment, imo you're not really using it just for contract testing, but more like a rather expensive backend system-wide test. Anyway that was the final understanding I've reached of it now. So, TLDR: versioning for identifying *what* piece of code is running, tagging for identifying *where* it is running (*ie prod vs non-prod, potentially branches too)* Do you think that's wrong, Beth?

dschwartz

2019-11-22 16:47

I've read from several sources that CDC testing is not recommended for public apis - what about APIs which have both internal and external consumers - does supporting contracts for internal consumers create difficulty in managing the public API overall?

felipe

2019-11-22 17:44

you have to make sure that you dont have the authorization header in you pacts

felipe

2019-11-22 17:44

that was making trouble with mine

felipe

2019-11-22 17:46

`plugins {` id "java" id "`http://au.com``.dius.pact" version "4.0.3"` } import groovy.json.JsonSlurper def protocolInput = 'https' def hostInput = '`http://some.url.com``'` def portInput = 443 def token = "none" def getToken(username, password, protocol, host, port){ println "generating token" def BODY='{"grant_type": "password","username" : "'+username+'","password" : "'+password+'","scope" : "default"}' def p = ['curl', "-X", "POST", '-H', "Accept: application/json", "-H", "Content-Type:application/json", '--data', BODY, "$protocol://$host:$port/xxx/xxx/auth"].execute() p.waitFor() def json = new JsonSlurper().parseText(p.text) println "got token ${json.access_token}" return json.access_token } task('setup') { doLast { println "#######setup#######" delete fileTree('build/reports') { include '**/*.*' } def protocol = getOrDefault('PROTOCOL', protocolInput) def host = getOrDefault('HOST', hostInput) def port = getOrDefault('PORT', portInput) token = getToken('xxx', 'xxx', protocol, host, port) println "######setup done#####" } } pact { serviceProviders { wmsBackend { protocol = getOrDefault('PROTOCOL', protocolInput) host = getOrDefault('HOST', hostInput) port = getOrDefault('PORT', portInput) path = '/' startProviderTask = setup insecure = true requestFilter = { req -> println req req.addHeader('Authorization', "Bearer $token") } hasPactsWith('WmsFrontend') { pactFileLocation = file("$rootDir/../pacts/frontend") } } } reports { defaultReports() // adds the standard console output markdown // report in markdown format json // report in json format } } def getOrDefault(name, defaultValue){ return project.hasProperty(name) ? project.getProperties().get(name) : defaultValue; }

felipe

2019-11-22 17:46

thats my gradle

justaburneremailforso

2019-11-22 18:43

has joined #general

justaburneremailforso

2019-11-22 18:44

We are starting to use PACT in our team but are running into a strange issue. When we run mvn pact:verify we are getting this error:

justaburneremailforso

2019-11-22 18:46

"Request failed - Connect to localhost:8080 failed: localhost 127.0.0.1 failed: Connection refused connect:"

justaburneremailforso

2019-11-22 18:48

However when we run mvn clean test, the test passes. I don't know why this is happening as we are not using localhost:8080 anywhere in our consumer or provider code or anywhere in our pom. We suspect it's coming from the maven pact provider dependency in the pom but that is a bit of a guess. The application is not a spring boot application either. Any idea where we are going wrong?

bethskurrie

2019-11-22 19:36

@bernardoguerr whatever works for you! Just want to make sure I understand your workflow. So, you re-run the verification step before deploying to each stage? How do you know which version of the pact is in which environment?

uglyog

2019-11-23 00:27

`mvn pact:verify` is for verifying a runner provider. localhost:8080 is the default host and port for that. If you are using unit tests, you don't need to run that.

felipe

2019-11-23 05:12

Hi all! I?m Using the gradle verifier and I would like to know if there is any way to integrate the reports into Jenkins (pipeline). Thanks in advance

justaburneremailforso

2019-11-23 10:49

Is there a way to pass authentication details with a mvn clean install to the broker? We have switched on authentication on our broker so need to pass credentials in order to publish or verify the contracts. So far I haven't found the combination of arguments and pom changes to allow mvn clean test to update the verification status on a broker with authentication turned on.

uglyog

2019-11-23 22:44

See https://github.com/DiUS/pact-jvm/tree/master/provider/pact-jvm-provider-junit#using-authentication-with-the-with-the-pact-broker

justaburneremailforso

2019-11-24 23:25

Thanks!

justaburneremailforso

2019-11-24 23:27

Hello all, More of a general question, but what is the normal use case for using mvn pact:verify versus just a mvn clean test? Both will update the broker if configured correctly but I'm not sure why to use one over the other. Our tests are mostly annotated with @State on the provider side but seem to run the consumer side tests.

abubics

2019-11-25 00:18

no, if you have a consumer you're in control of, contract tests can help, and shouldn't cause any conflicts with external consumers :thumbsup:

abubics

2019-11-25 00:19

but it might highlight changes earlier . . . so you might end up wanting to make breaking changes sooner than your external consumers

pradeep.murthy

2019-11-25 07:22

has joined #general

pradeep.murthy

2019-11-25 07:29

Hi, All, we are in the process of using PACT within our projects. We really find PACT to be useful. However we have a general question as to whether the PACT is really being used by others at all in different companies, as the usage stats show as 0 here https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/au.com.dius/pact-jvm-consumer-junit

brendan.j.donegan

2019-11-25 09:46

Hi - I have a particular interaction that I'm a bit unsure how to deal with - basically the provider is returning as part of a the response, an 'dictionary' (slash object) of users, keyed by their ID. The number of users can vary so I want to be able to write the contract in such a way that it doesn't matter how many are returned. This essentially amounts to an object with a variable number of keys. Is there a good way to express this using matchers?

bart.schotten

2019-11-25 14:18

That will just work by default. Extra keys/properties are always allowed. You just need to have one or two keys as an example, which you could set up in the provider state.

john.hamlett

2019-11-25 14:28

has joined #general

ryan.dens

2019-11-25 14:41

For what its worth, my company uses the pact-jvm-consumer-junit, so it seems like those stats aren?t accurate

paul.simms

2019-11-25 16:20

has joined #general

paul.simms

2019-11-25 16:22

Good afternoon, We are implementing PACT consumer driven contract tests which is working well between the back-end services. We have micro-services with the following architecture: web-ui <-> graphQL <-> n * back-end services However there are questions on how to implement this through the graphQL layer. In reality this is a consumer of the back-end services, and a provider to the web-ui. As the consumer, GraphQL doesn't have the domain information for the actual required json that is initiated from the web-ui service. Then the web-ui service doesn't test against the back-end providers (as the graphQL layer is its provider) - and it hasn't got that association / knowledge of the back-end services. Is it that graphQL should create a PACT interaction with each back-end provider containing all its potential values with each service. Then this demonstrates that those interfaces remain compliant. Thus the real request (interaction) from the user (web-ui) has pacts with the GraphQL service (with mocks of the back-end services), so implicitly would work all the way through the stack. Has anyone got advice of how this works across this aggregation layer?

ryan.dens

2019-11-25 16:29

also worth noting that we proxy maven central via our own internal maven repository. I imagine many enterprises which use these tools are in similar situations, so these statistics can?t always be accurate. Makes sense that most ?hobby? projects wouldn?t need consumer driven contract testing

dtobiasalmont09

2019-11-25 17:21

has joined #general

dtobiasalmont09

2019-11-25 17:22

I am working with Pact Node and was trying to find a way to verify the consumer tests without having to publish to the shared broker. Not seeing good examples of this so we can add it to a jenkins pipeline

megha.agrawal

2019-11-25 19:10

has joined #general

vijay.chinthala

2019-11-25 23:38

Thank you Felipe, I got the same idea and except that I got the token generated in the java code and used the same in the pct script

bethskurrie

2019-11-26 01:29

Pact top tip: Ron and I have just come back from a chat with a Pact user (we'll call him "Dave") who ended up pulling out his Pact tests because they were too painful. The reason their Pact tests were painful was that Dave was using them for UI tests. Don't be like Dave! Use Pact to test the "back door" of your consumer, and keep your pact tests fast, maintainable, and easy to debug.

bethskurrie

2019-11-26 01:31

ambergkim

2019-11-26 05:26

has joined #general

vijay.chinthala

2019-11-26 08:38

I have another question what is the best practice to promote the pact tests, let's say I am making changes in the feature branch and I wanted promote to DEV, QA, INT, STG the nPRG

vijay.chinthala

2019-11-26 08:39

can this be managed through tags, or does it required different pact broker environment needed?

bethskurrie

2019-11-26 08:55

See also the AMAs on this topic

dawoud.sheraz

2021-08-16 10:52

I added ref from the link you provided :slightly_smiling_face:

vuttithatkrongyot

2021-08-16 11:28

Hi team, I would like to ask about matchingRules for pact spec3. I try to write it from scratch and I'm stuck with writing matchingRules for the body like this. The goal is I want to have matchingRules only for the field "id". But I have no idea when the body return as array ;( `"body":�[` ��`{` ��`"id":�1,` ��`"title":�"New�todo�1",` ��`"done":�false` ��`},` ��`{` ��`"id":�2,` ��`"title":�"New�todo�2",` ��`"done":�false` ��`}` ��`],` I tried so many way like this but it not worked. Could you please guide me about this? `"matchingRules":�{` ��`"body":�{` ��`"$.[*].id":�{` ��`"matchers":�[` ��`{` ��`"match":�"type"` ��`}` ��`]` ��`}` ��`}` ��`}`

tjones

2021-08-16 11:31

What are you trying to do? You're not really meant to write a pact file from scratch, since it represents what the consumer is tested to be able to send

tjones

2021-08-16 11:34

It's also considerably easier to write pact files through the DSL

vuttithatkrongyot

2021-08-16 11:34

I try to not using the contract generator from consumer code (some kind of bi-directional contract testing) by writing json contract.

tjones

2021-08-16 11:37

I don't think it will be bidirectional if you are not generating the contract from consumer code

tjones

2021-08-16 11:37

What are you trying to achieve? Pact may not be the right tool for this.

tjones

2021-08-16 11:38

Advantages of the DSL are it's much easier to express the different matcher constraints on your payload, and the Pact file is only written once you have shown that your consumer can send the requests you are expecting it to send

tjones

If you do it manually, you'll lose this advantage, and you will find it much more difficult

vuttithatkrongyot

I need to achieve contract-driven not consumer-driven because I don't want to have a bottleneck on consumer side.

tjones

I don't think Pact is the right tool for that

tjones

how are you going to ensure that your consumer implements the contract?

tjones

2021-08-16 11:53

Anyway, I?m afraid I don?t actually know the answer to your question. If you want to know, I would set up one of the DSLs to do it, hit the mock server with something like supertest, and then see what it outputs.

matt.fellows

2021-08-16 12:16

When you say ?bi-directional? do you mean https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/bi-directional?

matt.fellows

2021-08-16 12:17

In case you are, you don?t need to include matching rules: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/bi-directional/contracts/pact#converting-mocks-into-a-pact-compatible-format

tom.willmott

2021-08-16 13:47

has joined #general

dawoud.sheraz

2021-08-16 15:53

To add some more context to the question, the user making the request can have different roles(manager, client etc.) Based upon the user role, the response content can change. Now, in the contract, there are two interactions, one expects request.user to be manager and the other client. With requestFilter(is there an equivalent in pact-python?) approach, we would need special checks based on request contents to add appropriate user to the request.

franklin.lucena89

2021-08-16 16:52

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-08-16 22:44

sorry, you did

matt.fellows

2021-08-16 22:45

the provider state would have the context of the authentication - e.g. ?given a call to X with a valid manager? should setup the authentication state for a manager etc.

matt.fellows

2021-08-16 22:46

request filter does not exist in Python, but the infrastructure has recently been added to support messaging, which should make implementing that much easier

matt.fellows

2021-08-16 22:46

I?d suggest a feature request and/or PR to pact-python

dawoud.sheraz

2021-08-17 04:43

right, thanks.

ram.tripathi

2021-08-17 06:33

has joined #general

ricardo.neto

2021-08-17 09:22

has joined #general

andrew.patterson

2021-08-17 14:55

has joined #general

pshah

2021-08-17 15:31

has joined #general

dylanchase26

2021-08-18 04:11

has joined #general

satish.chandra

2021-08-18 05:54

has joined #general

sethimudit2002

2021-08-18 14:36

Hello. We are investigating to use pact tests for inter services messaging and have a spike setup between a consumer and provider with pact broker with webhooks setup for provider. There are situations where we would like to have consumer deployed till prod with new message subscription which is still not done from the provider. We tried pending pacts thinking that should solve it but that helps only provider builds to not fail. Is there a way to let consumer deploy to prod in this case? We have the can-i-deploy on consumer build which fails even though the verification is ?success? meaning it skips the pending pact that is not implemented as yet. P.S. - Consumer and provider are done by same team in this case. We use tags for our main branch and also for our environments. And prefer working on main branch and not feature branches

tjones

2021-08-18 15:03

Ah, this is an interesting edge case. Let me rephrase to see if I have understood: you have a message consumer with no provider (yet), but it?s safe to deploy the message consumer, because it?s not broken- it just won?t receive any messages?

tjones

2021-08-18 15:06

I think it?s hard to tell what the ?right? behaviour for pact should be- I suppose it depends on whether the consumer requires the provider?s messages in order to work, or whether the messages are optional. My gut feel is it sounds like we need a mechanism for this case- maybe a pending pact should allow a message consumer to deploy?

tjones

2021-08-18 15:07

Pragmatically you could just not include the message provider in the can-i-deploy check

sethimudit2002

2021-08-18 15:18

You got it right in understanding. Yes I was hoping pending pact should do it but it only helps the provider and not the consumer which we want in this case. Last resort would be to not have can-i-deploy check but if in someway we can avoid it would be nice. But thanks for the help. I guess an additional configuration that could be set somewhere would be helpful.

poorvasgokhale

2021-08-18 16:26

In this case maybe then Can-i-deploy step can be made optional depending on some flag in consumer pipeline. (Thinking out loud here)

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 16:50

So let's say our business logic calls another service, rather than calls a database storage layer. Is the best practice to stub the business logic or mock the service? It sounds like, in the spirit of risk reduction, it's preferable to mock the service?

sethimudit2002

2021-08-18 16:55

Yes that is the only thing we could think of for now. @poorvasgokhale thanks

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 17:44

Hey, all. Great conversations on this channel! It really helped me gel the important distinction between contract tests and integration/functional tests. A QA engineer I have been working with presented me with a scenario where I couldn't tell if this belonged in a contract test and, if not, how you would test it. Let's say an API contract indicates that you are returned a list of widgets. Some are standard and some are specialized. You only get the specialized widgets if you're in the UK. Note that you may or may not get specialized widgets if you are in the UK - you won't get any if there are none currently available. Also, you don't know from the result whether a widget is specialized or not, it just shows up or it doesn't. I suppose you could create a provider state "specialized widget exists" and then run the contract test to make sure it comes back. But I guess my question is - is that part of the contract or is that a functional test? Is the contract "X comes back under Y condition" or is it just "the result set needs to look like this format"?

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 17:45

Note that the logic to determine if a specialized widget comes back is part of the business logic of the provider, and I've seen mixed messages on whether we should be testing that kind of logic in contract tests...

dimundo

2021-08-18 18:07

its a func test - `if (something) {return another_something}`

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:08

Yea, ok, interesting.

dimundo

2021-08-18 18:08

pact tests would be `UK_something has such format` and `Non_UK_something has such format`

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:09

OK, so you are saying it's the form and shape of the response that is part of the contract, and does the consumer handle that correctly. The fact that A comes back instead of B doesn't matter, if A and B both follow the same format.

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:11

TBH I am quite concerned our engineers, many of whom are junior, are not going to get this subtle distinction. We are going to need to work hard to communicate this clearly, otherwise all sorts of antipatterns will evolve.

dimundo

2021-08-18 18:11

> and does the consumer handle that correctly no, there is no `if` as consumer handles those 2 and made pact for provider to provide such A and B

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:12

sorry, Dmitry, I didn't understand that last part

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:12

But I think your point is, we test format, not logic, in contract tests, is that right?

dimundo

2021-08-18 18:12

> form and shape of the response that is part of the contract, and does the consumer handle that correctly. `does` sounds like a question

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:13

ah ok

kyle.florence

2021-08-18 18:15

@david.vancouvering in case you haven?t read it yet https://docs.pact.io/consumer/contract_tests_not_functional_tests/

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:15

Yes, I've read it but this part was unclear to me. I'll go read it again :slightly_smiling_face:

dimundo

2021-08-18 18:15

next question will be covered here https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1625149936322700

kyle.florence

2021-08-18 18:17

this is one place where there will be a very small gray area. when i question if something makes sense in a pact test, i?m generally inclined to say ?no? instead of ?yes? and try to cover it somewhere else

dimundo

2021-08-18 18:17

its quite tricky to stop at proper stage to not start doing func tests with pact :smile:

kyle.florence

2021-08-18 18:18

and you are correct David that it is very easy for someone who does not do this questioning to end up with functional pact tests :stuck_out_tongue:

kyle.florence

2021-08-18 18:18

hopefully it will be caught in review

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:22

Thanks all. "Hopefully it will be caught in review" - haha that has an ominous echo to it... :lightning:

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:23

Very interesting SO on your other thread Dmitry. I feel like I have moved from the simplicity of standard physics to the murky world of quantum physics. :disappointed:

dimundo

2021-08-18 18:25

just ask yourself more often - does it really must be tested with contract ?

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:26

So you're saying one should lean towards having fewer contract tests rather than more - one should have a high bar rather than a low bar when adding a contract test

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:27

Doesn't that risk regressions?

dimundo

2021-08-18 18:27

one must build proper testing pyramid

dimundo

2021-08-18 18:27

and test proper things on proper stages

david.vancouvering

And I think we're saying functional tests are cheaper/faster than contract tests

kyle.florence

yeah, i think these are the same questions you ask with any test you write. ?is this a unit test or an integration test?? ?is this an integration test or a functional test??

kyle.florence

functional tests in general are the most expensive/slow tests

kyle.florence

but pact is a tool with a specific purpose

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:29

OK terminology: functional test in my mind is testing a component in isolation, like a service or a library. To me those are cheaper than contract tests.

david.vancouvering

Whereas e2e test in a staging environment is the most expensive type of test. This is what the team I am working with tends to default towards

dimundo

old good pic

david.vancouvering

lol

dimundo

no ice-cream, please :)

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:31

I would split integration tests into "functional tests" which test a component in isolation and "integration tests" which test a bunch of components, like services, in a shared environment.

kyle.florence

2021-08-18 18:31

functional testing usually means ?testing from outside of the software? (e.g. black box testing)

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:31

I see

kyle.florence

2021-08-18 18:32

we usually use them for things like flows (e.g. selenium functional tests)

kyle.florence

2021-08-18 18:32

i think an e2e test is a type of functional test

kyle.florence

and yes e2e tests are the worst :smile:

dimundo

and easy to create :smile:

kyle.florence

easy to create, a pain to maintain

david.vancouvering

Here's the strategy I'm leaning towards in terms of a pyramid: ? Unit tests ? Component tests (e.g. test service with fake/stub/mocked dependencies) ? Contract tests ? Integration tests (in shared environment like staging) So I would prefer to test in a component test over a contract test

dimundo

> easy to create, a pain to maintain `we have qa for that, no?`

kyle.florence

we don?t like to throw things over the wall to QA at my company :heart:

dimundo

( i am a qa :wink: )

kyle.florence

i know

kyle.florence

:smile:

kyle.florence

2021-08-18 18:35

@david.vancouvering that looks mostly correct to me, although the way we do integration testing it is inside of the application, we don?t need an environment for it

kyle.florence

2021-08-18 18:35

i guess it?s similar to ?component tests? in your model

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:36

ok cool

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:36

At my company the history has been integration tests for pretty much everything, with a separate QE team writing and running these and managing deploys. We are working on slowly shifting the culture to QE being an enabling team that provides tools and best practices, and software devs writing all the tests and being responsible for deploys. Some QE folks may shift to become software devs, and some may choose to be part of the team that provides tools and best practices.

kyle.florence

2021-08-18 18:36

we have unit tests, openapi specification tests, pact tests, integration tests all as pre-deployment automation, and then post-deployment we run functional regression tests

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:37

makes sense

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:38

curious about your openapi spec tests, do you use a tool for that?

kyle.florence

2021-08-18 18:38

yeah, unfortunately we had to write one ourselves. i want to open source it but haven?t had time yet

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:39

OK :eyes:

kyle.florence

2021-08-18 18:39

although this tool does something similar and is worth looking into https://useoptic.com/

kyle.florence

2021-08-18 18:39

eventually i hope to abandon our library and use this one. although our library has some benefits since it is part of our existing stack (scala)

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:40

Optic looks very interesting, thanks!!

kyle.florence

2021-08-18 18:40

it was brand new when i wanted to use it, it has come a long way since then

david.vancouvering

"Get the benefits of Contract Tests, without writing and maintaining them." Hm, is it suggesting this can replace Pact tests?

kyle.florence

haha. we had to ask ourselves the same questions. i think it is a slightly different use-case

kyle.florence

we use it for our public API contracts

kyle.florence

but we use pact for all of our internal contracts

david.vancouvering

Why that distinction?

kyle.florence

because with a pact you control both sides, and with the public contract you only control your side

kyle.florence

so that gives you many benefits from pact, like being able to stand up stub servers easily and things like that

david.vancouvering

ah i see

kyle.florence

it also gives you realistic test data to use in your services (with pact)

david.vancouvering

https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/jvm/provider/junit5/#test-target

so you use pact to enable consumer develpoment in parallel with provider development, using stubs

kyle.florence

2021-08-18 18:43

the biggest benefit of pact for us is that it allows us to isolate our services completely

david.vancouvering

2021-08-18 18:43

yea makes sense

flynnhandley

2021-08-18 22:30

has joined #general

abubics

2021-08-19 10:08

That's totally up to you. If you want to avoid making extra network hops (which increases isolation & specificity, and reduces flakiness), stub your outgoing API clients (no different than stubbing database clients).

abubics

2021-08-19 10:12

I usually stub things before they get through to the central domain logic. If you cut boundaries in other places, you'll have to make that judgement yourself. It's a trade-off between lots of things, but I like to keep the contract testing limited to platform bindings & a tiny bit of transformation logic (as close to unit tests as possible while still having significant value).

samuel.verstraete

2021-08-19 12:22

we are getting 409's on publishing pacts to http://pact.dius.com.au . is there anyone aware of this?

tm.buga

2021-08-19 13:17

Hi all! I am having hard time understanding the Pact flow. If, for instance, I have two tests - one for the consumer and one for the producer, what would happen, if I run those tests in parallel and producer would start earlier and couldn't verify the contract, as it's not yet present on the Broker/Pactflow?

matt.fellows

2021-08-19 13:22

What?s your account details?

matt.fellows

2021-08-19 13:22

(feel free to DM me if you need)

matt.fellows

2021-08-19 13:29

See https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/troubleshooting/#409-when-publishing-a-pact (I have to run, but if it?s not the above, please send any issues to with your account details and actions so we can look)

beem132

2021-08-19 13:45

in the JS example project I believe their full test script goes: consumer tests -> publish -> provider tests. I'm fairly certain in your scenario the result would be that the consumer creates contracts that go unverified, and the provider tests pass no matter what. If you then ran the can-i-deploy script, it would tell you your consumer can't be deployed because it hasn't been verified, I'm not certain what the result would be for the provider.

beem132

2021-08-19 13:48

Hi, I'm writing some event driven contract tests, and I have a question about how to test the provider which is placing an event into a topic to be consumed by the consumer later. Is it expected that the code I test on the provider side would be separate from the part of the code that actually publishes to the event topic? Or is it expected that I mock the publish function and pull the argument from the mock to test the contract shape?

beem132

2021-08-19 13:49

I get that I _could_ do it either way, but just wanted to see if there was any known best practice for this piece.

thomaswtsang

2021-08-19 16:53

has joined #general

chris005

2021-08-19 19:07

has joined #general

chris005

2021-08-19 19:19

Hello : ) I have a general question regarding naming for third party libraries related to pact. Is it OK to use the pact name, e.g. pact-something? We're working on a project which is currently named `pact-testgen`, (it's a python CLI tool, for context). I don't want to imply that the project is owned or maintained by the Pact team. We'd be happy to include some sort of disclaimer to that effect in the README.

matt.fellows

2021-08-19 22:54

Thanks for asking and we don't have any guidelines there, but I'm certainly not concerned by it

matt.fellows

2021-08-19 22:54

What's the tool? Sounds interesting!

matt.fellows

2021-08-19 22:54

The first way

matt.fellows

2021-08-19 22:55

matt.fellows

2021-08-19 23:28

https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana explains the key flow

matt.fellows

2021-08-19 23:29

see also the CI/CD workshop in :point_down: (howtolearn)

2021-08-19 23:29

Here are a number of useful hands-on labs that teach all of the key concepts https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/workshops

srimuralixi

2021-08-20 02:18

has joined #general

manika.goel

2021-08-20 05:38

has joined #general

akanksha.sharma

2021-08-20 06:31

has joined #general

chris005

2021-08-20 13:36

We're trying to make provider testing easier to achieve by leveraging the test isolation provided out of the box by the unittest testing framework, which is part of Python's standard library. So, instead of setting up some endpoint to receive setup instructions from pact-verifier, we generate unit test code directly from a pact file. Once a test file is generated, developers only have to go in and fill in the `setUp` methods for each test class. For a Django project (our first target), each test method is run in a transaction, and rolls the transaction back when the method exits. All the user needs to do is define the state in `setUp`, and the framework takes care of the rest. The project is currently at a sort of working prototype level, and we're still trying to come up with a good name before we publish (and nail down a few issues, of course).

jonah

2021-08-20 14:42

has joined #general

tlzhou

2021-08-20 15:02

has joined #general

ramya.sri

2021-08-23 03:52

has joined #general

joseramonrivera21

2021-08-23 08:49

has joined #general

denny.duttig

2021-08-23 10:10

has joined #general

akansha.saraswat3

2021-08-23 10:50

has joined #general

sushant.soni

2021-08-23 21:10

has joined #general

yousafn

2021-08-24 10:13

My current client has a range of microservices and they have exploded in numbers over a short space of time. Rather than each microservice communicating solely via rest or event based messaging (sns/sqs), it is abstracted by each microservice exposing an SDK, that can be consumed as an npm package. They currently don?t use contract testing, and have little in the way of integration tests, so solely rely on unit tests, and manual regression testing in a deployed environment. It?s the first time I?ve seen the providers API abstracted by an SDK and haven?t had time to think about how to go about this with pact, I have a couple of idea floating around but it?s just fuzz at the minute. Thought I would write something here to get something concrete down and start some discussion :slightly_smiling_face:

tjones

2021-08-24 10:15

I'd be keen to hear more about this!

tjones

2021-08-24 10:16

I've seen swagger docs shared as an "sdk", with the OpenAPI generators used on build

ajaiswal595

2021-08-24 11:00

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-08-24 11:06

Hello! Long time no speak

matt.fellows

2021-08-24 11:07

there was a bit of a chat about this recently, i?ll dig up the thread and link

matt.fellows

2021-08-24 11:07

I?ve done work with this situation before, and a little write up on it here: https://pactflow.io/blog/should-i-write-contract-tests-for-client-sdks/

matt.fellows

2021-08-24 11:10

https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1627275533164800 was the most recent one

abatan.k

2021-08-24 12:32

Hello interesting question :slightly_smiling_face: The bridge between teams is brittle. They have unit test, but those are not covering integration between teams. So the teams are doing extra work (manual regression), to try to sync the knowledge between them. Pact is a game changer, because you already know _*before*_ deployment if you brake the expectation of your consumer. In your case it's seems to be verified in production. I think, that pact will improve the pertinence of your sdks. Since they'll evolve with the consumer expectations. Hope it helps :wink:

pd287515778

2021-08-24 12:48

has joined #general

hwebster

2021-08-25 05:30

has joined #general

hoangvo

2021-08-25 05:43

has joined #general

jobjingjo

2021-08-25 06:20

has joined #general

yousafn

2021-08-25 10:14

The client doesn?t currently have swagger for their api?s, it?s all typescript using IOC with inversify. There is a real struggle to understand breaking changes in API?s so they just get updated and are a bit bloated. Agreed @abatan.k! You should come work with us xD I have been using pact for the last 3-4 years known of it for around 5 and been working with cdc for a good few years beforehand. We never managed to successfully leverage pact fully at the last client due to stakeholder resistance from the internal test team. The new client is fully on board! They have CI/CD, teams have full ownership through to prod and there are no release CAB?s so changes go out as soon as tests are green. Biggest problem is the tests that do exist are of limited confidence, often against mocks and the teams don?t know enough about the business critical features that cross service boundaries. They publish packages on PR and master from an SDK, and they have dependabot triggering builds on consuming repositories. I thought about having some tests in place in the pipeline there which would fail if contracts aren?t met, but I would need a way to get feedback, back to the team which caused the breakage. Also not entirely sure how to go about writing pact tests for non http or message based pact, and the validation side of it when its abstracted through SDK?s. Matt - thanks for the blog post links, will have a read!

abatan.k

2021-08-25 13:31

Haha thx for the offer :sweat_smile: , i don't know if you already try to organize a workshop like an https://www.eventstorming.com/ ? I got the chance in my previous experience to work with domain experts really enthusiast about those workshop, and it's a good way to involve everyone in order to share the knowledge :slightly_smiling_face: If you cannot bring everyone, there is also other workshop which requires less people, like https://domainstorytelling.org/ (i have a preference for this one, it's way more "natural" than event storming, for non-tech people :slightly_smiling_face:)

abatan.k

2021-08-25 13:35

Anyway, i hope one day, i could work for a company outside France :sweat_smile: but i prefer the smaller companies, (10-50 people), it's easier to bring everyone on those workshop, and usually, they are more people interested by those practices, and you have less "ego-player" (or you can spot them easily ^^) :sweat_smile:

sagarsitap596

2021-08-25 14:10

has joined #general

sagarsitap596

2021-08-25 14:14

Can we publish contract to somewhere else and not on pact ? and configure provider to read contract from custom location ?

mike.geeves064

2021-08-25 14:37

What is it that you trying to avoid? (I assume by "on pact" you mean a pact-broker?) It would almost certainly be way easier (imo) to just use a broker. I've previously used the docker one: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-broker-docker which is straightforward to get going, to run locally or wherever you have docker available [we used locally as well as in our kubernetes cluster on AWS] Alternatively to just try it out you could get a free trial of pactflow: https://pactflow.io/pricing/?utm_source=homepage&utm_content=header and submit them there :slightly_smiling_face:

mike.geeves064

2021-08-25 14:53

Having said that, there is the requirement of a database to store them in, is that the complication? (docker works for there too!) You can specify the files to verify against, there's a --file argument to pact-verifier, just then you need to deal with what to do with them and getting them from your consumers etc

sagarsitap596

2021-08-25 15:21

I want to do poc. So I can't push contract file outside of my org network.

mike.geeves064

2021-08-25 15:37

Fair enough, in which case docker could be a good option? Aside from the functionality, when I did a poc to demo it was good having our local docker pact broker to help explain/demo the consumer and producer relationships that you can see in the broker, you get nice diagrams for example

kyle.fischer

2021-08-25 16:31

has joined #general

datasmithadvtech

2021-08-25 19:43

has joined #general

todor.m.kolev

2021-08-25 19:59

has joined #general

datasmithadvtech

2021-08-25 20:11

How would it be accomplished for java?

matt.fellows

2021-08-25 21:35

For a POC you can always share the file manually to demonstrate the concept, especially if you don't have time to setup a broker

matt.fellows

2021-08-25 21:35

As Mike said, if you want to demo locally just run the docker image

matt.fellows

2021-08-25 23:50

> Also not entirely sure how to go about writing pact tests for non http or message based pact, and the validation side of it when its abstracted through SDK?s. I?ve been wanting to put together a video on this for a while (not the SDK abstracted version of it). But happy to give you pointers!

matt.fellows

2021-08-26 00:34

The latest AMAs are live on our website (and YouTube): https://docs.pact.io/help/amas/ ? July: We were joined by @tjones and discuss the differences between Contract Testing, Schema/Specification Testing and working with OpenAPI specs ? August: We were joined by @kristine.jetzke and @anja.gruss and discussed all things Avro. We?d love feedback on these sessions and if more like them are of interest. It was heaps of fun for us, so if you have a topic you?d like to see discussed in a similar panel format we?d love to hear from you!

tjones

2021-08-26 01:19

I just ran into this: ``` withRequest: { method: 'POST', path: '/item/1', headers, },``` which passed (incorrectly) because I forgot to specify the body of the request. I reckon pact should warn in a case like that - it's valid to have a body-less post, but probably not what you meant.

sushmitha.amin

2021-08-26 04:31

has joined #general

sagarsitap596

2021-08-26 05:42

Thanks Mike, Matt!! yeah docker approach should work for me. Could you please redirect me to your POC if possible?

matt.fellows

2021-08-26 06:58

my POC?

matt.fellows

2021-08-26 06:58

what do you mean, sorry?

matt.fellows

2021-08-26 06:58

I thought you said _you_ were doing a POC, so I was saying for a POC do what you need to do - share the file manually, run the broker locally etc.

matt.fellows

2021-08-26 06:59

but if it?s a POC and the data is not real, what?s the problem with using Pactflow? (thanks Mike for sharing)

mike.geeves064

2021-08-26 08:06

Not sure if Sagar meant my poc that I mentioned? For docker, in the repo linked are some docker-compose examples, which include up a postgresql database, e.g. https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-broker-docker/blob/master/docker-compose.yml (they have an additional optional step which it mentions of nginx which you may want to add certs for or alternatively just take out to start with) Unfortunately my poc isn't currently in a shareable state, and included a load of extra setup for docker networks and deployment to kubernetes, GitLab webhooks and so on, as part of the CI/CD I was using to demo in our environment If you have the docker compose based broker/database running you should then be able to just push up the consumer pacts you've generated with docker as well to it with something like: > docker run -it --net=pact-broker_default -v $(pwd)/pacts:/pacts --rm pactfoundation/pact-cli broker \ > publish /pacts --consumer-app-version=0.0.1 --tag=first_release --broker-base-url=http://pact-broker_pact-broker_1:9292 (this is using the same "network" the broker docker-compose will have setup with the --net, which is why the broker url is then pact-broker_pact-broker rather than the localhost you would use directly)

sagarsitap596

2021-08-26 09:46

yeah I meant Mike's poc. Sorry for confusion.

sagarsitap596

2021-08-26 10:25

Hi team, I have pact test written in src/test/java/xyzpackage. is there a way we can run pact test under given package using mvn ?

matt.fellows

2021-08-26 10:39

Pact just runs under a unit testing framework, so your questions is probably better framed that way: how to run a specific test in x with maven

matt.fellows

2021-08-26 10:40

Unless you're not using a test framework, in which case I assume you just run the Java class as you would any other

sagarsitap596

2021-08-26 12:18

hey Mike, I am using Junit5. I have other junits written in code. So I thought of running just pact test which are under one package.

sagarsitap596

2021-08-26 12:20

If I run just class in Intelij it runs and test passes. but if I run with mvn '-Dtest=com.xyzpackage.pact.*Test' test , it is giving me 0 - Connect to *localhost:8080 [localhost/127.0.0.1, localhost/0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1] failed: Connection refused (Connection refused).* though my local provider is up

sagarsitap596

2021-08-26 12:28

Ignore, its working now. Setup issue.

shwetastar98

2021-08-26 12:35

has joined #general

contact

2021-08-26 12:44

has joined #general

malena.cadima

2021-08-26 16:07

has joined #general

thanuxxxx

2021-08-27 01:12

Quick question about testing query parameters. I have a URL that has 2 variations 1. resource/id 2. resource/slug&slug=true But they give same response. Do I have to test those two variations?

uglyog

2021-08-27 01:39

What happens if the consumer sends `resource/slug` but does not include the query parameter?

thanuxxxx

2021-08-27 01:40

That would consider as invalid `id` and returns a `404 error response` ( as expected)

louis.ss

2021-08-27 01:42

has joined #general

uglyog

2021-08-27 01:43

Is that not an important thing to define in the contract?

thanuxxxx

2021-08-27 01:43

I have 4 tests ? two tests for happy tests & 2 for sad tests 1. valid id or slug ( `resource/valid_id` and`resource/valid_slug&slug=true` 2. invalid id or slug ( `resource/invalid_id` and `resource/invalid_slug&slug=true`

thanuxxxx

2021-08-27 01:49

ideally when this param is set to true, then id is a slug

uglyog

2021-08-27 01:51

I was more trying to get you to think about what is important in the contract to help you answer your original question

thanuxxxx

2021-08-27 01:54

So in the contact I define, when it is a valid id then there is an expected good response, and when it is not a valid Id then it should be an expected bad response

sagarsitap596

2021-08-27 11:39

```@BeforeEach void before(PactVerificationContext context) { context.setTarget(new HttpTestTarget("localhost", 8080, "/")); }``` instead of localhost how can I provide cname / server domain without port url ? I tried with just domian name, but the lib is appending 8080 by default

matt.fellows

2021-08-27 11:40

Probably best asked in #pact-jvm

matt.fellows

2021-08-27 11:40

But I?m guessing something like: ```context.setTarget(new HttpTestTarget("http://somewebsite.com", 80, "/"));```

matt.fellows

2021-08-27 11:41

or ```context.setTarget(new HttpsTestTarget("http://somewebsite.com", 443, "/"));```

matt.fellows

2021-08-27 11:41

sergio.amorim

2021-08-27 14:40

has joined #general

slin

2021-08-29 23:51

has joined #general

shane.robinson

2021-08-30 00:30

has joined #general

br.maher

2021-08-30 04:35

has joined #general

varnit.garg2424

2021-08-30 09:41

Hey Guys, One quick question: I would like to understand how pact is different from protobuf if two micro-services are connected via kafka. I understand that protobuf helps in validating the schema and supports backward compatibility as well. Let's say if we are already using protobuf, then would there be any significant advantage to consider using pact as well?

tjones

2021-08-30 09:42

Yes. If you are using protobuf, how do you determine that both sides are implementing the same contract?

tjones

2021-08-30 09:43

The pact broker maintains a list of the consumer contracts and the version(s) of the providers that compatible with the contracts.

varnit.garg2424

2021-08-30 10:15

It's like we can have a separate library that would define the proto. Let's say if we update the schema, then just change it in the common lib and use the same version on producer and consumer side

tjones

2021-08-30 12:51

How do you ensure that each deployable object (consumer, producer etc) has the latest version of the lib?

tjones

2021-08-30 12:52

How do you know that the previously deployed version is compatible with the new version?

tjones

2021-08-30 12:52

Pact solves those problems for you through testing

tjones

2021-08-30 12:54

If you're managing a shared library in a way that answers those questions, you probably don't need pact. I'm not super across protobuf, but we occasionally get the same argument in situations where the provider's build also releases a shared http client library. Every time I have personally seen this, the process of "oh, don't worry, we don't forget to update the lib" has not been successful.

tjones

2021-08-30 12:55

> Let's say if we update the schema, then just change it in the common lib and use the same version on producer and consumer side The best use case for this scenario is where the consumer and producer are one atomically deployable unit.

matt.fellows

2021-08-30 13:03

I'll try and answer on more detail tomorrow, but take a look at #protobufs and also the feature requests at http://pact.canny.io

kwongyun

2021-08-30 15:57

has joined #general

0x06065a

2021-08-31 00:02

has joined #general

abubics

2021-08-31 03:42

There's probably the whole https://pactflow.io/blog/schemas-are-not-contracts/ thing, too

2021-08-31 03:42

https://pactflow.io/blog/schemas-are-not-contracts/

matt.thomas

2021-08-31 05:29

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2021-08-31 08:14

Ask in #pact-jvm @datasmithadvtech

abhi.nandan964

2021-08-31 10:19

has joined #general

nathaniel.emmons

2021-08-31 15:06

Question about testing ?message? pacts. Say a provider publishes to an SNS topic which is then fanned out to SQS queues. The consumer listens to an SQS queue. That SNS fanout in the middle is https://docs.aws.amazon.com/sns/latest/dg/sns-sqs-as-subscriber.html by wrapping it in metadata etc. So i need to account for parsing that extra layer in my consumer of course, but in terms of pact testing, i guess that means i need to ?mock? that extra layer of data in my provider verification so that the verification works? It seems like an interesting edge case to have this intermediary transforming the message in the middle in a way which causes the provider more work to match for the sake of verification.. unless i?m missing something?

nathaniel.emmons

2021-08-31 16:38

Put more simply: i?m wondering whether it should be the provider?s responsibility or the consumer?s responsibility to understand and account for the mutation of the message sent by the provider to SNS

shivi.btech08

2021-08-31 21:03

has joined #general

tjones

2021-09-01 00:13

Interesting case!

tjones

2021-09-01 00:14

I think the pragmatic option is to mock it in your provider as you suggest

tjones

2021-09-01 00:16

this is kind of always the case with message pacts at the moment - in an HTTP pact, we actually send the real request, whereas in a message pact, the sending is mocked, and the data shape is the part that's tested.

tjones

2021-09-01 00:17

We're working on plugins for pact, which will mean that in the future you won't need as many mocks

qingyuliu

2021-09-01 02:05

Hi, I have a question about upload pact file to pact broker from the consumer side. Here is how my plugin defined: ```<plugin> <groupId>au.com.dius.pact.provider</groupId> <artifactId>maven</artifactId> <version>${pact-jvm-provider-maven.version}</version> <configuration> <pactBrokerUrl>http://localhost:8085</pactBrokerUrl> </configuration> <executions> <execution> <phase>install</phase> <goals> <goal>publish</goal> </goals> </execution> </executions> </plugin> <properties> <pact-jvm-provider-maven.version>4.1.7</pact-jvm-provider-maven.version> </properties>``` And I got the error: [ERROR] No plugin found for prefix 'pact' in the current project and in the plugin groups [org.mortbay.jetty, com.ebay.raptor.build, org.codehaus.mojo, org.sonatype.maven.plugins, org.apache.maven.plugins], I've tried many different versions of the pact-jvm-provider-maven like 4.1.23, 4.1.11, etc, Can anyone help me solve this problem?

matt.fellows

2021-09-01 02:11

can you please redirect this question to #pact-jvm ?

qingyuliu

2021-09-01 02:12

Sure

kpuengpanich

2021-09-01 07:14

has joined #general

mhmtyuceoz

2021-09-01 07:35

has joined #general

gayatree.eee

2021-09-01 07:38

Is there anyway we can retry publish/verify contract if it fails due to some reason

matt.fellows

2021-09-01 08:42

There are retries built in in many of the tools as I understand, what problem are you seeing and how are you publishing?

gayatree.eee

2021-09-01 10:19

we are using pact cli to invoke publish or verify

matt.fellows

2021-09-01 11:02

What problems agree you getting though?

matt.fellows

2021-09-01 11:03

Pretty sure if you enable verbose you'll see any retry attempts. It won't retry under all conditions though

nathaniel.emmons

2021-09-01 13:05

That all makes sense to me, thanks for your insight

tjones

2021-09-01 14:03

This is an interesting case. I'm not sure I understand it fully, but it sounds like this might be the key: > the gateway version is a cumulative version (itself + downstream services). This makes sense from the perspective of the consumers of the gateway, but I don't think it makes sense for the pact between the gateway and the downstream services

tjones

2021-09-01 14:04

You might benefit from having multiple versions for the gateway - an internal one (that changes when the gateway changes) and one for the consumers (that changes when the downstream services or the gateway change).

tjones

2021-09-01 14:04

Also I'll tag you since I'm nearly a month late replying to this (I only just saw it for some reason): @p0deje

tjones

2021-09-02 04:03

For pending pacts with one branch (say `main`), is there a way to tell the verifier "I'd like to verify the latest `main` pact, and the last one that was successful on `main`"?

volkan.tufekci

2021-09-02 08:47

has joined #general

yassine

2021-09-02 10:59

has joined #general

connor.beck

2021-09-02 13:39

has joined #general

maurits.out

2021-09-02 15:12

has joined #general

kumasaka.tk

2021-09-02 21:24

has joined #general

valeriia.danylenko

2021-09-03 18:26

has joined #general

irmt06

2021-09-04 22:51

has joined #general

wenqiglantz

2021-09-05 00:52

Check out my article on Medium on using Pact for testing event driven pub/sub messaging with Dapr within Spring Boot microservices. https://medium.com/codex/consumer-driven-contract-testing-with-pact-f8a28a8a7c3c

tjones

2021-09-05 06:57

Nice work!

bethskurrie

2021-09-05 07:36

@tjones not currently. What problem would that solve?

tjones

2021-09-06 05:34

Maybe I don't understand this feature

tjones

2021-09-06 05:34

I want it to warn about breaking changes

tjones

2021-09-06 05:35

like "this is a regression", vs "this is a new contract you haven't implemented yet"

bethskurrie

2021-09-06 05:35

Have you read https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/pending_pacts/#how-it-is-calculated recently?

tjones

2021-09-06 05:35

if we enable pending pacts, it just won't complain if there's a new contract that fails, right?

bethskurrie

2021-09-06 05:36

there's a state transition diagram and everything.

tjones

2021-09-06 05:36

yes, I've read that, and I still don't understand how I'm supposed to configure it.

bethskurrie

2021-09-06 05:37

enablePending: true

tjones

2021-09-06 05:37

To catch regressions, wouldn't I want to verify the latest non-pending?

tjones

2021-09-06 05:37

As well as the latest pending

bethskurrie

Noo....

tjones

why not?

bethskurrie

are you thinking about wip pacts?

tjones

I don't know what that is

bethskurrie

pending doesn't change which pacts you're verifying.

tjones

right, pending changes whether or not a pact is allowed to fail the build

bethskurrie

yes.

bethskurrie

well said.

tjones

So, for `main`, would I not want to validate: ? main's last pending pact ? main's last non-pending pact ?

bethskurrie

no, you just verify the latest main

bethskurrie

same as normal.

tjones

But I don't want to do that, because I want to catch regressions

bethskurrie

enablePending just determines whether or not that failure breaks the build.

tjones

Won't I miss things?

bethskurrie

we're not connecting here.

tjones

Ok. Here's an (I think) unrelated question that might uncover where I'm confused:

tjones

> A pact content is considered pending if there has not been a successful verification published by the specified branch of the provider.

bethskurrie

you do catch regressions.

tjones

With short lived branches, won't all contracts be pending?

bethskurrie

that's where WIP pacts comes in.

bethskurrie

http://docs.pact.io/wip

tjones

> you do catch regressions. I don't think I do, because a regression (if covered by the pending pact, which it might not be) won't fail the build.

bethskurrie

that will automatically include your feature pacts in the verification process so you don't have to explicitly update teh config.

bethskurrie

and they will be included with pending=true so they never fail the build.

tjones

2021-09-06 05:43

tjones

2021-09-06 05:43

I mean feature builds on the provider side

bethskurrie

2021-09-06 05:43

aaah

bethskurrie

ok, the logic is actually a little bit more complex

tjones

(I don't want to validate any pacts that aren't in `main`)

tjones

(so I don't think WIP pacts is for me)

bethskurrie

a pact is pending if there is no successful verification from this provider branch AND there was no successful verification from a branch from before this branch was created.

tjones

hmm

tjones

how does the broker know that? Do I have to tell it?

bethskurrie

if you only ever verify main, then your'e foricing nyour consumers to break their own builds to get a feature out.

bethskurrie

> how does the broker know that? Do I have to tell it? No, it has that data.

tjones

It doesn't have my git history

bethskurrie

it uses the tags

bethskurrie

it assumes at least one of the tags is a branch.

tjones

but those don't contain that information. Is it making assumptions about time?

bethskurrie

also, branch support is almost done, so it will use that data.

bethskurrie

the tags have a date on them.

tjones

ok. So it's assuming it hears about the tags/branches in the order that they're created

bethskurrie

Ok, as much as I would love to give you the special treatment, at this stage, I'm going to have to say waht I say to everyone, which is "Please do this workshop" https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/ci-cd

tjones

which is going to be wrong sometimes

tjones

Our party line can't be "do this workshop"

bethskurrie

yes, the tag data is goign to be wrong sometimes. that's why I've written proper branch support.

bethskurrie

Yes it bloody is!

bethskurrie

I can't sit and take 30 mintues to explain it to everyone who asks or I'd never get any work done!

tjones

Well, that's fair

bethskurrie

it works. it works enough that people are using it.

bethskurrie

and most of them without a personal explanation.

bethskurrie

because they do the workshop :stuck_out_tongue:

tjones

2021-09-06 05:49

> and most of them without a personal explanation. Fair. Well, when I understand it, I'll write the summary that I'm looking for.

tjones

2021-09-06 05:50

I still don't think I can catch regressions if I'm using pending

tjones

2021-09-06 05:50

but maybe I don't need to?

tjones

2021-09-06 05:50

when there are deployments, we'll have different tags for those

tjones

2021-09-06 05:52

Anyway, thanks for the personal explanation! I appreciate it :pray:

divyalakshmi.gk

2021-09-07 01:46

has joined #general

constantin.jaeck

2021-09-07 02:24

has joined #general

narendra_uppara

2021-09-07 07:17

has joined #general

nikuplanchiwar

2021-09-07 08:03

has joined #general

sdomeracki

2021-09-07 10:22

has joined #general

gibraltor999

2021-09-07 12:03

has joined #general

norway.martin

2021-09-07 18:38

has joined #general

adamdullenty

2021-09-08 08:23

has joined #general

martin.a.harkins

2021-09-08 12:15

has joined #general

jayeshguru81

2021-09-08 21:55

Hello, In pact test how do I verify if the expected json response body matches for the unordered lists? ```expected_response_json_body = { "message":"Information gathered successfully.", "info":[ {"file_name":"abc.jpg","id":"abc"}, {"file_name":"def.jpg","id":"def"}, {"file_name":"ghi.jpg","id":"ghi"}, {"file_name":"jkl.jpg","id":"jkl"} ] }```

bethskurrie

2021-09-08 22:36

I think later versions of the pact spec allow you to do unordered lists. It depends which library you're using.

bethskurrie

2021-09-08 22:36

The easiest way is to just expect one item!

jayeshguru81

2021-09-08 22:37

yeah thats what I am looking for, I am new to pact

jayeshguru81

2021-09-08 22:37

how do I expect just one item ?

jayeshguru81

2021-09-08 22:37

I thought we have to match whole response body

bethskurrie

2021-09-08 22:38

Which language are you using?

jayeshguru81

2021-09-08 22:38

Consumer - JS Provider - Python

bethskurrie

2021-09-08 22:39

Here are the pact-js docs https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/javascript/readme

bethskurrie

2021-09-08 22:39

Here's a Pact JS workshop https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/introduction/readme

bethskurrie

2021-09-08 22:40

Here's docs on matchers https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/matching

bethskurrie

2021-09-08 22:41

Also, there are 10+ languages that Pact is implemented in. Best to ask questions in the channel for your language. #pact-js and #pact-python

jayeshguru81

2021-09-08 22:42

Thanks Beth I will look into this and see how it fits my usecase

adamdullenty

2021-09-08 23:03

Hey everyone. I'm just working through the pact guide for Ruby at the point where I try to run the rake task to verify against the pact from the consumer project: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby#in-the-animal-service-provider-project I'm getting this error: ```RuntimeError: Could not find http://config.ru file at ./config.ru Please configure the service provider app or create a http://config.ru file in the root directory of the project.``` The "producer" in this case is a Ruby lambda function written using Serverless, so it doesn't really make sense to have a `http://config.ru` but I can carry on down this route if there's a known way to get this to work?

bethskurrie

Hi @adamdullenty. Best place to ask is in #pact-ruby

adamdullenty

Thanks :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

It'll be me there too, but we like to keep the channels focussed.

adamdullenty

https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/versioning_in_the_pact_broker

done!

rocco.smit

2021-09-09 06:20

has joined #general

andrei_mironau

2021-09-09 10:00

has joined #general

febin.sathar

2021-09-09 10:16

has joined #general

jcaromiq

2021-09-09 11:47

has joined #general

aaron590

2021-09-09 15:24

I understand Pact is built for testing contracts that we control both consumer and provider. Is there any guidance for using Pact to stub 3rd party services? I understand there's a second half that we'd have to ensure that the contracts we're using to stub are valid.

mike.geeves064

2021-09-09 17:05

I believe the guidance is generally "don't" :slightly_smiling_face: "When to use Pact | Pact Docs" https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/what_is_pact_good_for/#why-pact-may-not-be-the-best-tool-for-testing-public-apis You can but there are complications to consider when you don't control both sides, so it may or may not be the best solution, as always "it depends"!

aaron590

2021-09-09 17:44

We wouldn't be using it for the actual testing portion. We realize that's not ideal. We'd want to use the stub server functionality and I believe this gets us most of the way, if not all of the way there.

aaron590

2021-09-09 17:45

But we do realize that there's a lot of grey area here

mike.geeves064

2021-09-09 18:18

Indeed! I know what you mean. (disclaimer: far from and expert here so I'm sure others can give more real world guidance :slightly_smiling_face:) Do you know what sort of interactions you will be needing to do? As in if you are just needing to do some GET requests and check out all works together that's going to be a lot simpler than if there are state changes to deal with :thinking_face:

aaron590

2021-09-09 18:21

The plan is to stub entire 3rd party services. GET/PUT/POST/PATCH/DELETE. Overnight run some different tests against these 3rd party services to ensure that our stubs are valid by comparing responses to the defined contract. We want to explore PACT as a part of the core flow because it has most of this functionality built in

kyle.florence

2021-09-09 18:29

i would recommend checking out https://useoptic.com/

kyle.florence

2021-09-09 18:30

but also it sounds like you?re more interested in creating a mock service for the third-party

aaron590

2021-09-09 18:30

We're the consumer though, not the provider. Am I misunderstanding how Optic works?

kyle.florence

2021-09-09 18:31

i see, yeah optic is primarily for the provider side where the consumer is a third-party

kyle.florence

2021-09-09 18:31

we generally just stub our third-party calls in the client layer

kyle.florence

2021-09-09 18:31

or call out to a third party test environment

kyle.florence

2021-09-09 18:32

if the third party provides a spec of some sort (like OpenAPI), there are tools that can be used to generate a stub server from that

aaron590

2021-09-09 18:33

> or call out to a third party test environment We've got services that don't have a test environment and we're having connectivity issues with these environments > we generally just stub our third-party calls in the client layer We're a micro service architecture that we have to do acceptance testing on. This is the level we're interested in. In order to properly test our services we need to make sure we have a reliable connection to a 3rd party service

aaron590

2021-09-09 18:34

> if the third party provides a spec of some sort (like OpenAPI), there are tools that can be used to generate a stub server from that I'm uncertain, but we can dig into that

kyle.florence

2021-09-09 18:36

yeah i guess the solution for stubbing third parties depends a lot on how the third party works and whether or not you want to make actual network calls to something

mike.geeves064

2021-09-09 18:41

A pattern I've used, not specific to pact, if there's a 3rd party service, having a small service acting as a gateway/interface (for example if there are multiple clients using it, avoiding having logic to handle retries, throttling, logging usage and so on) Then you could fully manage the pact contracts with your consumers, although in a way moving the problem (for our use case we were looking at weather data so abstracting out the 3rd party API meant we could swap out the implementation without changing the clients themselves). Tangenting now possibly :)

mike.geeves064

2021-09-09 18:43

So for our testing we would use a dummy implementation that was very fast to verify e2e

kyle.florence

2021-09-09 18:43

we primarily do testing in production against a third party test environment, when we want to ?actually test?

kyle.florence

2021-09-09 18:44

our applications have the concept of a ?usage context? baked into them, though, which is defined by the authentication token used

mike.geeves064

2021-09-09 19:23

Hmm, can't find a link (currently on my phone). I'm not sure about the scenario of running nightly tests, pact is more oriented to running when there are changes on the provider or consumer. That's not to say you couldn't ofc I believe the broker will attempt to use prior evidence of compatibility if there's no change to the pact created by the consumer of behaviour of the broker (that's the bit I can't find in a link to verify if that's actually the case)

kyle.florence

2021-09-09 19:24

i would probably use a different tool rather than pact just for standing up stub servers

mike.geeves064

2021-09-09 19:24

If that's the case, depending on how you're running it, that wouldn't then show if the 3rd party API has since changed :thinking_face:

kyle.florence

2021-09-09 19:24

nope

mike.geeves064

2021-09-09 19:25

(sorry I was continuing the I think it may use cached results rather than a disagreeing with your comment)

mike.geeves064

2021-09-09 19:26

(timing!)

kyle.florence

2021-09-09 19:26

lol

mike.geeves064

2021-09-09 19:27

Wait..re reading it, yes it wouldn't show if you had a mock and their end changed. Should have just kept quiet :D

kyle.florence

2021-09-09 19:28

yeah for that kind of stuff, you mostly just have to trust that the third party isn?t breaking things

kyle.florence

2021-09-09 19:28

but if they do, there are further steps you can take if needed, depending on how they do releases, etc

mike.geeves064

2021-09-09 19:32

Nod. That's where I like the extra point of failure (:open_mouth:) of your own service acting as an interface to work round when they add or remove an s to a field name or a new API version becomes default and breaks things, to be able to update one single place. But that's still going away from the original question :)

kyle.florence

2021-09-09 19:33

yeah that?s an interesting solution, depending on how they break something haha.

mike.geeves064

2021-09-09 19:48

Indeed. The example I'm thinking of, looking at weather data, we had ended up with several consumers pointing to a different API version and or host (USA Vs EU or something), causing ourselves much confusion later because of ever so slightly different values everywhere :sob:

mike.geeves064

2021-09-09 19:49

At doc I was thinking of depending on what pact test/approach running your looking at, it will try to avoid duplicate verification

mike.geeves064

2021-09-09 19:49

Found it

mike.geeves064

2021-09-09 19:50

mike.geeves064

2021-09-09 19:51

There we go

mirko.zipris

2021-09-09 20:08

has joined #general

dotelnp

2021-09-10 06:48

has joined #general

sameer.patil

2021-09-10 18:42

has joined #general

b.1.alpha

2021-09-10 19:17

has joined #general

naushad_amin

2021-09-11 23:15

has joined #general

jose_rodriguez

2021-09-13 13:16

has joined #general

kyle_evans

2021-09-13 13:16

has joined #general

rahul.louis

2021-09-13 15:55

has joined #general

a.koka

2021-09-13 17:01

has joined #general

efloresambrosio

2021-09-13 20:09

has joined #general

olle_hallin

2021-09-14 05:50

has joined #general

a.babenko

2021-09-14 14:00

has joined #general

vasavi.balanagu

2021-09-14 16:49

has joined #general

samuel.sjoberg

2021-09-14 21:49

has joined #general

domingo

2021-09-14 23:51

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-09-15 01:06

Forgot to post this back here David: https://pactflow.io/blog/is-grpc-and-protobufs-truly-backwards-compatible/

matt.fellows

2021-09-15 01:07

Work is well underway (see https://github.com/pactflow/roadmap/issues/33 and https://github.com/pactflow/roadmap/projects/1)

matt.fellows

2021-09-15 01:08

If you are keen to be an early beta tester, please register for our https://github.com/pactflow/roadmap#developer-preview-programs

matt.fellows

2021-09-15 01:09

Quick follow up - you might be interested in this thread also @varnit.garg2424 https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1631667982093600?thread_ts=1626113788.476300&cid=C5F4KFKR8

pradeepkumarstudent20

2021-09-15 03:32

has joined #general

anchit.99

2021-09-15 08:45

What is the right answer to "how much maintenance do pact tests need?" or "how many hours per week should I be factoring for pact test maintenance?"

matt.fellows

2021-09-15 08:49

The answer to those sorts of questions is usually several more questions, or a snarky comment like ?How long is a piece of string?? :stuck_out_tongue:

matt.fellows

2021-09-15 08:50

replace ?pact? with ?unit? and see if it changes the way you think about the question

dimundo

2021-09-15 08:58

no tests - no maintenance :all_the_things:

gibraltor999

2021-09-15 11:19

Hi could someone let me know how is pact better or different from wiremocks please?

scott.riley111

2021-09-15 11:23

Have you read through this https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/comparisons/ ?

gibraltor999

2021-09-15 11:29

Yes, doesnt specifically mention about Wiremocks. Just wanted to a couple of points to understand why Pact specifically and not Wiremocks.

matt.fellows

2021-09-15 11:36

Wiremock is an API mocking tool

matt.fellows

2021-09-15 11:37

Pact does mocking, but more importantly those mocks are later verified against the real API

matt.fellows

2021-09-15 11:37

It uses a contract that keeps the two sets of tests in sync

matt.fellows

2021-09-15 11:38

This is why it's called contract testing

matt.fellows

2021-09-15 11:38

So wiremock is an API mocking tool, Pact is an API contract testing tool

gibraltor999

2021-09-15 12:15

Thanks Matt

matt.fellows

2021-09-15 12:19

You can use the ?nock? example from https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/comparisons, as nock does the same thing essentially

matty_o_connor01

2021-09-15 14:54

Hi all, I would like to setup a PACT test for a 400 response from an api call where I want to check the response body for the correct details. The real response from the provider looks something like this.... ```{ "errors": { "password": [ "The Password field is required." ] }, "type": "https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.5.1", "title": "One or more validation errors occurred.", "status": 400, "traceId": "|78b76663-404824fd386bdc03." }``` Questions 1. If I mock the response with only the fields I am interested in in my consumer test (e.g. `status` and `errors` ), when PACT does provider verification against the real api is it smart enough to ignore the other fields that are returned? Or does PACT think that is an error with the contract? 2. Depending on the answer to 1. if the provider has some sort of internal mechanism for populating a value in a field, e.g. the guid in the `traceId` above that can't be mocked in the provider when used with PACT, how can I ignore this during provider verification? Many thanks,

bryan

2021-09-15 15:16

has joined #general

matty_o_connor01

2021-09-15 15:29

I've just tried this and it looks like it worked by just specifying the fields I was interested in validating. Questions can be ignored unless some context can be provided to understand why it works this way. Ta,

dboxler

2021-09-15 18:35

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-09-15 23:16

I thought there was a better link, but this might help: https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/matching/gotchas/#pact-follows-postels-law

bethskurrie

2021-09-16 03:03

Research for new Pact Broker feature: does anyone use different pact verification configurations on different branches, and what is your reason for doing so?

tjones

2021-09-16 03:40

I don't yet, but I think that maybe I might want different `enablePending` settlings on different branches - for the case where you want to say "ok I'm now working on that feature"

tjones

2021-09-16 03:41

At the moment some frameworks (eg pact JVM in Junit5) represent "pending" pacts as passing in the Junit IntelliJ UI, which is a bit of an annoying development experience - you have to click on each test individually to see what failed

tjones

2021-09-16 03:42

With say 12 interactions, it's just annoying, with hundreds it would be impractical.

keerthisiv

2021-09-16 03:59

has joined #general

adelina.simion

2021-09-16 08:41

has joined #general

akke.luukkonen

2021-09-16 10:29

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-09-16 12:12

:wave: Hello! Getting started with Pact or just keen to level up your knowledge in Java or Node.js? You?re in luck! Next week @uglyog and I are hosting two live training workshops next week to help you get up to speed.� During each of the two and a half-hour workshops, we will cover: ? The challenges with end-to-end integrated testing and how contract testing can help ? The basics of contract testing and how it can fit into a general testing strategy ? The core concepts of�Pact�with a hands-on lab There will be plenty of opportunities for Q&A as we dive into the topics. By the end of the workshop, you should be comfortable writing and verifying�Pact�tests and have a basic understanding of how you can collaborate using a�Pact�Broker.� _Note: these training sessions will be most friendly for our users in APAC, Europe, and the UK._� Register yourself and feel free to share with your friends�and colleagues https://pactflow.io/upcoming-events/.

alejandro.pena

2021-09-16 13:37

has joined #general

fnguyen

2021-09-16 14:02

I can see how it could be useful to have features (and tests) in dev branch before it's fully stable and not breaking release branch builds

tjones

2021-09-16 14:18

Yes. I think it's a killer feature for people with lots of branches. I also love that you can say "if this has never passed before, I don't expect it to pass now".

j3rry.wan9

2021-09-17 00:40

Will there be future sessions that are more friendly for users in North America?

matt.fellows

2021-09-17 05:26

Yes! We actually ran them last week, and notified via our Pactflow mailing list but thought we'd increase the uptake through this channel

matt.fellows

2021-09-17 05:27

I'll cut up the recordings and share online in the coming weeks

bbleach

2021-09-17 07:30

has joined #general

bbleach

2021-09-17 08:10

Hello all :wave: I've recently been looking into Pact and have a question about the CI integration, as I've hit a bit of a blocker. I'll put the details in a thread so as not spam this chat with a big message, but any help would be greatly appreciated! :pray:

bbleach

2021-09-17 08:11

I have a setup as follows. Note that for now, the sole aim of this is to prevent feature branches being merged into "master" if they are not compatible with the other side in "master" also: ? Pushes to a Provider branch are verifying the consumers in master (enable pending is true, and wip pacts is set also). ? On the consumer side, pushes to a branch trigger a verification against the latest Provider master version, and that verification targets only that consumer version. The pact broker is configured to trigger these verifications on the contract_content_changed event. ? Additionally, to "block" merges into the consumer master version if the verification fails, I have a job that uses `can-i-deploy` to effectively say "is this consumer compatible with the latest provider master version?" Its using `--retry-while-unknown` to cause the consumer pipeline to wait until the verification is available. This is the problem I'm seeing now, possibly caused by using contract_content_changed event (but this seems to be the recommended approach): ? The first consumer push changes the pact and triggers a verification, and this is successful. So in the matrix this consumer version is now verified by the latest 'master' provider. ? Next, a provider branch gets merged into master, and the provider pipeline runs. This causes a verification to happen against the consumer masters. All consumers tagged with 'master' are now verified by the latest 'master' provider. The consumer version from before is now verified by a _previous_ master provider version. ? Finally, an update is made to the consumer branch (not a contract change) and pushed. No verification is triggered because the contract hasn't changed, and the problem is: *the* `can-i-deploy` *step now times out because this consumer version has no verification for the _latest_ provider master.* Does anything jump out at you as being incorrect with the above implementation? This is my first look into Pact so still finding my way a bit.

bbleach

2021-09-17 08:11

I'm thinking that instead of using the contract_content_changed event for the webhook I could switch to contract_published which would mean the consumer pushes always trigger a verification, and that might solve this problem. But it seems a bit wasteful this way so I wanted to check here first what I'm doing wrong :slightly_smiling_face:

bbleach

2021-09-17 08:16

I hope this makes some kind of sense. Its hard to articulate this stuff :sweat_smile:

tjones

2021-09-17 10:51

> the�can-i-deploy step now times out because this consumer version has no verification for the�latest�provider master This shouldn't happen. The pact broker considers unique contracts, not unique versions. So, if you publish a new version of the consumer with an unchanged contract, it is already verified (as long as that contract was previously varied)

tjones

2021-09-17 10:51

I suspect there's something misconfigured somewhere

tjones

2021-09-17 10:52

Are you publishing the pact from the latest consumer build? You still need to publish it even if it hasn't changed, so the broker will know it hasn't changed

bbleach

2021-09-17 11:02

Yes its being published on every build

bbleach

2021-09-17 11:11

This is what I'm seeing in the matrix after the provider branch was merged to master and that subsequent verification takes place against the consumer masters:

bbleach

2021-09-17 11:13

Which I understand to mean that this feature branch will no longer pass the can-i-deploy check against master, because the latest master provider has verified a pact with different contents?

bbleach

2021-09-17 11:23

Currently all provider pipelines (feature branches or master) are verifying the master pacts. Only the verification triggered from a consumer push verifies the given feature pact. I feel like I've missed something here just not sure what it is :thinking_face:

tjones

2021-09-17 15:58

> Which I understand to mean that this feature branch will no longer pass the can-i-deploy check against master, because the latest master provider has verified a pact with different contents? I'm not sure I understand this explanation - multiple consumer pacts are able to be verified by a single provider, so it should be fine. (I'm not too familiar with the pactflow UI for tags, but it looks like that line in the matrix is unrelated to whether you can deploy the provider against master consumer - because it's not the master consumer pact)

tjones

2021-09-17 16:00

What does the matrix say for master consumer vs master provider? If that is green, then perhaps your can-i-deploy check is not set up correctly?

bbleach

2021-09-17 16:00

So perhaps one of the things that I'm doing wrong is that in order to block the merges of the consumer feature branches to master, I'm using `can-i-deploy --to master` after publishing the pact, in the consumer pipeline.

tjones

2021-09-17 16:01

that sounds right to me

bbleach

2021-09-17 16:02

sorry that screen shot is not that useful, but the consumer is on the left and provider on the right. A grey tag here means that a newer version of the provider exists with the master tag, and this I believe is why the can-i-deploy step is timing out

tjones

Hmm. Which can-i-deploy is timing out?

tjones

the one for that feature branch?

bbleach

Yes the feature branch one

bbleach

https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/versioning_in_the_pact_broker/

in the consumer

tjones

2021-09-17 16:04

Right. So, possibly the latest provider is not verified against that consumer's pact

tjones

2021-09-17 16:05

if you haven't seen them already, these diagrams might be helpful:

tjones

2021-09-17 16:05

bbleach

2021-09-17 16:08

Yes I think so. I think its because in between the first consumer pipeline run and the second (which triggered no verification), something was merged to the provider master. This triggered a verification but not for the version of the pact in the consumer feature branch. Which means that as you say latest provider is not verified against that consumer's pact. Triggering a verification on pact publish rather than pact change would fix this but doesn't seem right.

bbleach

2021-09-17 16:09

When the provider verifications run (either on master or feature branch), should they run against 'master' pacts, or somehow pick up the feature branches pacts too?

tjones

2021-09-17 16:10

ahhh... maybe it doesn't count as a WIP pact because it has been verified, so it's not picked up?

bbleach

2021-09-17 16:11

yeah it won't be wip because the first consumer run verified it thats right

tjones

2021-09-17 16:12

I think this is the situation:

bbleach

2021-09-17 16:12

yeah thats my understanding too

bbleach

2021-09-17 16:12

just not sure how to resolve it in CI (without changing the verification to happen on pact publish)

tjones

2021-09-17 16:13

Cool. I think with the feature branch approach, maybe you'll want some way of saying "can you verify this because I want to merge it"

bbleach

2021-09-17 16:13

for reference this is the can-i-deploy command I'm using in the consumer pipeline, after the publish ```pact-broker can-i-deploy --pacticipant $PACT_CONSUMER_NAME --version $CI_COMMIT_SHORT_SHA --to master --retry-while-unknown=20 --retry-interval=30 --broker-base-url $PACT_BROKER_URI --broker-token $PACT_BROKER_BEARER_TOKEN"```

tjones

2021-09-17 16:14

> without changing the verification to happen on pact publish Is this so bad? I think it's what I would do if I had a branch strategy like this

bbleach

2021-09-17 16:16

No its not so bad, just will run a lot more jobs as this strategy will be used by lots and lots of micro-services. Plus I just wanted to check as everything in the docs mentions using the pact changed event.

tjones

2021-09-17 16:16

I should turn in here, but I'll check back in the morning. This feels like there will be an easy solution

bbleach

2021-09-17 16:16

No problem. I appreciate all your help and time! :pray:

tjones

2021-09-17 16:18

You're welcome! I'd like to improve the docs with specific recommendations for different branch / CI setups - it's hard because the right setup is different for different styles of deployment / branching / CI. But also there can't be that many combinations of choices out there

tjones

2021-09-17 16:19

A few years ago I think we did a setup with a completely separate verification pipeline - which was triggered on pact publish or on provider build

bbleach

No i agree. If I do this on pact publish it will solve the problem for sure. Here I'm only branching from master and the next step would be to gate the deployments with can-i-deploy too. If that works as expected then you could apply the same strategy to a git-flow style setup as well.

tjones

That worked fairly well, but we didn't get to the kind of scale that it sounds like you have, so ymmv

bbleach

I have moved the verification to a separate pipeline too actually

tjones

tbh, I've not tried gating merges with can-i-deploy, but I think it's a great idea

bbleach

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement ?

but scaling is on my mind haha :slightly_smiling_face:

aftab.shamim2020

2021-09-20 06:46

@matt.fellows Hello, can we write contract testing for background kafka service in .net if yes, give me some idea.

matt.fellows

2021-09-20 10:04

This is referred to as message oact. Please ask in #pact-net, support is being added in the latest beta

dimundo

2021-09-20 12:39

hi! i have (n-th) question about tags https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/tags/#when-verifying-pacts ```const opts = { ..., consumerVersionTags: ['master', 'test','production'], }``` but this will fail build, when production is not compatible with master, no ?

rushideshpandes

2021-09-20 13:11

has joined #general

gemhar

2021-09-20 14:33

has joined #general

jsegall

2021-09-20 21:37

has joined #general

tjones

2021-09-21 01:55

Another pending pacts question - can we say these pacts are pending, but these ones aren't? Eg, if I want incompatibility with `master` to fail the build, but incompatibility with `prod` is ok?

dotelnp

2021-09-21 07:29

Hi Matt. Did this get postponed? Or we're in the wrong link, please help

matt.fellows

2021-09-21 11:26

Hi Richard, there was an issue with the zoom link (the ID in the calendar invite was incorrect)

matt.fellows

2021-09-21 11:27

Did you manage to make it? Very sorry if not, we will be sending out the recording if that's any consolation. I sent an update to all registered attendees after the workshop

dalkire

2021-09-21 13:30

has joined #general

hakan.celebi

2021-09-21 19:43

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2021-09-21 22:42

Can you explain the scenario more Tim?

bethskurrie

2021-09-21 22:42

Feedback on a potential rename of the "pending pacts" feature please https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/discussions/507

dotelnp

2021-09-22 03:18

No, I didn't get the correct link. Waiting for the recording now.

tjones

2021-09-22 07:04

If we have developers running the pact tests, we want the pact they're woking on to be reported correctly, and it's useful to not have to muck with the config in order to do this

nrobison

2021-09-22 15:39

has joined #general

calise

2021-09-22 17:06

has joined #general

sams.prashanth

2021-09-22 18:21

Do we support wsdl file as a pact in bi-directional approach? (like OpenApi spec)

matt.fellows

2021-09-22 20:39

Not at the moment sorry Prashanth

matt.fellows

2021-09-22 20:40

It's a plausible scenario though

sams.prashanth

2021-09-23 06:43

ah okay @matt.fellows

matt.fellows

2021-09-23 06:45

Let's talk next catch up. It's possibly even more important with WSDL because they are usually more brittle

matt.fellows

2021-09-23 06:45

How big of a portion is it of your systems?

matt.fellows

2021-09-23 06:46

I'd also be keen to know if others have this challenge!

sams.prashanth

2021-09-23 06:48

Got stuck with multiple services in this old model; Over 300 services :disappointed:

sams.prashanth

2021-09-23 06:49

We have multiple systems and those are a part of it

sams.prashanth

2021-09-23 06:51

aha just an update... it's 800+ services

matt.fellows

2021-09-23 07:00

Pact JVM intro workshop on now: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81600811720?pwd=VVJmSndIVCsvdzZCZ043VVZQNmluZz09 :technologist:

sams.prashanth

2021-09-23 07:16

Nice!

sams.prashanth

2021-09-23 08:06

@matt.fellows apart from OpenApi spec, what other files / formats do we support at the moment?

matt.fellows

2021-09-23 08:16

Just OAS/Swagger at the moment Prashanth

matt.fellows

2021-09-23 08:16

Feedback (like the above) is what we?re going to use to prioritise our roadmap

matt.fellows

2021-09-23 08:16

the current work is about getting the UI designs completed and implemented

matt.fellows

2021-09-23 08:17

that will be a consistent pattern across different contract types

matt.fellows

2021-09-23 08:17

actually, if that?s something you or a key member of the team would like to chat about, @slin would love to chat :slightly_smiling_face:

sams.prashanth

2021-09-23 08:21

Makes sense. And thank you - would be nice to have this feature. Sure, will connect with her as a team on this.

matt.fellows

2021-09-23 08:43

(I?ve also shared with the team, we?ll discuss at the next feature pow wow)

sams.prashanth

2021-09-23 08:45

Thank you Matt!

nareshnavinash

2021-09-23 09:28

has joined #general

radu.simu

2021-09-23 09:38

has joined #general

aterrong

2021-09-23 09:42

has joined #general

nisharaveendran30

2021-09-23 10:34

has joined #general

sujithsukumaranm

2021-09-23 10:36

has joined #general

sureshbabudevaki

2021-09-23 12:01

has joined #general

sujithsukumaranm

2021-09-23 12:19

Thank you for the workshop today. Had these questions. 1. Where should the Contract testing sit in the Tests Pyramid. I mean is it a subset of Integration tests or the other way. 2. I believe Consumers are expected to write their tests against the Pact, right ? Is there any best practice to make the Consumer contribution to tests not mess with each other. 3. What does the Pact broker commercial version offer more compared to open source.

greg.hinsley

2021-09-23 12:29

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-09-23 12:38

1. Contract testing is a type of integration testing, I would say

matt.fellows

2021-09-23 12:38

matt.fellows

2021-09-23 12:39

2. > Is there any best practice to make the Consumer contribution to tests not mess with each other. I?m not sure what you mean here. Do you mean if different consumers had different expectations on the provider? In practice, I?ve not really experienced this. If there is a conflicting (or indeed, just a bad request from a consumer) the provider has final say on the matter.

matt.fellows

2021-09-23 12:40

3. You can see the major commercial features/differences here: https://pactflow.io/features

matt.fellows

2021-09-23 12:40

(one new albeit beta feature is bi-directional contracts, which currently allows you to work with OAS, and we?ll be extending to other types over time: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/bi-directional)

nyman.robin

2021-09-24 07:07

has joined #general

ricardo.paquito

2021-09-24 10:36

has joined #general

abramenkov.valentin

2021-09-24 12:42

has joined #general

leo.tang

2021-09-24 17:56

has joined #general

jyotiguptaofficial

2021-09-25 13:00

has joined #general

jyotiguptaofficial

2021-09-25 13:06

Hi Folks, Can someone take a look onto this https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9VBGLUM9/p1632575057118500

mattandaey

2021-09-25 20:32

has joined #general

sams.prashanth

2021-09-27 07:50

@matt.fellows In bi-directional approach, when does the cross-contract-verification actually happens? *Scenario:* 1. I push `consumerA` pact to the pactflow for `providerA` (this happens in the consumer-driven approach) 2. Then I push `ProviderA`'s OpenAPI spec to the pactflow > I assume the cross-contract verification process happens immediately after I push the OpenAPI spec to the pactflow - am I right here? or does the verification happens when I hit the can-I-deploy cmd?

matt.fellows

2021-09-27 08:12

It happens during the `can-i-deploy` stage

matt.fellows

2021-09-27 08:13

See step4 on both sides of the contract at https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/bi-directional/#steps

matt.fellows

2021-09-27 08:13

also the video/animation at https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/bi-directional/#how-it-works

sams.prashanth

2021-09-27 09:17

Thank you @matt.fellows

sams.prashanth

2021-09-27 10:18

One more use-case that needs clarification *Scenario:* 1. I push 3 interactions(tests) in a `consumerA` pact to the pactflow 2. Then I push `ProviderA`'s OpenAPI spec to the pactflow 3. And I hit `can-i-deploy` cmd 4. Now, there is a failure which is intentional and so I open the verification result link in HAL browser for evaluation - During evaluation, I see that the test got stopped abruptly on finding a failure in the first interaction itself. It is not moving to the next interaction for further validations of the remaining 2 interactions. (It's more like assertion and not verification; but I expect all the remaining interactions to be validated as well)

tjones

2021-09-27 10:19

Hi Prashanth, You don't need to tag maintainers directly here - someone will see your question and get back to you when they can. Also it looks like this is a question better asked in #pactflow

sams.prashanth

2021-09-27 10:20

ah okay @tjones; makes sense. Sorry for that.

tjones

2021-09-27 10:20

No worries :slightly_smiling_face:

sujithsukumaranm

2021-09-27 12:28

Thanks Matt. I will check these.

saurelio58

2021-09-27 12:39

has joined #general

francisco

2021-09-27 18:27

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-09-27 21:42

Thanks for raising Prashanth, I'll pass onto the team

matt.fellows

2021-09-27 21:43

This is probably interesting to a broader audience: learn how M1 Finance rolled out Pact in tomorrow's AMA https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C01RPBC2KNG/p1632778200022600

sams.prashanth

2021-09-28 06:33

Thank you @matt.fellows

constantin.jaeck

2021-09-28 07:38

heyho, does pact have a CLA? Couldn't find anything in the contributing.md of (in my case) pact-jvm :slightly_smiling_face:

tjones

2021-09-28 07:55

What does CLA stand for?

tjones

2021-09-28 07:55

(My google search for CLA was .... less than enlightening)

tjones

2021-09-28 07:56

tjones

2021-09-28 07:57

Are you looking for https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-jvm/blob/master/LICENSE ?

tjones

2021-09-28 07:58

(that surprised me, I thought most of our projects were under the MIT license)

tjones

2021-09-28 07:59

If this is not what you're looking for, how is what you *are* looking for different, and should we get one?

constantin.jaeck

2021-09-28 08:36

yes I mean the first wikipedia link

constantin.jaeck

2021-09-28 08:36

no that's not the license

constantin.jaeck

2021-09-28 08:38

google's for example: https://cla.developers.google.com/about/google-individual

matt.fellows

2021-09-28 08:49

We talked about it a while back but don't yet have one

matt.fellows

2021-09-28 08:50

Are you concerned about your rights or more just wanting to know the process?

matt.fellows

2021-09-28 08:51

Most are MIT Tim, I can't recall why JVM is not

constantin.jaeck

2021-09-28 09:20

No, so I personally don't care but I'd like to contribute in my work time and my company has a ... big ... legal department

constantin.jaeck

2021-09-28 09:21

and they wanted to know if there is a CLA. If everything is covered by the licence I'm good

matt.fellows

2021-09-28 10:16

Yep it is

jamesatroughton

2021-09-28 10:42

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-09-28 21:49

AMA on in 10 minutes! https://www.linkedin.com/events/contracttestingama-rollingoutpa6843394751811715072

jake.thacker

2021-09-28 22:06

has joined #general

craig.schwarzwald

2021-09-28 22:37

has joined #general

tjones

2021-09-29 03:58

I think we'd be happy to bring one in if not having one was blocking contributors. I like the MIT license because it's permissive and straightforward - from my perspective, anything contributed to pact is already under that license, regardless of where it came from.

tjones

2021-09-29 04:00

There's kind of a downside, which is I personally would be pretty annoyed if someone took all the hard work everyone has put into pact and bundled it behind a closed commercial project (which is technically allowed under the MIT license). I really like the approach that has been taken with Pactflow, which is to value-add, with enterprise grade features (and fairly significant contributions back to the OSS side of the project). If there's something we can do as the pact-foundation to encourage any other commercial operations to be like Pactflow, I think that's a win.

tjones

2021-09-29 04:00

Perhaps that's through a Pact trademark? I'm not sure.

saurelio58

2021-09-29 11:59

Is anyone using Pact & Quarkus? I posted in #pact-jvm a couple days ago and have no responses. Trying here now. https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9UN99H24/p1632767424240500

owain.hunt

2021-09-29 12:58

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-09-29 13:30

@daniel.kalleward was I think, any ideas?

matt.fellows

2021-09-29 13:31

damtsisa

2021-09-30 06:58

has joined #general

morsisdivine

2021-09-30 09:23

has joined #general

artur

2021-09-30 09:37

I had to give a very spontaniuos talk about pact on the owncloud conference. I hope I did not say too much rubbish https://youtu.be/6RWGKRSoOI8?t=1190

tjones

2021-09-30 10:45

This was great! Nice work!

matt.fellows

2021-09-30 13:46

Indeed, I'll pop it on the case studies page tomorrow for others to discover!

patrice.jy.thomas

2021-09-30 15:05

has joined #general

saurelio58

2021-09-30 16:08

@matt.fellows Thanks for the replies. Somehow Slack did not notify me of your posts.

saurelio58

2021-09-30 16:10

I found a link to a working example at https://github.com/skattela/pact-workshop-jvm-quarkus in the post you referenced. The issue is that the example if VERY basic. There is no @State code or @Inject. The @Inject is what is causing my problems as the reference is null. At this time I believe the issue needs to be resolved by Quarkus.

kschendster

2021-09-30 16:46

has joined #general

adam.dubnytskyy

2021-09-30 17:49

has joined #general

stefano.varesi

2021-09-30 17:51

has joined #general

steven.yi

2021-09-30 20:17

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-09-30 21:15

Np. Sorry I can't give any more advice. Hope you get to the bottom of it!

calcorbin

2021-09-30 23:09

has joined #general

calcorbin

2021-09-30 23:10

Hi all! I'm learning how to contribute to open source. I've created a small PR that updates documentation if anyone would like to take a look and review here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/docs.pact.io/pull/91

calcorbin

2021-09-30 23:11

This is for Hacktoberfest btw

bethskurrie

2021-09-30 23:12

do you want to tag it for credit?

bethskurrie

2021-09-30 23:12

I can't remember what the tags are

calcorbin

2021-09-30 23:12

Ahhh sure thing!

bethskurrie

just googled. looks like I have to do it.

bethskurrie

done

calcorbin

oh my bad! for some reason I thought you were all were already tagged. didnt mean to create work for you!

calcorbin

thank you!!

bethskurrie

I meant, the PR needs a label for it ot be accepted, not tag, sorry

bethskurrie

either way, it's done

bethskurrie

thanks!

calcorbin

gotcha, thank you :smile:

bethskurrie

2021-09-30 23:15

are you looking for more things?

calcorbin

2021-09-30 23:17

I am! Every bug I find is already fixed :disappointed:

bethskurrie

2021-09-30 23:17

what are your languages of interest?

matt.fellows

2021-09-30 23:17

> oh my bad! for some reason I thought you were all were already tagged. didnt mean to create work for you! It?s a good reminder. The main projects should have the tags already

bethskurrie

there's this one https://github.com/pact-foundation/docs.pact.io/issues/54

calcorbin

Javascript, HTML, css, and Python are my preferred, Ruby works too.

bethskurrie

it's not a bug, but it's a valuable task.

calcorbin

Sweet, I'll dig into it

matt.fellows

Documentation is so important for us, so don?t underestimate it

bethskurrie

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/issues/69

There's no details on that issue, so I can flesh it out if you think you might pick it up.

bethskurrie

2021-09-30 23:19

It would be a manual migration, but there aren't many blog posts.

bethskurrie

2021-09-30 23:19

there may even be an API

calcorbin

2021-09-30 23:20

Gotta feed my toddler and put him to bed. I'll look into the migration once he's asleep. Thank you all!

matt.fellows

2021-09-30 23:20

:point_up: one of us :laughing:

bethskurrie

2021-09-30 23:20

Just had a look, and there are literally 9 public blog posts :laughing:

matt.fellows

2021-09-30 23:21

On the docs, not sure if it is of interested but it might in fact be the current most important thing - if you?re up for trying to create a getting started guide that can have language code toggles so that anybody new to pact can step by step their way through a basic consumer and provider test, and then work through the nirvana guide using the Pact CLI tools (publish pact, record deployments, run can-i-deploy). That would be :sparkles:

calcorbin

2021-09-30 23:22

Cool, I'll look into it. I have some friends looking for PRs as well so I'll let them know.

bethskurrie

2021-09-30 23:22

thanks!

calcorbin

2021-09-30 23:32

@bethskurrie I'll go ahead and pick this up: https://github.com/pact-foundation/docs.pact.io/issues/54 Just going to need some more details about the migration.

tjones

2021-09-30 23:41

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/747 ^ This would be a great JS one

tjones

2021-09-30 23:41

(if you want to do some code)

calcorbin

2021-09-30 23:43

oooooo, thats right up my alley

tjones

2021-09-30 23:43

I just put the hacktoberfest label on it, let me know if it needs anything else

calcorbin

2021-09-30 23:43

That should be it

calcorbin

2021-10-01 01:36

@tjones here you go! I took the issue pretty literally, so don't hesitate to let me know if you want any changes. https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/pull/753 Also, if everything looks good- would you mind adding the hackertoberfest label to the PR?

tjones

2021-10-01 01:36

Wow! Amazing

tjones

2021-10-01 01:36

I'll take a look at lunch. Thank you very much!!

osikwemhev

2021-10-01 01:45

has joined #general

dimundo

2021-10-01 06:05

hi! having `Error making request - OpenSSL::SSL::SSLError SSL_connect returned=1 errno=0 state=error: certificate verify failed , attempt 1 of 3` > PACT_BROKER_DISABLE_SSL_VERIFICATION: true > PACT_DISABLE_SSL_VERIFICATION: true doesnt help :disappointed: broker docker version 2.86.0.1

dimundo

2021-10-01 06:07

looks like this https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby/issues/248 ?

dimundo

2021-10-01 07:12

dimundo

2021-10-01 07:26

cc @bethskurrie

matt.fellows

2021-10-01 09:04

The standalone may have this problem because it bundles a ruby runtime that may have an outdated CA

matt.fellows

2021-10-01 09:04

Docker should be fixable because it can use a new runtime

dimundo

2021-10-01 09:05

```pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest``` docker image also needs updates :disappointed:

dimundo

2021-10-01 09:05

everyone waited y2k issues by waterfall, and everyone fixing 30.09 by agile :disappointed:

dimundo

2021-10-01 09:11

and this one is not clear for me :disappointed: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby/issues/248#issuecomment-932002055

kentaro

2021-10-01 10:05

has joined #general

vitali.domashkevitsh

2021-10-01 10:08

has joined #general

dimundo

2021-10-01 10:37

should standalone be bumped everywhere ?

seb983

2021-10-01 11:30

has joined #general

philipchardwick

2021-10-01 14:15

I'm getting this too

philipchardwick

2021-10-01 14:15

the pact-cli image worked for us - it's just the standalone which doesn't

dimundo

2021-10-01 14:20

image pact-cli it was updated recently

vannessa.andrade

2021-10-01 14:44

has joined #general

dimundo

2021-10-01 16:06

just fyi - found issue in local network between k8s. at same time ingres and dns were changed, so some combo kicked us

dimundo

2021-10-01 16:06

harold

mickfagan

2021-10-02 10:36

has joined #general

tjones

2021-10-03 13:57

@bethskurrie: These `next steps` bits are *awesome*!!

maxim.matviyuk

2021-10-03 16:48

has joined #general

jonathan.a.stern

2021-10-03 20:38

has joined #general

chris.ramsden

2021-10-04 16:40

has joined #general

brian.fung

2021-10-05 04:57

has joined #general

elekberhacizade

2021-10-05 05:27

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2021-10-05 06:32

Branch docs out -�https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/branches/ Still rolling out support for branches in all the pact clients. Takes a while when there are 10+ languages!

bethskurrie

2021-10-05 06:32

IKR! There will be more steps in there when I get time.

bethskurrie

2021-10-05 06:33

Once you get the webhooks and the verification results, it will start hassling you to record deployments and use can-i-deploy.

scott.riley111

2021-10-05 09:10

Is https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/branches/#support our best place to track progress?

ankit.wadhwana

2021-10-05 12:23

has joined #general

zhaopeng

2021-10-05 12:24

has joined #general

bjorn.johansson

2021-10-05 13:16

has joined #general

pcting

2021-10-05 18:57

has joined #general

aulia.ahn

2021-10-06 00:01

has joined #general

muralis

2021-10-06 01:21

has joined #general

lakapoor777

2021-10-06 08:47

has joined #general

garry.jeromson973

2021-10-06 09:52

has joined #general

anagha.sulakhe

2021-10-06 16:27

has joined #general

mesut.gunes

2021-10-07 09:03

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2021-10-07 23:49

Does anyone have/know of a publicly accessible letsecrypt server that recently became unaccessible with the latest root certificate expiry?

bethskurrie

2021-10-07 23:49

Just trying to test that the cert upgrade I've made to the pact-ruby-standalone has fixed the issue.

bethskurrie

2021-10-07 23:49

@scott.riley111 yes

scott.riley111

2021-10-08 08:51

:thumbsup: great, thanks

vandana.bhaskersen

2021-10-08 09:58

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-10-08 12:05

If there is anybody participating in hacktober that is keen to help, this is a simple but nice https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-python/issues/270

ad.redouani

2021-10-09 15:11

has joined #general

amulyadoss

2021-10-09 21:09

has joined #general

farshad.falaki

2021-10-10 19:13

has joined #general

jhopkinwilliams

2021-10-12 02:01

has joined #general

josephhaig

2021-10-12 08:52

has joined #general

margarita.lukjanska

2021-10-12 10:12

has joined #general

oak155online

2021-10-12 14:17

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2021-10-13 06:07

New blog post! https://docs.pact.io/blog/2021/10/08/why-we-are-getting-rid-of-tags

bethskurrie

2021-10-13 06:07

Ok, the one time I wanted that link to expand!

bethskurrie

2021-10-13 06:16

Another new blog post - new and improved webhook event :tada: https://docs.pact.io/blog/2021/10/11/contract-requiring-verification-published-webhook-event/ :tada:

filipovic

2021-10-13 06:51

has joined #general

stefan.smith

2021-10-13 09:37

has joined #general

yann.courtel

2021-10-13 12:43

Thanks a lot!

yann.courtel

2021-10-13 12:45

That's awesome @tjones! Permission to use it :)

tjones

2021-10-13 13:27

It's not mine - it's built in to the pact publisher in the ruby binaries

yann.courtel

2021-10-13 13:39

@bethskurrie deserves all the credit then :slightly_smiling_face: good thinking though

v-ratngupta

2021-10-13 15:40

i'm using pact plugin with maven so is there any way to pass authorization token through mvn pact:verify command

v-ratngupta

2021-10-13 15:41

like how can i add authorisation token in request header of each request at the time of verification task

v-ratngupta

2021-10-13 15:43

as like we have in python '--custom-provider-header'

warren

2021-10-13 16:45

has joined #general

michael.stein

2021-10-13 19:02

has joined #general

hwillj

2021-10-14 14:52

has joined #general

fengniy

2021-10-15 02:09

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2021-10-15 04:39

Thanks @yann.courtel. We're trying to take the approach of having the tool guide you through using it effectively. It's a new mindset, and I hope it will make pact a better tool to use as we start rolling ideas like this out across other things.

yann.courtel

2021-10-15 09:13

@bethskurrie That's actually a similar concept we are teaching in our organization with devs, your code *is* your documentation :slightly_smiling_face: here the output guides you from point A to B. Keep up the good work!

mark.dathorne

2021-10-15 09:51

has joined #general

haroldlearning93

2021-10-15 14:49

has joined #general

vsrungar95

2021-10-15 22:14

has joined #general

haroldlearning93

2021-10-16 02:42

is there a way we can check if the local pact-files has no changes(no changes happens when ofcourse we dont update the contract tests) in the Consumer? right now my initial implementation in our gitlab config is to just public pacts but this doesnt make sense when there are no changes in the pacts and this also triggers the webhook on the Provider side

tjones

2021-10-16 02:44

You don't generally need to - because the broker hashes the pact and will realise that it hasn't changed.

tjones

2021-10-16 02:44

You still want to publish the pact even if it hasn't changed, because your version will have changed. So you need to tell the broker the version + contract pairing

haroldlearning93

2021-10-16 03:00

thanks, so it looks fine but Is there a way not to trigger the webhook if nothing changed?

tjones

2021-10-16 03:08

I'm not sure. I'm not too familiar with the webhooks. It sounds like you might be hooking the "contract published" event, but you probably want the "contract content changed" event

tjones

2021-10-16 03:08

https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/webhooks/#the-contract-content-changed-event

jsoto128

2021-10-16 20:45

has joined #general

fiszczu

2021-10-17 17:04

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2021-10-17 21:43

@haroldlearning93 if you don't think you've changed the pact, but the webhook is still triggering, you may have non-deterministic data in your pact

bethskurrie

2021-10-17 21:43

Or, you're applying new tags to the content.

bethskurrie

2021-10-17 21:44

Hey pact users! People find the "pending pacts" feature very confusing, and one of the reasons is that the name doesn't tell you what it does. I'm considering renaming it from "pending pacts" to "smart fail". Would love to hear any thoughts on this (or an even better name suggestion) here�https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/discussions/507

bethskurrie

2021-10-17 22:04

There is a new webhook event which removes unnecessary builds however - you should have a look at this https://docs.pact.io/blog/2021/10/11/contract-requiring-verification-published-webhook-event

matt.fellows

2021-10-17 22:30

Asks to change the name of https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-python/issues/270, ends up with this giant PR: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-python/pull/273 :clap:

haroldlearning93

2021-10-18 00:30

Thanks @bethskurrie I have read above and so does this mean we just need to update from event `contract_content_changed` to `contract_requiring_verification_published` ?

bethskurrie

2021-10-18 00:31

https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/webhooks#migrating-from-the-contract_content_changed-event

bethskurrie

2021-10-18 00:32

You also need to be doing what the docs say here:

bethskurrie

2021-10-18 00:32

```Use of this webhook requires that: * the provider's main branch is configured * verification results are published with the branch property or you are tagging with the branch name and have automatic branch creation turned on (even if you use trunk based development, and only ever use one branch) * the exact commit of a provider version can be determined from the version number used to publish the verification results (ie. it either is the commit, or contains the commit as per the Pact Broker version number guidelines)```

brocheleau

2021-10-18 03:23

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-10-18 03:59

:taco: for both @mike.geeves064 for ~taking the bait~ picking this up, and to @elliottmurray for collaborating Half way into hacktoberfest!

tjones

2021-10-18 06:32

Yes! :taco: for @mike.geeves064 !!

mike.geeves064

2021-10-18 06:36

(I mean it's still not quite finished after getting a bit bigger than intended and I'm only moderately confident the actual changing if variable name was done :grinning:)

andrerc

2021-10-18 22:11

has joined #general

rodolfo.valenzuela

2021-10-19 07:43

has joined #general

v-ratngupta

2021-10-19 08:48

Can I skip a particular provider state at the time of pact verification execution? like in my pact file I have 10 interactions and I want to skip an interaction or a provider state

matt.fellows

2021-10-19 10:18

Hi Ratnesh, yes most likely, but please ask in the relevant language channel (e.g. #pact-jvm ). Thanks!

v-ratngupta

2021-10-19 10:19

okay

vuttithatkrongyot

2021-10-19 19:08

Is there any suggestion for naming convention of Consumer and Provider ? Let say I have Consumer A and Provider X. A using 5 APIs from X and I want one contract file store only one API, so that I can have 5 files separately. Right now i'm using "{consumer-service-name}_{http-method}_{api-path}" to separate each API in pact broker. Is there another suggestion? or I shouldn't separate it? Thanks

matt.fellows

2021-10-19 21:28

Why do you want them in separate files?

kamilyrb

2021-10-19 22:31

has joined #general

vuttithatkrongyot

2021-10-20 06:40

To make it not seems big in just one file. Sometimes one consumer call 8 APIs from one provider and each APIs have around 2-3 interactions so, it will be so big in terms of PactDSL code and Pact Contract file.

matt.fellows

2021-10-20 06:47

the contract file is separate to your tests. There is an exceptional way to upload multiple files to the broker, but it?s definitely not the standard way and I?d advise against it unless you have a good reason to do so (the above is not a good reason to). The tests can be split across multiple files, that is a separate issue to where the interactions go afterwards (which is, a single contract file)

vuttithatkrongyot

2021-10-20 06:58

I see, so in this case I can have multiple tests file with the same consumer and provider name, am I correct?

matt.fellows

2021-10-20 07:01

The answer should be yes, but will depend on your language and other mix of frameworks

matt.fellows

2021-10-20 07:01

best to ask in the language specific channel

marcelo

2021-10-20 14:23

Hey guys :wave: Somebody is facing the next issue? I have everything setup in CI/CD pipelines, using webhooks I run the pacts verifications whenever a pact is changed and then I run Can I deploy command. The problem is that sometimes the pact verification takes longer than expected and the Can I deploy fails

paulorochag

2021-10-20 15:28

use the 'retry-while-unknown' and 'retry-interval' commands to ensure that the contract test run by the webhook has finished. Example (I have to translate this repository to English): https://github.com/PauloGoncalvesBH/nirvana-teste-de-contrato/blob/09a24ca4e177ac9e0c1d9fdc3e789d4abc2009af/.github/workflows/consumer-ci.yml#L38

zhaopeng

2021-10-20 19:17

Hey guys, I maybe got a stupid question, should I upload contract for dev branch? case #1: I have my branch feature/test1 in *consumer*, which will break exist verified contract but it's intend, should I publish this contract? should I merge into master? case #2: I have my branch feature/test2 in *producer*, which will also break exist verified contract but it is intend, should I publish this contract? should I merge into master? case #3: I have branch feature/test3 in *consumer*, it requires new contract from producer? should I publish contract before merge? or I should publish contract after merge into master? case #4: I have branch feature/test4 in *producer*, it add new fields which is not used by any consumer, should I publish contract before merge? or I should publish contract after merge into master? I was confused between "merge" and "can-i-deploy" Thanks in advance

joel.whalen588

2021-10-20 20:27

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-10-21 00:10

Hi, these are common questions. I?d take a run through our https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/ci-cd/ which goes through the typical scenarios and then come back if you have questions. You always publish contracts no matter what branch/feature is being worked on. Features/concepts such as *tags, branches, environments* can be modelled into the system and helps migrate changes into production. You can always deploy changes to a provider that are additive, i.e. new features/fields can always be merged so long as you don?t break any consumers.

garry.jeromson973

2021-10-21 07:58

Question to the floor: has anyone set up pact verification between a consumer and a provider where there?s an API gateway in between? Any tips for strategies? Reasoning: in many cases, an API gateway can potentially modify responses, so it?s a part of the chain that can?t be ignored; however, it doesn?t make much sense to verify directly against the gateway itself as a provider, since it has very limited behaviour. What we?ve been doing up until now is spinning up both the API gateway and the provider during pact verification (using Docker Compose), and pointing the pact mock consumer client at the gateway so that it?s included in the verification process. Curious if anyone has come against the same issue, and what they ended up going with.

matt.fellows

2021-10-21 08:07

Everything you just said has come up before and your thinking sounds reasonable to me

matt.fellows

2021-10-21 08:08

I'd avoid a contract with the gateway directly off though can't avoid it, little value there

matt.fellows

2021-10-21 08:08

We should put up an article about that

zhaopeng

2021-10-21 08:22

great! I will go first with that, thanks @matt.fellows

garry.jeromson973

2021-10-21 08:41

Would be happy to assist with that if it?d help

vasil.vasilev

2021-10-21 08:41

has joined #general

mike.geeves064

2021-10-21 09:04

What's best practice there then? It sounds almost like you would have two layers, of a contract between consumer and GW then between GW and provider, but that does not sound pleasant to work with :open_mouth: little value as you say

garry.jeromson973

2021-10-21 09:21

The contract is really between the consumer and the? shall we call it, _combined provider_ of the API gateway and the backend service

garry.jeromson973

2021-10-21 09:22

(There?s definitely a better way to phrase that)

garry.jeromson973

2021-10-21 09:23

But the main point is that there?s only one contract, rather than two - as you say, two layers of contracts have little value

garry.jeromson973

2021-10-21 09:25

The main source of complication comes from authentication, at least in our experience. We?re using KrakenD as an API gateway, which is essentially a black box for the purposes of the pact verification - there?s no possibility to mock out authentication using provider states, so real authentication has to occur. This means setting up the pact mock client with a valid JWT, which is a bit funky since it touches an external system.

mike.geeves064

2021-10-21 09:26

:open_mouth:

mike.geeves064

2021-10-21 09:27

Yeah, authentication is a pain :grinning:

mike.geeves064

2021-10-21 09:29

Maybe if there's a very specific transformation that could be mocked and injected for tests somehow?

garry.jeromson973

2021-10-21 09:31

Interesting idea! Would involve somehow keeping the tests and API gateway config in sync though, could get juicy

garry.jeromson973

2021-10-21 09:33

But no more juicy than pulling the API gateway image, obtaining a valid JWT, etc.

garry.jeromson973

2021-10-21 09:38

The more I think about, the more I think you may be onto something there: in _theory_ it?d be possible to parse the API gateway config and generate a mock transform that runs in the pact verifier process..

garry.jeromson973

2021-10-21 09:39

complicated

garry.jeromson973

2021-10-21 09:39

Not really a generic solution though

mike.geeves064

2021-10-21 09:45

You could define that as a single contact maybe?

mike.geeves064

2021-10-21 09:46

As in have one place verifying that your gateway "provider" does something expected as a transformation

mike.geeves064

2021-10-21 09:46

And reuse the method as a shared function elsewhere can pull in for tests?

mike.geeves064

2021-10-21 10:16

:thinking_face: I've used dummy services to implement an interface and do some sort of echo back to debug and test against, that worked pretty well

ben.crinion

2021-10-21 11:09

has joined #general

estephania.calvo

2021-10-21 19:27

has joined #general

boris.gordon

2021-10-21 22:23

Not sure if this is a broker question or what but I have a question around how the various tooling decides if a pact has changed. If I use DSL without providing examples, every time the consumer tests are run I can get a different pact file (e.g. we have some enum stringMatchers) for effectively the same contract but if I provide examples for everything the generated pact is stable which makes sense of course. Does the tooling compare the contents of the file or will it ignore the examples and only compare the contract part?

tjones

2021-10-21 22:25

Pact can't know what parts of your payloads are generalisable and what aren't unless you tell it

boris.gordon

2021-10-21 22:26

Cool that?s what I wanted to know. So it will basically git diff the pact file?

boris.gordon

2021-10-21 22:27

I?m wondering how broker reasons about ?there is new contract content?

tjones

2021-10-21 22:27

the generation process should be deterministic though, I don't know why you're seeing a non deterministic build

boris.gordon

oh really? even if I don?t provide examples for every property etc.?

tjones

The pact broker hashes the contents

tjones

I think it's aware of some pact specific things

boris.gordon

contents being the pact file basically?

boris.gordon

that?s what I assumed

tjones

#pact-broker question, probably

boris.gordon

Great thanks.

tjones

I don't think I understand how you have properties without examples

tjones

can you share an example?

boris.gordon

2021-10-21 22:31

jvm dsl for example has example optional: ```.numberType("amount")``` vs. ```.numberType("amount", 1234.56)```

ahmetbcakici

2021-10-21 22:38

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-10-22 03:27

Yeah, I would advise against the framework generating examples for you for exactly that reason. You?re spot on Boris

matt.fellows

2021-10-22 03:27

I think that was a feature before the broker added the optimisation to go ?oh, the contract hasn?t changed?

matt.fellows

2021-10-22 03:27

It is a fairly crude diff (it?s a hash of the whole pact file)

matt.fellows

2021-10-22 03:28

(I believe, or at the very least, it doesn?t navigate the tree and ignore values that have generated valuse based on their matchers etc.)

kevin.meiresonne

2021-10-22 07:26

Hi, we are trying to introduce contract testing between a web api (consumer) and an http trigger azure function (provider). However, we are struggling with the provider side. Has anyone got any experience with setting up the provider verification on an http triggered azure function?

matt.fellows

2021-10-22 08:51

Might be worth searching the workspace for azure functions

matt.fellows

2021-10-22 08:52

these two look promising: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9UTHV2AD/p1634059730172500?thread_ts=1633587927.152600&cid=C9UTHV2AD https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9VBGLUM9/p1629167423147200?thread_ts=1629156675.145400&cid=C9VBGLUM9

matt.fellows

2021-10-22 08:52

I?d like to capture the learnings/strategy and pop on the docs site, so anythnig you come up with I?d love to hear about!

abarcadabra

2021-10-22 12:30

has joined #general

harwin1494

2021-10-22 19:04

has joined #general

anindita.ghosh

2021-10-22 23:26

has joined #general

stefan.smith

2021-10-24 17:59

Hi, I'm looking to standardise Pact file publishing and verification in different CI builds spanning Node, Python and PHP repositories. From the docs, it seems using the standalone CLIs might be the best way and would enable access to new features that might not be available in the language-specific wrappers (e.g. branch support). Regarding provider verification, I understand there is a new Rust Provider Verifier CLI and that the Ruby Provider Verifier CLI is considered legacy. What's the best way to retrieve and install the Rust CLI, and easily track newer versions? Relying on the https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases?q=%22Pact+Verifier+CLI%22+NOT+beta means manually tracking and updating the URLs when there's a new release. The https://hub.docker.com/r/pactfoundation/pact-ref-verifier seems to be quite outdated (v0.0.4 vs v0.8.8) but we could easily track `:latest`. Installing via cargo would requires installing `rust` and `cargo` first, then compiling the binary, which takes a little time. Is there any plan to release to OS package repositories like `apt` and `brew`? Regarding publishing Pacts, it seems there is no Rust CLI released yet, although I see there is https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/blob/master/rust/pact_cli/src/bin/pact-publish.rs. I assume the best thing right now is to keep using the https://hub.docker.com/r/pactfoundation/pact-cli? What's the current recommended practice?

matt.fellows

2021-10-24 22:03

Good question, we could probably clarify that a bit

matt.fellows

2021-10-24 22:05

1. The Ruby CLI is the recommended CLI tool (e.g. for publishing, can-i-deploy etc.) 2. The Rust lib is what gets used in the core of the languages. i.e. the mock server / verifier ultimately are what will be used to do the pact testing (usually via the FFI bindings)

matt.fellows

2021-10-24 22:09

I don?t think the cargo installation is the correct mechanism either. Ideally we provide package specific install targets, but probably a bash script would be a good starting point.

matt.fellows

2021-10-24 22:09

++ we may need to trigger the docker image to build on release of the rust assets

stefan.smith

2021-10-25 06:44

Thanks! I was a bit confused by the advice in https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/cli#provider-verifier because it suggests using the Rust Provider Verifier wherever possible, and directly without a wrapper for standardisation across languages in CI. It describes the Ruby Provider Verifier as "legacy" so I assumed there was already an optimal way to install and track the Rust binary.

rajnish.maurya

2021-10-25 06:47

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-10-25 07:21

NP. They are separately sectioned as ?CLI? and ?Provider verifier? but I can still see how that could be misconstrued

matt.fellows

2021-10-25 07:22

it does highlight we need some clearer lines though

matt.fellows

2021-10-25 07:22

If you were up for a PR to help with automating the package install, that would be Amazing :sparkles:

stefan.smith

2021-10-25 08:23

:point_up: That may be possible in the medium term. Currently spiking an overall Pact + Pactflow implementation for my org. If we proceed, I can see us looking to optimise pact verification in CI by contributing to the project

stefan.smith

2021-10-25 08:25

On this, I think it's partly because the Ruby Pact Verifier is available in the Pact CLI docker image so there's a historic link that made me think there'd be an equivalent Rust Pact CLI docker image. https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1635146508039700?thread_ts=1635098381.037600&cid=C5F4KFKR8

stefan.smith

2021-10-25 08:25

Thanks again for clarifying

matt.fellows

2021-10-25 08:52

Thanks. J think we'll be looking to do a fairly significant documentation overhaul in Q1 2022 but in the meantime will look to make some quick tweaks. Thanks for bringing it attention

alanbos

2021-10-25 10:11

has joined #general

simon.nizov

2021-10-25 10:55

Hi, the latest published Pact CLI docker image seems to be a bit outdated. The `provider-version-branch` option is missing in the `verify` command. This can be easily seen when running `docker run --rm pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest verify --help` . BTW it?s also missing in the the pact-provider-verifier https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-provider-verifier

kuzmanovid

2021-10-25 13:59

has joined #general

j.malyjasiak

2021-10-25 14:24

has joined #general

rtbhosale17

2021-10-25 14:25

has joined #general

stefano.mantini

2021-10-25 14:31

has joined #general

r.muthukumar136

2021-10-25 14:59

has joined #general

gravis54

2021-10-25 21:46

has joined #general

misha.antipenko

2021-10-25 21:57

has joined #general

adomanski

2021-10-26 10:43

has joined #general

joaoproenca

2021-10-26 11:32

hey folks! I'm working more closely with teams that fall on the consumer side of contract testing. Most of what they own are front-end systems that highly depend on a "large" API from the providers side. The thing is, this API is exposed in a unified way but underneath the different endpoints that can be called there's a gateway and routing rules to redirect each endpoint to the corresponding provider service. Matching API endpoints to the corresponding service is: 1. Not trivial to do "from the outside" (only by looking at the routing rules) 2. Not fixed in time. We predict that while today service X is serving requests done to endpoints A, B and C, in the next couple of months X could be refactored into services X1, X2, etc. Up until now the consumer tests have been "seeing" the provider API as unified, which means that the contracts being produced only have one "provider"�(edited)� I could go over all the consumer side tests and map the correct providers to the PACT mock servers; but that will be a challenge both in terms of automated testing effort, making the system capable of dealing with several providers at the same time and also hard to deal with in the future due to item 2. So my idea is to leave the tests still considering the API as just one provider and instead splitting the resulting contract into the interactions that pertain to each "real" provider. This centralized tool that would do this could even draw its rules from the routing info we already have and also would be a centralized focal point where changes would be made when services were refactored like in item 2. so my question is...�:slightly_smiling_face: Is this a problem you have seen before? And has anyone dealt with it similarly to what I'm describing?

kriegster108

2021-10-26 14:58

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-10-26 23:32

I think @bethskurrie fixed this yesterday, mind checking if that?s working?

simon.nizov

2021-10-27 06:27

@matt.fellows @bethskurrie The option is available now but the version is not marked with the provided branch. Here?s the before and after of changing `provider-version-tag` to `provider-version-branch`:

simon.nizov

2021-10-27 06:33

If `use_first_tag_as_branch` is true, is it supposed to override the value explicitly passed in `provider-version-branch`? I thought it only acts as a fallback in case a branch is not passed.

bethskurrie

2021-10-27 06:40

@simon.nizov It's best to use a hardcoded version number rather than `latest` As of yesterday, latest is up to date again - when docker hub stopped giving people free builds, I moved the build into github actions, and forgot to also push to latest.

bethskurrie

2021-10-27 06:42

If you set a branch and a tag, I'd expect both to be there.

simon.nizov

2021-10-27 06:43

Yep, me too

bethskurrie

2021-10-27 06:43

just trying it locally

bethskurrie

2021-10-27 06:45

I get both

bethskurrie

2021-10-27 06:45

```bundle exec bin/pact-provider-verifier \ --provider "Example API" \ --provider-app-version $(git rev-parse --short HEAD | xargs echo -n) \ --provider-version-branch "main" \ --provider-version-tag "foo" \ --provider-base-url http://localhost:4567 \ --include-wip-pacts-since 2018-01-01 \ --enable-pending \ --no-fail-if-no-pacts-found \ --verbose \ --publish-verification-results```

bethskurrie

2021-10-27 06:46

Can you turn on --verbose please? And send the output in a text attachment.

bethskurrie

Can't look at it now, but I'll have a look tomorrow.

simon.nizov

My point is that the value in tag overrides the value in branch. Happens to you too

simon.nizov

It should be `branch: main` in that screenshot

bethskurrie

https://github.com/pactflow/example-consumer/blob/947b399097bb6e7bba7c21907faaff907cab982c/.github/workflows/build.yml#L27

oh, you're right - I can't read!

bethskurrie

2021-10-27 06:48

Cool - I'll have a look at it tomorrow.

simon.nizov

2021-10-27 06:49

Thanks!

bethskurrie

2021-10-27 06:49

If I take out the tag, I get nothing.

bethskurrie

2021-10-27 06:49

no branch, no tag. So I think it's not sending the branch at all.

simon.nizov

2021-10-27 06:50

Yeah that?s what I was trying to say in my first comment :slightly_smiling_face:

adam.witko

2021-10-27 07:36

has joined #general

alex.macpherson

2021-10-27 08:28

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2021-10-27 09:44

@simon.nizov I've pushed out a fix.

bethskurrie

2021-10-27 09:45

Please update and try now.

bethskurrie

2021-10-27 09:46

You'll note that when you're using the latest verifier, you won't get a duplicate tag/branch when `use_first_tag_as_branch` because it is using the new API that sends the branches/tags/version/pact and everything in one all, so it knows that you've already set the branch.

matt.fellows

2021-10-27 09:47

@bethskurrie deserves a :taco: . I mean, probably more than most, but here's one anyway :rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:

bethskurrie

2021-10-27 09:47

The `use_first_tag_as_branch` is meant for helping people migrate to using branches when their pact clients haven't yet been updated to support branches yet.

bethskurrie

2021-10-27 09:53

I've also updated the tag->branch docs to clarify that it will only use the tag as a branch if there is no branch already set https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/branches#automatic-branch-creation-from-first-tag

simon.nizov

2021-10-27 10:38

Works! And definitely a well deserved :taco: Thanks!

yurich00

2021-10-27 18:10

has joined #general

lincolnf

2021-10-27 23:30

has joined #general

aakbar

2021-10-28 07:13

Hello everyone. I was using this `--tag-with-git-branch` option in the pact-CLI publish command in github actions and I'm not getting a branch here, instead I'm receiving *`refs/pull/284/merge`* Is there any way to get git branch with the combination of pact-CLI and Github Actions?

lawrencemajmacdonald

2021-10-28 07:33

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-10-28 07:37

Mm good q. You'll probably need to use the environment variables

matt.fellows

2021-10-28 07:37

I'll dig up an example

matt.fellows

2021-10-28 07:38

matt.fellows

2021-10-28 07:39

The syntax strips off the first 11 characters which is the `refs/..` guff

aakbar

2021-10-28 08:52

oo, it looks cool. lemme try that.

zsolt.vilagos

2021-10-28 10:00

has joined #general

aakbar

2021-10-28 10:17

So here's the thing. I'm writing these things in my `ci.yml` file: ```env: GIT_REF: ${{ github.ref }}```

aakbar

2021-10-28 10:17

```- name: Publish Pacts run: | gem install pact_broker-client export PACT_BROKER_TOKEN=${{ secrets.PACT_FLOW_ACCESS_TOKEN }} GIT_BRANCH=${GIT_REF:11} make publish_pacts```

aakbar

2021-10-28 10:17

And in my makefile: ```pact-broker publish `find . -type d | grep /pacts` --consumer-app-version=`git rev-parse --short HEAD` --tag ${GIT_BRANCH} --broker-base-url=https://edx.pactflow.io```

aakbar

2021-10-28 10:18

Though I'm still not able to get anything from `${GIT_BRANCH}`

aakbar

2021-10-28 10:18

hence `No value provided for option '--tag'`

aakbar

2021-10-28 12:49

Turns out, I'm getting the same *`refs/pull/284/merge`* from `github.ref` so I used `github.head_ref` instead. Solved my issue. Thanks a lot for the help.

ramesh.dhanasekaran

2021-10-29 02:20

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-10-29 02:28

Thanks for raising here!

matt.fellows

2021-10-29 02:29

@garry.jeromson973 did you have anything to add here? @sharath.konda including you also Would be good to collate the various challenges and solutions, and I can move a write up to our docs page

garry.jeromson973

2021-10-29 07:47

@joaoproenca I _think_ this isn?t a million miles away from what I posted here https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1634803098005000 , with the root issue being: how can we deal with pacts that involve providers behind a gateway? We?re tending more in the direction of leaving the contracts as they are, but including the gateway in the verification process so that its behaviour is accounted for. Really curious about your idea though, and how you?d go about splitting the contracts. :nerd_face:

joaoproenca

2021-10-29 08:46

hey @garry.jeromson973. From what I understood in your case, I believe that your main issue is that the API gateway changes the requests in some way. In my case, I believe that's not happening :slightly_smiling_face: but the problem is rather splitting the contract because behind the gateway there are different services serving different "parts" of the API. The routing table that defines the gateway uses regular expressions to define how to route requests to the correct services (not sure how standard this is in networking, but using regexps for this kind of thing "kind of" feels scary :stuck_out_tongue: ) and I can use those definitions and regexps to apply to the contract as well, to split the interactions into smaller contracts.

christopher.mcewen

2021-10-29 12:14

has joined #general

catalin.comarnescu

2021-10-29 12:31

has joined #general

kiran.rudrangi

2021-10-29 16:48

has joined #general

danieljak

2021-10-31 15:39

Hey everyone :slightly_smiling_face: Was wondering, I?m setting up a new service, it doesn?t have any contracts yet, But i wanted to include already the infra for it to run verification when it is a provider side. But.. i get an error that says ?No provider with name ?{my service name? found? Is there a way to run the verification tests even though there are no contracts yet?

danieljak

2021-10-31 16:09

Found in the Brokers API that you can do a `POST` request to the `pacticipants` endpoint and add there the provider details, a json body with name, displayName was enough for it

stefan.smith

2021-11-01 13:05

Hi, I'm using the Rust Pact Verifier CLI and have bumped into the lack of support for setting the provider branch when publishing verification results. I see that this is coming based on https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/issues/151 and https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/pull/152/files. Any idea when this feature will drop? I see it's absent from the latest beta as well. FYI - I'm aware it's in the Ruby CLI but was following the recommendation to use the native CLI where possible. Thanks!

ahmed_syed

2021-11-01 20:46

has joined #general

ahmed_syed

2021-11-01 20:53

Hi everyone, Glad to join. Is pact good for non-microservices, e.g. i have a Drupal CMS with React Front end, is there an example i can follow? and to write the tests do i need to know nodejs? javascript?

tjones

2021-11-01 20:57

Yes, pact is ideal for microservices. If the react front end is the consumer, then yes, you would write your consumer tests in js. For verification, you can either use the same framework that the back end uses (I think we have PHP bindings, but I haven't used them myself), or you could drive the verification with a different pact framework (eg js or java) if you are more familiar

matt.fellows

2021-11-01 23:27

I think Kamal was asking for *non-*microservices

matt.fellows

2021-11-01 23:27

But the answer might still be the same - microservices is just the common use case

matt.fellows

2021-11-01 23:28

If it speaks REST then the answer is probably (i.e. what Tim said)

matt.fellows

2021-11-01 23:29

I think it?s just waiting on a release. I do recall there being an issue with something in main that couldn?t be released yet

matt.fellows

2021-11-01 23:29

@uglyog is there anything blocking a release?

matt.fellows

2021-11-01 23:30

Also please note Stefan it?s a public holiday here in Melbourne and a bunch of the maintainers who are based here are off for a long weekend

b.1.alpha

2021-11-01 23:52

Hi I am running the tutorial https://katacoda.com/pact/scenarios/pactflow-can-i-deploy-js and getting an error step 4 of 8. '$ npm run publish'

b.1.alpha

2021-11-01 23:53

Where is the best place to discuss something like that?

matt.fellows

2021-11-01 23:54

please raise in #documentation and we can go from there

matt.fellows

2021-11-01 23:57

I just whipped through the workshop and it works :mwah:

somayajulaas

2021-11-02 00:38

has joined #general

john

2021-11-02 03:32

has joined #general

bjorn.johansson

2021-11-02 08:32

I recently started looking into pact. I have set up a simple scenario with a simple integration between a consumer and a provider and that works perfectly. But I?m wondering how one should deal with slightly more complex scenarios? Let?s say I have a consumer that talks to two different services, service A and service B. The role of the consumer is to call service A and B, aggregate the results and apply some business logic to it. Now let?s say I want to write a contract test between the consumer and service A. When verifying the pact on the consumer side I?m gonna mock the response from service A (using pact) and then call the API of the consumer and assert that the response can be dealt with properly. However by invoking the API of the consumer service B will also be invoked. How should I deal with that? These are some of the alternatives I thought of. 1. Mock service B with Wiremock or similar. 2. Try to write the contract test at a lower level so that only the service A interaction is involved. 3. Use pact to mock service B as well What is the recommended approach for these kinds of scenarios?

matt.fellows

2021-11-02 09:23

2 is possible and if not, then 1

matt.fellows

2021-11-02 09:23

See also a few AMAs on that topic: https://docs.pact.io/help/amas/

bjorn.johansson

2021-11-02 10:35

Thanks. So 3 is not desirable right? Because one would like to test the contracts in isolation and not tie the contracts of service A and B together.

rochitsen

2021-11-02 10:49

has joined #general

finta.pl

2021-11-02 14:43

has joined #general

alessandro.borraccino

2021-11-02 17:04

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-11-02 20:38

That should have read "2 *if* possible"

matti.anusha

2021-11-03 02:58

has joined #general

bjorn.johansson

2021-11-03 07:28

Ok, so the contract test should be limited to testing the contract and the contract only? So what we would like to verify on the consumer side is that parsing of the response works. Right? Alternative 1 is kinda mixing functional tests with contract tests and if I interpret your response correctly that is not desirable.

matt.fellows

2021-11-03 09:45

Ideally, but if in the course of doing the testing you cover some functional aspects also that's fine, don't beat yourself up about it

matt.fellows

2021-11-03 09:46

We've talked about this in the AMAs too: https://docs.pact.io/help/amas/

ozgurerisir

2021-11-03 10:29

has joined #general

bjorn.johansson

2021-11-03 10:47

Ok, thanks once again. Really appreciate it :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2021-11-05 07:08

Hi Brad, anything you can share here? I?m positive others in the community would be keen! cc: @vuttithatkrongyot

dean.miley1

2021-11-05 11:40

has joined #general

dean.miley1

2021-11-05 11:43

Hi Team, I would like to request who would be the right person to approach to talk about having security vulnerabilities addressed in pact-broker?

martha.nolan

2021-11-05 11:50

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-11-05 12:03

Answered in the other channel

eniko_kollar

2021-11-05 16:46

has joined #general

ashwin

2021-11-05 17:58

has joined #general

d.philipp

2021-11-08 03:51

has joined #general

mail_4brad

2021-11-08 04:30

@matt.fellows Here?s the thread that resulted: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9UN99H24/p1626742572393400 So far it feels like a natural fit. I was pushed by some colleagues to run a compare with SCC as we?re a Spring shop and I?m stalled on that and other distractions so haven?t been able to bed this in yet. I welcome any more thoughts on it.

matt.fellows

2021-11-08 04:53

Oh fantastic, thanks Brad! I might take a copy of this for putting up _somewhere_

hamzah.saleem

2021-11-08 11:22

has joined #general

srividya.ece

2021-11-08 12:17

has joined #general

markus.joschko

2021-11-08 13:13

has joined #general

belugin.v

2021-11-08 17:16

has joined #general

will.griffiths

2021-11-09 05:25

has joined #general

navilooz

2021-11-09 08:48

has joined #general

keith.hirst

2021-11-09 12:13

has joined #general

rbo

2021-11-09 17:47

has joined #general

harshaan.n.khan

2021-11-10 05:38

has joined #general

rbo

2021-11-10 10:05

Hi there, I was wondering whether someone has 'real world' examples of projects using pact?

tjones

2021-11-10 10:05

There are several. What are you looking for?

rbo

2021-11-10 10:06

I'm curious what type of assertions make sense within the verify function in terms of Go

tjones

2021-11-10 10:09

Right, so you would verify that your API call returned the business object that you're expecting

tjones

2021-11-10 10:12

Hmm, it looks like maybe the go examples don't do this

tjones

2021-11-10 10:15

I think the design for go is something like this: ``` var test = func() (err error) { // fire api code that's under test resp, err = yourApiCallHere(paramsIfYouHaveThem) // assert that the resp/err from the call is the business object that you're expecting } // setup interaction pact. AddInteraction()./* ...etc */ if err := pact.Verify(test); err != nil { log.Fatalf("Error on Verify: %v", err) }```

rbo

2021-11-10 10:16

One of the examples from the go-pack-workshop is is shown above in your post Imagine the provider user object provides a field boolean a and boolean b and the consumer's version of that user object has an extra field boolean c which is set to true if the provider's boolean a and boolean b is true. In terms of contract testing and pact it is *not a good idea* to test outcome of the consumer's user object field boolean c because it's not really to do with the contract between the provider and consumer. Have I got that concept correct? Or can that be tested within the verify. I'm not sure if you'd class that as business logic or just the transformation of provider/consumer concepts ``````

tjones

2021-11-10 10:16

For go examples, you might get a better answer asking in #pact-go

rbo

2021-11-10 10:17

Thanks @tjones is my question above better suited for the #pact-go channel too?

tjones

2021-11-10 10:18

Good question. So, in the expectations you set up (in `WillRespondWith` in Go), it's good practice to use matchers, to generalise the response data. For example, if the `name` field is a string, you don't need to the expected response to be tied to a specific string

tjones

2021-11-10 10:18

You might say `dsl.String("Steve")`, to say "this is a string, for example `"Steve"`"

tjones

2021-11-10 10:19

the reason you do this is so that during provider verification, the provider doesn't need to have exactly the same data as is in the consumer test, just the same shape of data

tjones

2021-11-10 10:20

(unless the specific string important for conveying meaning, like say `"type": "UserRecord"` or something)

tjones

2021-11-10 10:20

However, in the test code that you pass to `Verify`, you still want to assert in your consumer test that the response was correctly unmarshalled into whatever business object comes back from your api call

rbo

2021-11-10 10:20

So is the idea that the WillRespondWith is the contract from the provider while the verify function can be used to test how your application responded to the contract perhaps by created it's own version of the object

tjones

2021-11-10 10:21

Yes. In the expectation, we say: "I will send a request that looks like <this request>" "If I do, please send me a response that looks like <this response>"

rbo

got it, thank you for your help

tjones

A Pact consumer test confirms that you can send the response you claim you will. However, it's up to you to confirm that you can unmarshall the response object correctly.

tjones

in some languages, this looks like marking your own exam, if the json unmarsalling is built in and you aren't doing any transformation

tjones

? https://pactflow.io/case-studies/m1-finance/ ? https://pactflow.io/case-studies/boost-insurance/

but it's still good to do.

tjones

2021-11-10 10:23

Pact interaction: "I will send a request that looks like <this request>" "If I do, please send me a response that looks like <this response>" Your test function: "I fire the code that sends that request" "I check that I understood the response and it was what I was expecting"

rbo

2021-11-10 10:26

So I'm clear on that part, but I'm still unsure in my above example testing boolean c on the consumer user objects is actually testing business logic rather than the contract. I'm finding it hard to draw the line here

tjones

2021-11-10 13:13

I'm not sure I understand the example very well. It sounds like the boolean in your example is unmarshalling logic? If that's the case, I would test it.

tjones

2021-11-10 13:13

Think of Pact as a unit test for your communications boundary - which includes the http call and the marshallers

rbo

2021-11-10 13:29

@tjones Thank you that does answer my question, cheers

esparga

2021-11-10 14:32

has joined #general

thales.areis

2021-11-10 19:33

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-11-11 05:24

In case you didn't see, here are a bunch of real world case studies or pact: https://docs.pact.io/blogs_videos_and_articles/#2021

matt.fellows

2021-11-11 05:24

There are some on the http://pactflow.io website also

henk.koopman

2021-11-11 08:56

has joined #general

lena.lindblad

2021-11-11 09:58

has joined #general

radekkoubsky

2021-11-11 16:24

has joined #general

aditya

2021-11-11 17:20

has joined #general

claire

2021-11-11 17:55

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2021-11-11 21:57

Pact Broker Feature Research Question - git uses the word "HEAD" to mean the latest version on a branch. SVN seems to use the same term. Is there a commonly used version control system that does *not* use that term? The reason I ask is that I want to be able to make the contract_requiring_verification_published webhook be able to trigger before we have any versions published from the provider, and to do that, I need a placeholder version number. I think "HEAD" should do it for most systems, but wanted to check if there are any I don't know about.

matt.fellows

2021-11-11 21:59

In terms of tools I?ve seen out in the wild: ? git (most popular) ? svn ? cvs ? Mercurial ? gerrit ? MS Team Foundation VC

joel.whalen588

2021-11-12 01:45

Question - Does Pact support using GraphQL requests instead of REST?

matt.fellows

2021-11-12 02:07

GraphQL is just an abstraction over REST, so yes, you can

matt.fellows

2021-11-12 02:07

In Pact JS we have a GraphQL interface, but it?s a thinly veiled extension to the standard HTTP one

matt.fellows

2021-11-12 02:08

that being said, with the new plugin interface, it would be nice to support GraphQL content-type explicitly

joel.whalen588

2021-11-12 02:13

Thank you for clarifying, it's new tech to me. That would be pretty sweet if that could be added - where can I learn more about plugins for pact? And how much work would this be lol

matt.fellows

2021-11-12 02:14

It?s a _very_ nascent feature, and we haven?t made much noise about it yet

matt.fellows

2021-11-12 02:14

We?d like to get a few official plugins under our belt before doing that so that we can smooth that experience out

matt.fellows

2021-11-12 02:14

you can follow the progress here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-plugins/

joel.whalen588

2021-11-12 02:15

Ah fair enough. I'll keep watching then :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2021-11-12 02:15

I?ll DM you some other details too, one moment

matt.fellows

2021-11-12 02:16

In case it?s helpful, the GraphQL interface in PactJS can be found here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/master/src/dsl/graphql.ts

matt.fellows

2021-11-12 02:16

all it does is just simplify configuring what the graphql query looks like to the HTTP interface

gentritmm

2021-11-12 08:35

has joined #general

wilson.espina

2021-11-12 09:52

has joined #general

eric2323223

2021-11-12 13:52

Hi @matt.fellows may I know if you provide downloadable executables of https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/tree/master/rust/pact_verifier_cli?

alejandro.pena

2021-11-12 16:32

wrote by mistake, sorry

mike.geeves064

2021-11-12 16:47

Have a look through the releases, i.e. https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases you should be able to find it there. You may or may not be wanting to use that one, depending on CI approach, language being used etc though.

stefan.smith

2021-11-12 17:41

Hi, I have hit an issue which I think is similar / the same as the scenario described in https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana/step_8. I am using Pact flow to coordinate CI exchange of contracts within a GitFlow (feature branching) source control workflow. I am using `--enable-pending` and `--include-wip-pacts-since` when I verify pacts. I am also using `can-i-deploy` and `record deployment`. I have set up a webhook that is triggered on the `contract_requiring_verification_published` event so that Pacts published from consumer feature branches are rapidly verified and results recorded in Pactflow. The scenario I'm unsure about is the follow: ? Consumer publishes a new pact from a feature branch which trigger rapid verification via webhook and records result in pactflow, against the feature branch. ? Provider mainline build runs on a new provider commit, retrieves latest `main`, `staging` and `production` contracts to verify, plus WIP contracts (which includes my consumer feature branch) and they pass. Results are published to pact broker ? Provider mainline build runs on a second new provider commit and this time the WIP contracts do not include my consumer feature branch pact. I _think_ this means there won't be an entry in the Pact matrix for the latest mainline Provider verifying the consumer feature branch pact ? Consumer merges feature branch to mainline. ? Consumer mainline build runs. The pact is published and associated with the mainline branch but the webhook is not triggered because the pact content hasn't changed. Consumer mainline build then runs `can-i-deploy` which fails because the matrix does not contain a result for latest Provider mainline vs current Consumer mainline. On this last point, is this expected behaviour? Ideally, there would be some way for the consumer mainline to force a verification just-in-time if one is missing. Alternatively, is the `--include-wip-pacts-since` feature continued to retrieve passing feature branch Pacts, then there would always be a verification result but then the verification job would accrue more and more pacts to verify over time.

megan.twyver

2021-11-12 18:39

has joined #general

stefan.smith

2021-11-12 20:00

Having done more reading, I came across point 5 of https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/wip_pacts/#technical-details. I now realise the WIP pact file will continue to be retrieved even after successful validation. It will only stop being WIP once it is explicitly retrieved using a consumer selector. I have now confirmed this behaviour in our pipeline. This means there should always be a successful result in the matrix that enables the consumer feature branch changes to build and deploy successfully following a merge to mainline. My only outstanding concern is that the number of WIP pacts could grow over time if some branches never get merged to mainline. I guess one could apply a sliding time window by dynamically calculating the wipPactsSince date.

mischa.molhoek

2021-11-14 09:42

has joined #general

stefan.smith

2021-11-14 11:56

Something that might make this clearer for users: currently, when a feature branch WIP pact is retrieved that has already been verified on the `develop` branch of our provider, the DEBUG log says: > This pact is in pending state for this version of <Provider> because a successful verification result for a version of <Provider> from branch 'develop' has not yet been published. This is misleading. In actual fact, a successful verification result _had_ been published from the provider's `develop` branch but the pact was considered WIP because it had not yet been associated with one of the _explicitly_ requested consumer branches or environments (our consumer selector specified `develop`, `staging` and `production`). This is the behaviour described in step 5 of https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/wip_pacts/#technical-details. We spent a lot of time trying to figure out what was going on until we discovered this information. If the DEBUG message had explained the true reason for the pact retrieval, we would have arrived at an answer more quickly.

matt.fellows

2021-11-14 22:10

This is a lovely detailed set of messages Stefan!

matt.fellows

2021-11-14 22:10

It sounds like you may have discovered a bug with the notices

69vron

2021-11-15 01:35

has joined #general

tjones

2021-11-15 05:18

What does the Pact verifier do with redirects? Can we make it follow them? I have an API call to endpoint A that will redirect to an endpoint B that returns a different payload. Because it's running in the browser, the consumer code will never see the redirect - from its perspective, endpoint A is returning payload B. So, I want to write a pact that says endpoint A returns a 200 with payload B (which will work from the consumer's perspective), but the provider will actually have a redirect in between (not part of the contract - the consumer doesn't care).

bethskurrie

2021-11-15 05:19

Currently, it would fail.

bethskurrie

2021-11-15 05:19

The Ruby verifier at least does not follow redirects.

bethskurrie

2021-11-15 05:20

You say the consumer doesn't care, but some clients will follow redirects and some don't.

bethskurrie

2021-11-15 05:21

We'd need to add some explicit options and code for the verifier to be able to handle that.

uglyog

2021-11-15 05:25

This is a problem, because if we make it automatically follow redirects, then nobody could have a Pact test with the redirect status codes. In the Pact-JVM I had to add support for this, and it is opt-in.

tjones

2021-11-15 05:36

Yeah. I think neither default works for everyone. The problem is that the front end can't/won't see the redirects

tjones

2021-11-15 05:37

I think for a workaround I could put it in the contract (with two interactions), but it's not a great solution because the contract doesn't actually need the redirect

bethskurrie

2021-11-15 05:37

yeah, it's a tricky one.

tjones

2021-11-15 05:37

@uglyog: Our verifier is pact-jvm. Are you saying we can tell it to follow redirects?

uglyog

2021-11-15 05:40

See ``pact.verifier.enableRedirectHandling`` in https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/jvm/provider/gradle/

tjones

2021-11-15 05:41

We're using the JUnit verifier - can we use the same property?

uglyog

2021-11-15 05:45

I think so. It looks like it is in a common class, but i have never tried it.

james.sawle

2021-11-15 08:49

has joined #general

priyank.shah217

2021-11-15 10:46

A general query, does pact supports grpc protobuf also?

priyank.shah217

2021-11-15 10:46

any sample repo would really help

priyank.shah217

2021-11-15 11:02

got this example https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-plugins/tree/main/examples/protobuf

matt.fellows

2021-11-15 11:17

it?s not officially supported yet, but as you?ve just found we?re building a plugin framework for it. You could consider the current implementation an early beta

matt.fellows

2021-11-15 11:27

We?ll be providing updates via the Pactflow https://github.com/pactflow/roadmap#developer-preview-programs

matt.fellows

2021-11-15 11:35

You can also workaround using a strategy like this: https://medium.com/@ivangsa/consumer-driven-contract-testing-for-grpc-pact-io-d60155d21c4c

pete.watts

2021-11-15 12:46

has joined #general

malena.cadima

2021-11-15 14:36

Hello everyone. I want to use pact with kubernetes. It is possible? Is there any documentation ?

joel.whalen588

2021-11-15 15:26

I'm not a kubernetes expert by any means, but using the Pact CLI docker image is a good start: https://hub.docker.com/r/pactfoundation/pact-cli It works like any other docker image you'd use in kubernetes. It can handle everything about interacting with the broker: publishing pacts, verifications, and using the can-i-deploy tool.

joshua.badger

2021-11-15 17:10

has joined #general

joshua.badger

2021-11-15 17:14

Hello all! I?ve searched through what I can see and have been unable to find an answer. I see this docker image (https://hub.docker.com/r/pactfoundation/pact-ref-mock-server) and want to use it for an app we are working on, as we have multiple other servers our company controls that this app communicates with. I?m in the beginning stages of setting up Pact on this service, and have it rudimentarily working using the https://hub.docker.com/r/pactfoundation/pact-cli image, but as I understand it that image isn?t set up to run more than one mock server for one consumer/provider pair. I see in its description that it supports multiple mock servers for multiple consumer/provider pairs: > This project provides both a restful web api and command line interface to run pact mock servers. It is a single executable image and is able to manage multiple mock servers. The lifecycle of each mock server can be controlled by the restful web api or through the command line interface. It implements the�https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/tree/version-3. I would much rather have a single container handling this than trying to modify `pact-cli` to have multiple mock servers running. Is there a link somewhere for how to use `pact-ref-mock-server`?

joshua.badger

2021-11-15 17:18

Also, I apologize if I missed the information regarding this.

matt.fellows

2021-11-15 20:33

Are you trying to run the broker on Kube or something else?

matt.fellows

2021-11-15 20:34

Can you please explain your use case a little more? Why are you using the CLI directly instead of using one of the languages?

joshua.badger

2021-11-15 22:39

It?s possible I misunderstood how to get it to work, but using `pact-python` I wasn?t able to get it working. Kept getting errors about not being able to assign an address/port combination. I?ll see if I can reproduce it.

joshua.badger

2021-11-15 23:12

I did in fact misunderstand. Thank you for giving me the right nudge, it?s working now. :slightly_smiling_face: No need for an extra container.

tjones

2021-11-15 23:13

Those containers are useful if you're using pact outside one of the languages where we have DSLs that do all the work for you. Possibly we should make that clearer in the documentation

matt.fellows

2021-11-15 23:43

> I did in fact misunderstand. Thank you for giving me the right nudge, it?s working now. ah, great to hear? What was confusing, perhaps we can improve the docs somewhere

joshua.badger

2021-11-15 23:51

I?m not sure what the issue was; early in my attempts to set up in `pytest` I?d get errors (with ruby tracebacks on occasion) and an error that the address couldn?t be assigned. I will look and see what I ended up doing, and what could have been clearer based on what the existing documentation says.

matt.fellows

2021-11-16 00:18

No worries, thanks. It?s always helpful to update when somebody has fresh eyes :slightly_smiling_face:

joshua.badger

2021-11-16 16:21

I think my issue might have been that I actually started with `pactman` , actually. I?ll still give this some thought, but it might not have been `pact-python`?s documentation that threw me off.

omarsaddaoui

2021-11-17 02:55

has joined #general

eniko_kollar

2021-11-17 10:24

Hi everyone, I was wondering if anyone would be willing to have a quick chat on their experience of using contract testing in a mid-size/large organisation with many microservices! :mechanical_arm: Any input would be greatly appreciated, because we are just trying to start to implement contract testing. :pray:

matt.fellows

2021-11-17 12:32

I guess I?ll count as biased, so i?ll just shared some links to case studies etc.: https://docs.pact.io/blogs_videos_and_articles

matt.fellows

2021-11-17 12:33

eniko_kollar

2021-11-17 12:53

Aww, thank you so much Matt, this is super cool! However, do you think I could get in touch with you or them to ask for a bit more details?

matt.fellows

2021-11-17 13:00

If you drop an email to I can try and do an intro via email, otherwise hopefully somebody will see your call out here also :slightly_smiling_face:

mbyrne

2021-11-17 14:23

has joined #general

matthew.drill

2021-11-18 01:08

has joined #general

james.halsall

2021-11-18 12:02

has joined #general

stefan.smith

2021-11-18 12:39

Hi, I'm using the `pact-provider-verifier` with `--enable-pending`. In addition to suppressing non-zero exit codes when verification of a pending pact fails, I also expected this to suppress non-zero exit codes when provider state setup failed for those same pacts. This doesn't seem to be the case. Is this expected? Ideally, I'd like to avoid a consumer being able to break a provider's mainline build when they define an unsupported provider state.

matt.fellows

2021-11-18 12:56

Sorry, is this the ruby or the rust one (or rather, where did you download it from?)

matt.fellows

2021-11-18 12:56

In either case I think that expectation is fair

stefan.smith

2021-11-18 13:17

It's ruby

stefan.smith

2021-11-18 13:19

Are you saying you think it's a fair expectation but that in reality this _may_ not be the case? That's what I'm seeing - we broke a provider mainline build by pushing an unsupported provider state definition.

stefan.smith

2021-11-18 13:20

Essentially, the /_pactSetup endpoint we call returned a 500 for a pending pact. Would have hoped that would not cause a non-zero exit

matt.fellows

2021-11-18 13:28

I'd also expect it not to fail, that's right

matt.fellows

2021-11-18 13:28

I'll follow up tomorrow

bethskurrie

2021-11-18 21:29

@stefan.smith can you please raise it in the https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby repository?

stefan.smith

2021-11-19 10:05

Done https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby/issues/251

chvram

2021-11-19 14:09

has joined #general

akhandalmani.malik

2021-11-19 14:16

has joined #general

malena.cadima

2021-11-19 14:55

my consumer is a library on Docker and my provider is a service on Kubernetes. Is there any documentation about pact+k8?

elias.frykholm

2021-11-19 15:17

has joined #general

eniko_kollar

2021-11-19 15:17

Thanks a ton!

martin.carlin

2021-11-19 15:52

has joined #general

paul.nardone

2021-11-19 16:12

has joined #general

emily

2021-11-19 18:56

has joined #general

pietrucha.bartosz

2021-11-20 13:47

has joined #general

pietrucha.bartosz

2021-11-20 13:48

Hello everyone! I am creating a course about Fullstack Web testing and using PactJS!

pietrucha.bartosz

2021-11-20 13:49

Some examples: https://github.com/bartosz-io/budget-angular/tree/master/contract https://github.com/bartosz-io/budget-node/tree/master/contract

pietrucha.bartosz

2021-11-20 13:50

@matt.fellows :wave:

ringo

2021-11-20 21:16

Is there a Github Action available which installs the Pact CLI tools?

matt.fellows

2021-11-20 21:42

Not sure there is, but it's a good idea. Can you please raise a feature request here: http://pact.canny.io?

matt.fellows

2021-11-20 22:08

Excited to see the course! What can we do to help and what are your plans? Happy to review and contribute to key topics that should be covered, and review content and examples for best practices Like like you're going to do it in Node/TS/Angular. I can help with first 2 but not angular as I have no experience there

achuljyan

2021-11-21 07:15

TL;DR How to pass variable from consumer Jenkins pipeline job to triggered verification pipeline job?

tjones

2021-11-21 08:31

This is a *great* idea

mastrobardo

2021-11-21 11:42

has joined #general

mastrobardo

2021-11-21 11:44

Hello, good morning. I'm trying to reset the password in a new generated account, however i dont receive ANY validation code email. The only one i received is when i signed up, but it is expired after 5 minutes

mastrobardo

2021-11-21 11:44

anybody has an hint on how to proceed

matt.fellows

2021-11-21 12:18

Hi Davide, I saw saw your support email. Accounts enter a locked state if not activated within the first 7days. We've unlocked your account now. Also FYI we do have a dedicated channel here for #pactflow

mastrobardo

2021-11-21 12:49

ohh thank you mate!

mastrobardo

2021-11-21 12:51

still no success though. will report to pactflow channel, thank you

matt.fellows

2021-11-21 12:59

I think for this case we'll want to do it offline via email. If you can raise a ticket at we can manage it there. It's late here but I'll check in tomorrow

mastrobardo

2021-11-21 18:25

thx buddy, i just got it trough now. I was probably in some block cycle via IP/repeated attempts

tjones

2021-11-22 04:04

@uglyog: Unfortunately, the JUnit runner doesn't appear to respect this property. Is this an easy fix, or should I open an issue?

uglyog

2021-11-22 04:09

How are you setting that property?

tjones

2021-11-22 04:16

`-Dpact.verifier.enableRedirectHandling=true` as a VM arg

uglyog

2021-11-22 04:19

Hmm, that should do it

fed

2021-11-22 04:20

has joined #general

tjones

2021-11-22 04:23

That's what we thought too. I thought it _might_ be maven weirdness, but it seems like that's not the case

tumunshaily

2021-11-22 07:54

has joined #general

yunfeng.wang

2021-11-22 09:25

has joined #general

connor.aird

2021-11-22 17:44

Hello, I am using the pact-mock-server written in rust to run some mocks during verification. I am mocking a POST endpoint which creates ?something? and I have two scenarios in which only one value in the body of the request will differ - `"Name"`. One of these should return a 200 and create ?something? (i.e. `"Name": "somethingNew"`). In the other scenario ?something? should already exist and hence a 409 should be returned since there was a conflict (i.e. `"Name": "somethingOld"`). Verification is failing currently as only the happy path that returns 200 is appearing in the mock server. Is it possible to have this kind of scenario mocked using a single pact mock server? If so, any ideas what I might be doing wrong?

matt.fellows

2021-11-22 20:40

Can you please share the setup and log messages for when it doesn't work?

james.perepiczka

2021-11-23 08:25

Hi, I wanted guidance on what we should do in the following scenario: We have an endpoint that shows the progress of a running task. If the task is running then it will show an object in the response otherwise it will show an empty collection. What is pact best process for this? The only way I can think it would work is to trigger a task and then call this endpoint and hope the task is not finished by the time the endpoint is run. Similarly we could mock it in a dev environment but we want to validate that each stage from dev to live has a compatible contract so this doesn't seem feasible (especially in live). What approach should I take here?

connor.aird

2021-11-23 09:32

Sure. I have two interactions for the same endpoint `POST /customer`. The only difference is the request body` ```{ "Name": "newName" }``` or ```{ "Name": "existingName" }``` The first body should return a 200 status code and the second a 409. I spin the mock server up as part of a docker-compose file using a customer docker image (with some custom flags), which contains the pact-mock-server. I pass the contract containing both interactions to a single Pact Mock Server, like so. ```pact-mock-server: image: "pact-mock-server:latest" entrypoint: "/entrypoint.sh -psp 3001 -msp 3002 -fn /pacts/consumer-provider.json" volumes: - ./target/pacts:/pacts ports: - 3001:3001``` This is the contract used for the pact-mock-server ```{ "consumer": { "name": "consumer" }, "interactions": [ { "description": "a request to create a customer", "request": { "body": { "Name": "newName" }, "headers": { "Accept": "application/*+json", "Content-Type": "application/json" }, "matchingRules": { "body": { "$.Name": { "combine": "AND", "matchers": [ { "match": "type" } ] } } }, "method": "POST", "path": "/customer" }, "response": { "body": { "CustomerGuid": "customerGuid" }, "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json;charset=UTF-8" }, "matchingRules": { "body": { "$.CustomerGuid": { "combine": "AND", "matchers": [ { "match": "type" } ] } }, "header": { "Content-Type": { "combine": "AND", "matchers": [ { "match": "regex", "regex": "application/json(;\\s?charset=[\\w\\-]+)?" } ] } } }, "status": 200 } }, { "description": "a request to create a customer", "providerStates": [ { "name": "a customer exists" } ], "request": { "body": { "Name": "oldName" }, "generators": { "body": { "$.Name": { "dataType": "STRING", "expression": "customerName", "type": "ProviderState" } } }, "headers": { "Accept": "application/*+json", "Content-Type": "application/json" }, "matchingRules": { "body": { "$.Name": { "combine": "AND", "matchers": [ { "match": "type" } ] } } }, "method": "POST", "path": "/customer" }, "response": { "status": 409 } } ], "metadata": { "pact-jvm": { "version": "4.2.4" }, "pactSpecification": { "version": "3.0.0" } }, "provider": { "name": "provider" } }``` I am able to match against the first interaction (Name = newName) but not the second (Name = existingName). I see this log in the `mock_server_mismatches` when trying to match against the second interaction ```[{ "method": "POST", "path": "/customer", "request": { "body": { "Name": "newName" }, "headers": { "Accept": "application/*+json", "Content-Type": "application/json" }, "matchingRules": { "body": { "$.Name": { "combine": "AND", "matchers": [ { "match": "type" } ] } } }, "method": "POST", "path": "/customer" }, "type": "missing-request" }]```

connor.aird

2021-11-23 09:36

I believe one problem is that the bodies for both interactions, as far as the pact-mock-server is concerned, are identical as we are matching types. Because of this I tried changing from type matching the equality matching on the first interaction and I get the same issue

matt.fellows

2021-11-23 10:28

might be a bug. But also, normally you would test each of these interactions separately (rather than on a single mock server instance)

matt.fellows

2021-11-23 10:28

is there a reason you?re not using one of the language bindings directly?

dawoud.sheraz

2021-11-23 12:42

Cross-posting my thread from #pact-python for better reach https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9VECUP6E/p1637671332064700

christos.litsas

2021-11-23 13:05

has joined #general

walter.psjr

2021-11-23 17:39

has joined #general

tomknee1

2021-11-23 21:44

Hi there, im pretty new to contract testing but am looking at adopting a consumer driven contract testing approach where i work amongst the teams. My question is regarding sharing of the pact file between teams. I?ve heard u can share it via a pact broker? how does this work exactly if the team providing the consumer uses a different CI than the provider team? Thanks, i guess as a proof of concept ill look at a simpler way to share just to validate the idea etc but need to think more long term too

matt.fellows

2021-11-23 21:45

Think of the pact broker like Git. It?s a repository for contracts

tomknee1

ooh i see, so it doesnt matter what CI then

matt.fellows

you can push code / pull code from git regardless of your CI tech. Same with Pact Broker

tomknee1

ok great :smile:

tomknee1

thanks so much

matt.fellows

You might find this little tutorial helpful: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/tutorials#getting-started-with-pactflow

tomknee1

thanks, bookmarked and will dig into it tomorrow

matt.fellows

It uses Pactflow (a commercial version of the Pact Broker) but shows the workflow, which is the same regardless

tomknee1

is there a way to trial a pact broker during proof of concept stage

tomknee1

matt.fellows

2021-11-23 21:48

Pactflow has a free starter plan

matt.fellows

2021-11-23 21:48

the Pact Broker is an open source tool

tomknee1

2021-11-23 21:49

nice, thanks for such quick answers :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2021-11-23 21:49

the free starter plan has up to 5 contracts, unlimited users - so should be :ok_hand: for a POC/pilot

tomknee1

2021-11-23 21:49

thats perfect :+1:

abubics

2021-11-24 00:45

With Pact (and presumably other contract testing tools), you don't hit the actual API, and you can specify the current state in the test. So, on the consumer side you might have a few states like ? no tasks in progress ? some tasks in progress with an interaction for each. And then on the provider side, however you're stubbing the responses (depends on your architecture, which layer you cut at, etc), you support those known states.

steveforwork2

2021-11-24 08:47

has joined #general

connor.aird

2021-11-24 10:38

I am using pact-mock-servers as an alternative to mocks such as wiremocks because my understanding was that this was a key use case. In this scenario, a different pact-mock-server for each interaction doesn?t make sense to me. Would you agree? And, in this scenario, we are using the standalone pact verifier to run interactions against a provider which will subsequently call the pact-mock-servers, so language bindings may not make sense?

matt.fellows

2021-11-24 10:56

> And, in this scenario, we are using the standalone pact verifier to run interactions against a provider which will subsequently call the pact-mock-servers, so language�bindings may not make sense? this makes no sense to me. Why would you point the pact verifier, against the mock server? The point of the verifier is to check what your consumer is doing (as defined in a consumer test and validated by the mock server) against the actual provider.

matt.fellows

2021-11-24 10:57

if all you did was run the verifier against the mock, you?ve just setup a tautological test that will always pass and tell you nothing useful

matt.fellows

2021-11-24 10:57

> I am using pact-mock-servers as an alternative to mocks such as wiremocks because�my understanding was that this was a key use case. In this scenario, a different pact-mock-server for each interaction doesn?t make sense to me. what language are you using? how are you defining the mocks?

connor.aird

2021-11-24 11:13

Sorry I may have described that poorly. I am spinning up an actual instance of a provider. The verifier then plays an interaction defined in one contract against that provider. Following this, the provider will subsequently call my pact-mock-server instance which is mocking out a third service (not consumer or provider). This instance will be spun up using a contract containing the two interactions I have previously mentioned. This contract is different to the one played against the provide and is one in which our provider is a consumer of the third service. ```Verifier ----> Actual Provider ----> pact-mock-server``` All contracts are generated through consumer tests written using the Pact JVM - this maven dependency ```<dependency> <groupId>au.com.dius.pact</groupId> <artifactId>consumer</artifactId> <version>4.2.4</version> <scope>test</scope> </dependency> ```

matt.fellows

2021-11-24 11:42

ok, that does make more sense

matt.fellows

2021-11-24 11:43

so, I wouldn?t be using the *mock* server in your use case, i?d be using the *stub* server

matt.fellows

2021-11-24 11:43

but really, I?d not use the pact tools as a stub there and would tend to want to mock it during my tests (and then have separate pact tests between `Actual Provider ---> Downstream API`

matt.fellows

2021-11-24 11:43

I think @uglyog has a war story about doing what you?re proposing

fredrik.ostling

2021-11-24 11:56

has joined #general

connor.aird

2021-11-24 13:37

Okay I see. I plan to also have the separate pact tests between Actual provider and Downstream API as well. Therefore I will be confident that the pact-mock-servers never get out of date as the downstream API develops. However, if there?s a better approach, I would be interested to hear what that is. This *stub* server, is that something else offered by pact?

jorge.nunez

2021-11-24 14:28

has joined #general

connor.aird

2021-11-24 14:29

After reading around the stub server it seems that it only matches against the method, path and query parameters but I need to match against the body.

tomknee1

2021-11-24 17:13

Hi there, does anyone know if pact contract testing works with Websockets interface etc? thanks

asradhakrishnan

2021-11-24 17:20

has joined #general

matt.fellows

You can do it using what we call message pact (howtomessage)

See also these examples (e.g. Kafka, AWS SNS)

matt.fellows

We don?t support websockets directly, but the idea would be to support it in a first class way via plugins (howtoplugin)

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-plugins

tomknee1

2021-11-25 09:19

thanks but im still a bit confused, are you saying we?d have to make a new plugin or something?

matt.fellows

No, you can think of websockets as another type of queue and use message pact to test it

matt.fellows

Ideally we could build a specific websocket plugin later on the make it less abstract. But for now you can use message pact to do it.

matt.fellows

What language are you using?

tomknee1

ok thanks are there any tutorials etc ?

matt.fellows

2021-11-25 09:41

No, otherwise I would have shared a websockets example instead of Kafka one :rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:

tomknee1

2021-11-25 09:42

so the team im on now for Android based app uses kotlin, then the other teams for backend etc all use Go

tomknee1

2021-11-25 09:44

for the proof of concept its probably gona be between different consumers / providers on the Go side of things

connor.aird

2021-11-25 09:48

Hello, I have solved my issue. The custom image I had created containing the pact mock server was handling errors incorrectly. If the pact-mock-server returned an error code as it should (like in the second interaction) the custom image threw an error instead of just returning as it should. By checking the mock servers response for key string such as `request mismatch` I am able to distinguish between an actual mismatch and a valid mocked error code.

matt.fellows

2021-11-25 10:02

Hmm it should match body too I think. I believe it uses the same implementation under the hood, it just doesn't validate (so it may be a moot point)

matt.fellows

2021-11-25 10:04

Here's a go example https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/cac3cf0f2829c2b9f059204458958e88200dad63/examples/consumer_test.go#L200

matt.fellows

2021-11-25 10:04

It's the new v2.x.x branch which is beta but I'd still start there.

matt.fellows

2021-11-25 10:05

It's functional, it's just about ironing out any remaining bugs and getting feedback on the API before we freeze it and release the next major

tomknee1

2021-11-25 10:10

thanks

edouard.lopez

2021-11-25 11:01

has joined #general

maxkitzing

2021-11-25 17:49

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2021-11-25 22:10

The verification step takes place on a local instance, not a deployed one, so hopefully that allows you to put the data in the exact state you need. You may need to stub out parts of your infrastructure to achieve this.

ringo

2021-11-25 22:18

@matt.fellows https://pact.canny.io/feature-requests/p/github-action-which-installs-pact-cli

tjones

2021-11-25 22:33

Also, depending on the framework you're using, you might not need to do this -pact-js (for example) brings the CLI tools with it.

matt.fellows

2021-11-25 22:41

Thanks Ringo!

matt.fellows

2021-11-25 22:41

I think he was using Pact Go Tim which needs it on the path

cristian.carrillo

2021-11-26 00:06

has joined #general

christoph.oswald

2021-11-26 09:53

has joined #general

gjourdanweil

2021-11-26 14:39

has joined #general

sean.pike

2021-11-26 14:48

has joined #general

varnit.garg2424

2021-11-27 09:33

Hi, In case of *non http contract* between two services - on the provider side pact tests, should we run the entire producer application to generate to output messages based on mock data? I mean how should we implement the connector to the queue? I'm pretty clear with consumer side flow, but provider side flow is all Greek to me. Any help would be highly appreciated? Do we have any sample project for reference?

matt.fellows

2021-11-27 09:42

Howtomessage

2021-11-27 09:42

See this doc on how message pact works https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/how_pact_works#non-http-testing-message-pact

matt.fellows

2021-11-27 09:43

There's a few example here: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/examples/kafka/js/consumer/

matt.fellows

2021-11-27 09:53

Short answer is no. It's a unit test

varnit.garg2424

2021-11-27 10:05

Thank @matt.fellows. Let me try to dig into it further! :slightly_smiling_face: One confusion is eliminated - that I don't have the run the entire application unlike we do in functional tests

dawoud.sheraz

2021-11-29 05:43

Hello. A curious question; who is responsible for making a decision on feature requests at https://pact.canny.io/? How does open-source contribution works for such requests if someone is interested in doing one?

michael.bannister

2021-11-29 07:43

has joined #general

mike.geeves064

2021-11-29 18:02

Depending on where the changes are for (pact-python, pact-js etc), most have a CONTRIBUTING.md (varying levels of info from project to project) which will hopefully give a starting point. You could also hop into the #pact-python, #pact-js-development etc channels and discuss there if you have a specific request you'd be interested in working on :slightly_smiling_face: I think the suggestion for most (aside from the fork/commit/PR approach) is to talk about it in the appropriate place first to make sure it's not already in progress etc

rjadams96

2021-11-29 18:47

has joined #general

pavithz

2021-11-29 23:51

has joined #general

abubics

2021-11-29 23:52

Just a general admin/visibility question . . . is http://pact.canny.io being used as an overall roadmap, or only for feature requests?

bethskurrie

2021-11-29 23:53

more feature requests

bethskurrie

2021-11-29 23:53

and letting people know what we're working on

abubics

2021-11-30 00:01

coolio, good to know :thumbsup:

bethskurrie

2021-11-30 00:01

it does not get updated as often as it should

matt.fellows

2021-11-30 01:22

We?ve never really solved the problem of a coherent roadmap everybody is working towards. Canny is best way to get feature requests across the ecosystem, github is the best place for the detail. Watch this space though

matt.fellows

2021-11-30 01:24

We?re looking to https://pactflow.io/careers/?gh_jid=5720990002 at Pactflow who will take on some OSS stewardship responsibilities to help drive some of this (amongst other things).

abubics

2021-11-30 02:50

aw man, dream job

tjones

2021-11-30 03:20

Largely, consensus on new project-wide features is reached informally by the core maintainers. It's probably worth us developing a more reasoned or at least formalised approach

tjones

2021-11-30 03:21

if it's a feature that is appropriate to do in one in one of the projects only, then it's down to the maintainers of that repository.

tjones

2021-11-30 03:21

Which feature are you interested in?

tjones

2021-11-30 03:21

(good question, btw)

dawoud.sheraz

2021-11-30 04:46

For now, I am interested in writing a Github action for setting up pact cli tools(https://pact.canny.io/feature-requests/p/github-action-which-installs-pact-cli). This will be universal and would not fall under the territory of any specific client side library.

tjones

2021-11-30 04:55

I think that would definitely be welcome

tjones

2021-11-30 05:02

Since all github runners have bash, this script might be a useful starting point: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js-core/blob/master/script/lib/download-standalone.sh

tjones

2021-11-30 05:03

it's the one that we use in pact-js to download the standalone binaries

dawoud.sheraz

2021-11-30 05:09

Right. But I think we can leverage setup-ruby action(https://github.com/actions/setup-ruby) to setup ruby and simply install cli gem. Although I will have to see how extensible gem install command would be with respect to cli version.

matt.fellows

2021-11-30 05:30

You shouldn?t need to install Ruby, I?d personally start with the standalone as Tim suggested I think

matt.fellows

2021-11-30 05:31

Also, thank you for putting your hand up - in this case, I?d simply comment on the canny feature request indicating you want to pick it up so anybody else interested can see you?re picking it up

dawoud.sheraz

2021-11-30 05:33

:thumbsup:

tjones

2021-11-30 06:04

> simply install cli gem This will mean that you'll support the arches that the standalone doesn't support

matt.fellows

2021-11-30 06:09

that?s true

dawoud.sheraz

2021-11-30 06:10

Can you elaborate on this, please? I have a very less context on ruby, so I can rethink the approach if there are repercussions to installing gem. Thank you

matt.fellows

2021-11-30 06:16

I think Tim is suggesting that you do setup a Ruby runtime and then do a `gem install <artifact>` for each of the following gems: ? `pact-mock_service` ? `pact-message` ? `pact-provider-verifier` ? `pact_broker-client`

tjones

2021-11-30 06:45

I don't know much about Ruby either. But, I do know that the standalone binaries (which the script I linked you to there) don't run on (eg) aarch64

tjones

2021-11-30 06:45

I believe the ruby gems will, assuming ruby runs there

dawoud.sheraz

2021-11-30 06:57

Ah, right. thank you

varnit.garg2424

2021-11-30 10:53

Hi, let's say if we have one provider A and one consumer B and they are connected via kafa queue... Also, we have protobuf in place.. I understand that in case of http requests, pact would provide more advantage.. But in case of kafka messaging, can someone please explain in brief any real time use case in which pact would help considering there is only one consumer to the given provider?

matt.fellows

2021-11-30 11:01

Nothing stopping you - but just? maybe don?t tell Joe/Clency :wink:

mike.geeves064

2021-11-30 11:26

I think it still makes sense even with one consumer to one provider, I'm currently kicking myself for not progressing Pact tests yet where I have messages going to an AWS EventBus. It turns out because of Reasons I had ended up with numbers sometimes being a Decimal, sometimes a float, and sometimes a string for different attributes. And because the payload of the message going to the queue doesn't matter, it's just JSON the isolated tests work just fine..... having fixed them on one part it then broke the other because of no contract :open_mouth:

agittcelik

2021-11-30 18:35

has joined #general

alturil

2021-11-30 20:56

has joined #general

alturil

2021-11-30 21:08

Hi everyone! - Is there a specific channel for the https://registry.terraform.io/providers/pactflow/pact/latest/docs?

matt.fellows

2021-11-30 22:24

no, but we should make one!

mike.geeves064

2021-11-30 23:24

Having a look at how A->B->C tests could work, to try and come up with a sensible example/pattern, starting off on the python side from a thread over here: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9VECUP6E/p1637360662056400 I'm having a look over here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-python/pull/276 and am trying to figure out if this is a sensible approach or I'm going off on one :smile: Following the discussion with @joshua.badger I've progressed the idea a little with defining the pair of request/responses: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-python/pull/276/commits/fafb3edb52cf589dc1f2f6e752df5e25e3fd4b53#diff-33c99d63050a10d9eb8c4815ddf9e54a721cf44b25894e859c1c99179425efc6 - this is constructing a lookup which is used to handle state requests for the provider tests, and mock the endpoints at C accordingly (over here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-python/blob/fafb3edb52cf589dc1f2f6e752df5e25e3fd4b53/examples/abc/provider_b_hub/tests/pact_provider_b.py#L41 ). The second part of usage is then using that same lookup to loop through and make calls from B->C to ensure that all of the mocked states are actually used to generate Pacts to avoid having essentially invalid mocks being setup due to mistmatches, since everything has to be tested, so looping through like this: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-python/blob/fafb3edb52cf589dc1f2f6e752df5e25e3fd4b53/examples/abc/provider_b_hub/tests/provider/test_provider_b_consumer_provider_c_provider.py#L60 Hopefully this is getting the _gist_ of the brief discussion here: https://gist.github.com/bethesque/43eef1bf47afea4445c8b8bdebf28df0 input would be good on if it's a "bad" approach / suggestions of what else to turn it into a useful example. I think it's somewhere between option#1 and option#2. Very much still WIP :thinking_face:

draper.joseph

2021-12-01 06:50

has joined #general

abhay175

2021-12-01 07:35

has joined #general

joelgrimberg

2021-12-01 11:27

has joined #general

reem.alashry

2021-12-01 12:09

has joined #general

beshoy.ibrahim

2021-12-01 12:09

has joined #general

omar.radi

2021-12-01 12:10

has joined #general

mmudassar192

2021-12-01 12:11

has joined #general

eric.seipold

2021-12-01 13:40

has joined #general

tomknee1

2021-12-01 15:12

Hi I'm working on an Android project which is the consumer in this regards, does anyone know if I can write consumer pact tests without MockWebServer and instead use okhttp3 Interceptors? Thanks

apselsevier

2021-12-01 16:48

has joined #general

ali.korayem

2021-12-01 18:55

has joined #general

luiz.filipe.abrahao

2021-12-01 21:04

has joined #general

abubics

2021-12-02 00:52

as in, don't let Pact spin up a mock server? and intercept within a running app? (if so that sounds like a lot of work, and would bind the tests to the android runtime)

tomknee1

2021-12-02 09:23

ah ye if pact itself spins it up then i guess just use that, i was just looking the other day at https://medium.com/ki-labs-engineering/an-easy-way-to-mock-an-api-response-using-retrofit-okhttp-and-interceptor-7968e1f0d050

david.cummings

2021-12-02 14:13

has joined #general

miccagiann

2021-12-02 14:17

has joined #general

abubics

2021-12-03 01:32

Yeah, Pact starts up its own mock server (to set the expected requests & responses in) normally :slightly_smiling_face: For Android consumer testing in CI, I usually write the tests in Kotlin, for the plain-JVM (no Android bindings) API client, so it runs as regular unit tests (i.e. no emulator or robolectric or anything).

abubics

2021-12-03 01:33

That should provide the same facility (at least for contract tests) so you don't need to set any API mocking infrastructure up :ok_hand:

praveen.em

2021-12-03 07:40

has joined #general

tomknee1

2021-12-03 09:24

thanks for the detailed reply will go with that :+1:

ally.parker

2021-12-03 11:18

has joined #general

rishabh.gaur

2021-12-03 11:43

has joined #general

william.wallace

2021-12-03 15:12

has joined #general

batiushkov.nik

2021-12-03 15:48

has joined #general

keith.mcgrath

2021-12-03 18:28

has joined #general

rchandragupthara

2021-12-03 19:32

has joined #general

vinicius.cosmi

2021-12-03 20:01

has joined #general

ichatterjee

2021-12-03 21:27

has joined #general

ben.watts

2021-12-03 23:48

has joined #general

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 11:43

^ would be good to get some input on the A->B->C approach from a language agnostic pov, I'm less concerned about the python and more does that at least vaguely make sense from a Pact perspective, before it goes in as a PR proclaiming to be best practice (tidying still needed, and I would envisage another PR pulling out the shared broker setup code etc because DRY)

elliottmurray

2021-12-05 12:32

Is this a way of just expressing all the possible consumer tests for B as Provider tests of B for A? Which is even more confusing when I write it! So in this example there are no actual pact tests between B and (C or D) - brackets intentional. They probably exist somewhere else. But you?ve created the corresponding fixtures of C and D to be used by the Provider bit of B in it?s Pact with A? I think this is correct but am worried (coz my head hurts from this!) that it may be more confusing?

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 12:37

There's quite a long discussion which may help or may confuse! It's not quite the fixture of C/D in A, rather A expecting something from B, which "coincidentally" means C/D behave in a certain way

elliottmurray

2021-12-05 12:39

Isn?t that something we should discourage? It?s a leakage of concerns that means now there is a connection between a change in one of C&D and A? I did read that thread a while ago but didn?t follow all of it!

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 12:39

On mobile atm, do you think it would help to explain starting from scratch?

elliottmurray

2021-12-05 12:39

I?ll dig out the thread and have another closer read!

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 12:40

I think the chain of services is a legit use case, it's how to make sure you don't then get a false sense of security saying you have pacts between A and B the B and C but get a mismatch because A never calls B in a way that B can then call C

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 12:42

But yes, idk if it's a "that's a terrible idea" in which case sharing would be bad There's a gist with I think Beth/Tim/Ron referenced but I may have misunderstood, hopefully not though

tjones

2021-12-05 22:02

The two approaches I'm aware of for A->B->C pacts are: ? Pacts between A->B and B->C ? A pact between A->C If B is a pure passthrough, then the second approach is ideal, otherwise the first approach

matt.fellows

2021-12-05 22:04

If I understood the original conversation, the challenge is ?how do you make sure that there are no gaps between the set of interactions/scenarios captured in A->B and B->C?. i.e. you might have code paths mocked in the A->B provider test that aren?t then included as consumer tests is B->C

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 22:08

nod, trying to illustrate the second approach, with a request B->C which "gets all" and B does some logic "only return one of them" in reply for the A->B request for a somewhat contrived example and yes to avoiding gaps, as well as mismatches, the suggestion of store them in another object, which I've then iterated over seems to cover it, it feels a little clunky adding another thing in the way like that but I'm not sure how else would be better

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 22:10

just going A->C and pretending there's no B sounds daaaangerous :open_mouth:

matt.fellows

2021-12-05 22:13

I think that?s only a valid scenario if B is a proxy/gateway (e.g. it?s common to ignore AWS API Gateway as a separate component)

tjones

2021-12-05 22:15

if B is a passthrough, then the contract is between A and a conceptual B, which could be played by B or C

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 22:16

ah true, I've generally ended up 1 API GW per service but yes I suppose there might be lots

tjones

2021-12-05 22:16

Pact's model doesn't actually handle that too well - it's not easy to express "my contract is for any service that might provide for me"

tjones

2021-12-05 22:17

> ah true, I've generally ended up 1 API GW per service but yes I suppose there might be lots The common case is 1 API gateway -> many services. What is the "provider" in that case?

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 22:17

nod. for that one I was just going to assume you pretend there's no B really

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 22:18

I mean 1 API GW -> 1 service for API GW usage in general, rather than Pact specific, I've tended to have them all individual

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 22:20

does the general concept of some object acting as a lookup to set mocks against (provider tests) but then re-use iterating through for the consumer tests make sense enough then?

tjones

2021-12-05 22:29

I'm not sure I'm following your question, sorry

tjones

2021-12-05 22:33

The problem with pact + API gateways is that there's usually an extra part of the URL: consumer -> `http://host.com/serviceC/foo` provider `http://provider.com/foo` where the API gateway uses the URL to switch the service it speaks to

tjones

Usually I've solved this with the baseURL - `http://host.com/serviceC`, but this makes me uncomfortable, because you're not testing the actual URL that is really hit

mike.geeves064

forget the API GW part specifically, this is assuming something more complicated

mike.geeves064

yeah

tjones

well...

tjones

what other passthrough designs do you have?

tjones

sounds fishy to me.

tjones

I like the idea that it's hard to test questionable design :wink:

tjones

but I also like the idea that pact doesn't have strong opinions on your designs

mike.geeves064

there's a longer explanation when asked initially above a bit, I'm referring to the https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-python/pull/276/commits/fafb3edb52cf589dc1f2f6e752df5e25e3fd4b53#diff-33c99d63050a10d9eb8c4815ddf9e54a721cf44b25894e859c1c99179425efc6 part where there's an object that contains the lookup of state description from A->B, and what B does to mock then ask, e.g. > "Some orders exist": RequestResponsePair( > provider_name="ProviderDOrders", > request_args=RequestArgs("GET", "https://orders", "/1"), > response_status=200, > response_content_filename="order.json", > method_name="get_order", > method_args={"order_id": 1}, > ), which tries to tie up the handle "Some orders exist" A->B, mocking that the request to https://orders gets the reply order.json..........but then there's a set of tests generated (for each of the keys in the mock) which is calling the get_order request to trigger the consumer request

tjones

however, questionable design is hard to test, whether or not you do it with pact

tjones

hmmmm

tjones

sounds like an integration test to me

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 22:37

ha, so in terms of concrete designs, I'm lacking :slightly_smiling_face: this is just from someone else asking for ideas and there not being much more in terms of examples than a gist without any impl :slightly_smiling_face:

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 22:39

at least for https, i will have some more A->B->C use cases myself with message (where I'll have some services receiving from an event bridge and making http calls, others submitting to the event bridge and so on), but first I will need to make sense of that in python, which is a problem for another day :slightly_smiling_face: :thinking_face: maybe A->B->C makes more sense in general with event driven architecture than just usual http

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 22:41

not sure that counts as integration tests, alternatively there would just be straight pact tests for B->C, but that then leaves potential holes if your expected C "behaviour" that gets mocked for A->B doesn't match up with actual C behaviour, if the tests are totally separate

tjones

2021-12-05 22:43

Yes, that's right

tjones

2021-12-05 22:43

you have this problem with A->B pacts too

tjones

2021-12-05 22:43

I think the solution is the same

tjones

2021-12-05 22:44

Like, I have to ensure that my consumer test assertions use the same data as my regular unit tests

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 22:44

that's true

tjones

2021-12-05 22:45

The consumer code is like: consumer business code -> consumer API code

tjones

2021-12-05 22:45

A pact test has the test callipers around the API layer in the consumer

tjones

2021-12-05 22:45

and asserts that some particular object comes out of it

tjones

2021-12-05 22:46

you have to use this same object in the consumer business code unit tets

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 22:46

you do have at least more protection from it though, by pact itself making sure all the consumer expectations are then run against the provider for the provider tests

tjones

2021-12-05 22:47

You *could* do this by configuring pact during each of those unit tests, but I don't think that's a good practice

tjones

2021-12-05 22:48

The contract would either be polluted by lots of repeat examples, or you'd tie the contract data to the unit test data

tjones

2021-12-05 22:48

You'd start having the problems that integration testing has, and then I don't think you'd be getting much advantage from pact

tjones

2021-12-05 22:48

might be interesting to try, but my gut feeling is that you'd have a bad time

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 22:49

lol

tjones

2021-12-05 22:49

The point of contract testing (at least from my perspective) is to enable you to test elements of the system in isolation

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 22:49

(I am thinking but my head is slowing down for the night)

tjones

2021-12-05 22:50

I see the argument for "well I want to test the actual system, when it is actually all configured", but also, if you know what the contracts are, you don't need to test that.

tjones

2021-12-05 22:50

or you don't need to test it thoroughly

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 22:51

if you're testing A->B and B->C they are in isolation? the double usage is only for the B->C where you run against B as provider then B as consumer

tjones

2021-12-05 22:51

at B->C time, A is irrelevant

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 22:51

yep

tjones

2021-12-05 22:52

This is why I like mocking as close to the repository / upstream layer as possible

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 22:53

that's what's happening here, A doesn't know anything about C, only what it expects to get back from B

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 22:54

B just uses the vague awareness A has of the world and what it expects from B so that B can setup appropriate mocks (as in, the description of state)

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 23:01

I think I'm not quite following the pact ones there

tjones

2021-12-05 23:02

This is where I would mock during pact verification

tjones

2021-12-05 23:02

some people mock the business layer. I think that gives less confidence

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 23:02

yes, doing the mock there, the mock is purely mocking the http request in this case

mike.geeves064

with the example higher up, thats: > "Some orders exist": RequestResponsePair( > ��provider_name="ProviderDOrders", > ��request_args=RequestArgs("GET", "https://orders", "/1"), > ��response_status=200, > ��response_content_filename="order.json", > ��method_name="get_order", > ��method_args={"order_id": 1}, > ��), for pact verification tests of B, the mocked A is going to send "Some orders exist", and then B is going to set a http mock for the https://orders/1 request

tjones

nooo

tjones

the mock isn't doing that at all

tjones

the mock is mocking the API client

mike.geeves064

(ohhhh, which reminds me, I think the Rust lib always sends teardown state calls, and the option isn't working properly, but I didn't go through it properly yet :thinking_face: )

tjones

`getUser("steve") will return new User("Steve", "admin" ....)`

tjones

it mocks the API *layer*, not the API

tjones

so that you can express your mocks in business logic language, not in API detail

tjones

This might make the pact part of the diagram clearer

mike.geeves064

wait API client mock isn't the C consumer part of B?

tjones

2021-12-05 23:08

It's the consumer part of B

tjones

2021-12-05 23:08

that consumes C

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 23:08

yus

tjones

2021-12-05 23:09

The mock example you provided is mocking here:

tjones

2021-12-05 23:10

^ I don't think you should do that

tjones

2021-12-05 23:10

because it makes the provider state harder to write

tjones

2021-12-05 23:11

```given some user "steve" exists get upstream/users/steve <with credentials / headers etc> will return 200 <....JSON details....>```

tjones

2021-12-05 23:12

vs ```given some user "steve" exists repositoryMock.getUser("steve") will return new User("Steve",.... business details)```

tjones

2021-12-05 23:13

^ This one is robust to changes in how the repository works

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 23:14

I think I will need to re-read that quite a few times :smile:

tjones

2021-12-05 23:15

If your mocks contain details of how the upstream dependency works, then you will need to change them whenever the upstream dependency changes

tjones

2021-12-05 23:15

but you don't care about that at that time

tjones

Ideally, you should be able to completely rewrite your service and not change your tests

tjones

this means that you (in general) don't want to mock

mike.geeves064

nod

tjones

but the reason that pact has mocks is so that you can do a unit test across two deployable units

tjones

2021-12-05 23:17

you're doing a unit test for the client on one side and the server on the other

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 23:17

individual parts make sense, not quite there with how that works as a whole flow though

tjones

2021-12-05 23:17

the risk introduced by this is mitigated by the contract file keeping them in sync

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 23:19

[just to check, I'm not confusing this by mixing up usage of mocks and stubs am I? calls to C being stubbed for the purposes of the A->B provider tests]

tjones

2021-12-05 23:20

We don't call C at all during B's test as a provider

tjones

2021-12-05 23:20

Or, you could, but in my view you're going to have a bad time

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 23:20

that bit will need some refactoring/re-thought :thinking_face:

tjones

2021-12-05 23:21

You could think of it like this

tjones

2021-12-05 23:22

The three places you could mock during a provider test are:

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 23:22

(also apologies, I'm being very slow right now, late!)

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 23:24

ok, so from your pov where I have say: > class OrderConsumer(object): > def __init__(self, base_uri: str): > self.base_uri = base_uri > > def get_order(self, order_id: int): > url = f"{self.base_uri}/{order_id}" > response = session.get(url) > return response.json() rather than stubbing out the "session.get" http call directly, you'd just replace the whole get_order with a mocked response?

tjones

2021-12-05 23:24

`OrderConsumer` <-- I mock this

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 23:24

ok or that too :slightly_smiling_face:

tjones

2021-12-05 23:25

in that example, `OrderConsumer` is the API layer for some service that needs orders from somewhere

tjones

2021-12-05 23:26

Note that even though I prefer to mock the API layer, it might be easier to mock at either of the other places, depending on your preferences, design and ecosystem

tjones

2021-12-05 23:26

@abubics and I once mocked the business logic because that's what made sense on that project

mike.geeves064

:smile:

mike.geeves064

I mean, when the whole controller code is: > @app.get("/orders/{order_id}") > def get_order(order_id: int): > return order_consumer.get_order(order_id=order_id)

tjones

why do you have that service?

tjones

:stuck_out_tongue:

mike.geeves064

it's an example!

mike.geeves064

:slightly_smiling_face:

tjones

Right, but the question is still valid

tjones

say the service is providing auth

tjones

2021-12-05 23:28

the controller might look like that, with the auth provided via middleware

tjones

2021-12-05 23:28

so I mock `order_consumer` during verification of that service

tjones

2021-12-05 23:29

and there's a contract for "when the auth is valid" and one for "when it isn't"

tjones

2021-12-05 23:29

we're now testing the service's part of the contract

tjones

2021-12-05 23:29

but we're not testing (or even knowing anything about) what the service's upstream contracts are

mike.geeves064

hmm, am I testing "too much" here on the pact side perhaps? :thinking_face:

tjones

we do that separately

tjones

I think so

tjones

but hey, ymmv

mike.geeves064

:smile:

tjones

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkld_wRsTDE&t=2487s

I have to go

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 23:31

well thank you for the (repeated attempts to give an) explanation!

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 23:31

I'll be re-reading in the morning and see if I can split that out in a meaningful way, hopefully without it will make sense without further questions :smile:

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 23:33

it's going to need something similar to try and tie in the extra unit test parts I think, of "make sure an http req is made to x"

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 23:33

hmm

mike.geeves064

2021-12-05 23:33

will see!

tjones

2021-12-05 23:42

I spoke about matching those up in the talk I did last year, I'll link you later :slightly_smiling_face:

imikhtyuk

2021-12-06 00:36

has joined #general

aforeman

2021-12-06 04:00

*The inaugural Pactflow Contract Testing Report is now live* :raised_hands: Earlier this year, we asked Pactflow customers and users of the self-hosted Pact Broker what they thought about contract testing. We had responses from more than 41 different industries, seven world continents and +100 different organisations. So, we are pleased to share with you the *inaugural Pactflow Contract Testing Report!* Inside you?ll read how others have added contract testing to their test strategy and the outcomes they?ve since experienced, the differences between using Pactflow and the self-hosted Pact Broker plus what you?d like to see us improve and how we?re actioning this to create a better experience for you. Access the report https://pactflow.io/pactflow-contract-testing-report-2021/ :tada: *And it doesn't stop there!* For our final live Ask Me Anything next week, @bethskurrie, @matt.fellows and I will discuss aspects of the report, including the *differences between Pactflow and the self-hosted Pact Broke*r. Add it to your calendar https://www.linkedin.com/events/contracttestingama-comparingpac6869498736658264064 and be sure to post any questions in advance in #pactflow-ama

norrischebl

2021-12-06 05:54

has joined #general

smantini

2021-12-06 09:25

has joined #general

elliottmurray

2021-12-06 09:36

This was a really long thread but I think Tim has advocated in better words what I think we should be doing. Not tying A & C directly via the same Pact? And using Test Driven Design techniques to create the appropriate abstractions so we ca test?

mike.geeves064

2021-12-06 09:48

They're not being tied directly, two separate pacts are being created currently anyway, but there is some mingling of concerns around the second pact with the Producer/Consumer parts

mike.geeves064

2021-12-06 09:49

Going through some other bits first then will be trying to figure out how to restructure, or if not, what else I didn't ask :smile:

gzinger

2021-12-06 11:19

has joined #general

tjones

2021-12-06 12:36

tjones

2021-12-06 12:36

Here's the bit of the talk with (at least the slide) where I talk about this

tjones

2021-12-06 12:37

talking about joining the contract test fixtures with the unit tests

tjones

2021-12-06 12:38

The tl;dr of the above I think is - in a best-practice scenario, your provider verification should not need a pact consumer test to be set up

mahatmafatal

2021-12-06 13:50

has joined #general

jacob.v.gardner

2021-12-06 14:59

has joined #general

glebing2000

2021-12-07 07:28

has joined #general

mike.geeves064

2021-12-07 09:15

I like the example style of just having "Matt is/isn't a valid user to create" rather than "Matt does/doesn't exist" :thinking_face:

tjones

I think that's a nice one for illustrating the functional tests vs contract tests

tjones

also it's nice that Matt exists

mike.geeves064

lol aww

mike.geeves064

I *think* from your talk, I'm largely trying to do it like that, using the same responses with/without the like etc to be able to use in various places, but just the one part of ideally just mock the calling function rather than the http req, which is fine because getting python to share the session bit etc was not nice :smile:

mike.geeves064

2021-12-07 09:32

Yeah, it's "obvious" but haven't seen it illustrated elsewhere so far

mike.geeves064

2021-12-07 09:33

There was definitely an "ohhhhhh!" moment :slightly_smiling_face:

tjones

2021-12-07 09:34

Soon you'll be thinking "wait, isn't every type of test just a contract test in disguise?"

tjones

2021-12-07 09:34

(I... started thinking that about 2 years ago and haven't stopped)

mike.geeves064

2021-12-07 09:35

lol

mike.geeves064

2021-12-07 09:36

does that extrapolate a little to "every type of test is just a poorly written contract test in disguise"? :smile:

tjones

2021-12-07 09:36

also yes

mike.geeves064

2021-12-07 09:36

:joy:

mike.geeves064

2021-12-07 09:39

I'm very nearly at a point of adding Pact tests into my stuff, so we'll see how quickly that thought change goes :slightly_smiling_face:

sergio.freire

2021-12-07 09:52

has joined #general

sahoo.skumar

2021-12-07 10:55

has joined #general

srividya.ece

2021-12-07 14:49

Hi All.. A basic question. when to use pact-stub-service? can some one please provide a use case with an example. As from my understanding pact-mock-service are used for consumer unit tests and after performing unit tests against mock provider , pact file will be generated.

srividya.ece

2021-12-07 14:49

But what is the use of Pact stub service?

kingyang728

2021-12-07 15:58

has joined #general

jesseaantebi

2021-12-07 19:36

has joined #general

rsheikh

2021-12-07 22:34

has joined #general

jorgwel

2021-12-08 01:22

has joined #general

rahul.anwekar23

2021-12-08 04:19

has joined #general

rahul.anwekar23

2021-12-08 04:24

Hi, I am working in Telstra and trying test the webhook which should trigger the bamboo build whenever contract gets updated. To do the same, I have created a web hook and trying to test this by running execute api but getting error response . Can someone please help?

rahul.anwekar23

2021-12-08 04:25

Below is my request payload: { ��"provider":�{ ��"name":�"BusService" ��}, ��"events":�[{ ��"name":�"contract_content_changed" ��}], ��"request":�{ ��"method":�"POST", ��"url":�"https://bamboo.tools.telstra.com/rest/api/latest/queue/ATSP-CON?os_authType=Bearer", ��"headers":�{ ��"Authorization":"Bearer�<token>", ��"Accept":�"*/*" �� } ��} }

matt.fellows

2021-12-08 04:27

What's the error response you're getting?

matt.fellows

Is the bamboo server accessible to your Pactflow instance and also does it have a real or self signed certificate?

Please see these instructions on running and accessing a Pact Broker over TLS https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/using-tls/

rahul.anwekar23

{ ��"request":�{ ��"headers":�{ ��"accept":�"*/*", ��"user-agent":�"Pact�Broker�v2.83.0", ��"authorization":�"**********" ��}, ��"url":�"/rest/api/latest/queue/ATSP-CON?os_authType=Bearer" ��}, ��"message":�"For�security�purposes,�the�response�details�are�not�logged.�To�enable�response�logging,�configure�the�webhook_host_whitelist�property.�See�http://localhost:9292/doc/webhooks#whitelist�for�more�information.", ��"logs":�"[2021-12-07T15:49:52Z]�DEBUG:�Webhook�context�{\"base_url\":\"http://localhost:9292\",\"event_name\":\"test\"}\n[2021-12-07T15:49:52Z]�INFO:�HTTP/1.1�POST�https://bamboo.tools.telstra.com/rest/api/latest/queue/ATSP-CON?os_authType=Bearer\n[2021-12-07T15:49:52Z]�INFO:�accept:�*/*\n[2021-12-07T15:49:52Z]�INFO:�user-agent:�Pact�Broker�v2.83.0\n[2021-12-07T15:49:52Z]�INFO:�authorization:�**********\n[2021-12-07T15:49:52Z]�INFO:�null\n[2021-12-07T15:49:52Z]�ERROR:�Error�executing�webhook�61bEtSp7Tg2FS79AN1817Q.�For�security�purposes,�the�response�details�are�not�logged.�To�enable�response�logging,�configure�the�webhook_host_whitelist�property.�See�http://localhost:9292/doc/webhooks#whitelist�for�more�information.\n[2021-12-07T15:49:52Z]�INFO:�Webhook�execution�failed\n", ��"success":�*false*, ��"_links":�{ ��"webhook":�{ ��"href":�"http://localhost:9292/webhooks/61bEtSp7Tg2FS79AN1817Q" ��}, ��"try-again":�{ ��"title":�"Execute�the�webhook�again", ��"href":�"http://localhost:9292/webhooks/61bEtSp7Tg2FS79AN1817Q/execute" ��} ��} }

rahul.anwekar23

this is the response

matt.fellows

https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/recording_deployments_and_releases/#application-instances

matt.fellows

2021-12-08 04:29

So the error is in your broker logs, as per the error message. Have you asked to get those?

rahul.anwekar23

2021-12-08 04:30

Hi @matt.fellows I have already added WEBHOOK_HOST_WHITELIST: 'http://bamboo.tools.telstra.com' in my docker compose

rahul.anwekar23

2021-12-08 04:32

How to check whether bamboo server is accessible or not from my pactflow instance?

abubics

2021-12-08 04:32

You shouldn't have to really care about the stub or mock service unless you have an unusual use case. The framework starts up the bits it needs in regular workflows.

matt.fellows

2021-12-08 04:33

Are you running Pactflow or the pact broker?

matt.fellows

2021-12-08 04:33

I'm assuming you're running the OSS broker

rahul.anwekar23

2021-12-08 04:34

I am running pact broker

rahul.anwekar23

2021-12-08 04:35

running on my localhost:9292

matt.fellows

2021-12-08 04:35

To check if it's accessible, you'll need to ssh onto your broker docker instance and use networking tools

matt.fellows

2021-12-08 04:35

Best you enlist somebody at Telstra who can help you there

rahul.anwekar23

2021-12-08 04:36

okay, thanks..

matt.fellows

2021-12-08 04:38

The reason I say that is your network and configuration is likely to be unique. I'd look out for self signed certificates, inaccessible network paths, invalid credentials or simply an invalid request

rahul.anwekar23

2021-12-08 04:38

I have a question, pact broker is running on my localhost and I connected to VPN. So in that case bamboo should be accessible

matt.fellows

2021-12-08 04:43

Networking is a complex topic, so yes in theory but it depends. You're going to have to use standard networking, Linux and docker debugging tools to confirm all of this, so I'd recommend pairing with somebody who has those skills

matt.fellows

2021-12-08 04:43

This isn't a pact specific issue, I guess is what I'm saying

rahul.anwekar23

2021-12-08 04:46

Is it possible for you if I show you the issus by doing screen share?

matt.fellows

2021-12-08 04:47

Feel free to take a recording and pop it here

matt.fellows

2021-12-08 04:47

Or share the log files

rahul.anwekar23

2021-12-08 04:47

Sure

matt.fellows

2021-12-08 04:52

See also this. You should be able to see why the webhook is failing at debug level in your logs. This is where you should start: Host: If the webhook_host_whitelist contains any entries, the host must match one or more of the entries. By default, it is empty. For security purposes, if the host whitelist is empty, the response details will not be logged to the UI (though they can be seen in the application logs at debug level).

srividya.ece

2021-12-08 07:10

Could you please tell me the difference when to use stub service. Any use case?

abubics

2021-12-08 08:06

I cannot, I haven't used either of them standalone. I think one (or both?) could be used as a stub for testing without contract tests, although it would need to have interactions from a pactfile loaded at the right times.

abubics

2021-12-08 08:07

Why are you asking, though? Are you having trouble with something in particular? Knowing your problem can help people give you better answers :)

matt.fellows

2021-12-08 08:53

How'd you go?

srividya.ece

2021-12-08 10:44

Yes, We have a strange requirement, where request and response will be provided in JSON format(example below), where we need to define all the interaction in the mock server. There are multiple teams(though we are aware these are unit test) who want to perform consumer tests against mock and a pact file should be generated from it and later will be published to provider and verified against actual provider ```{ ��"request":�{�"path":�"/image/v1",�"method":�"GET"�}, ��"response":�{ ��"status":�200, ��"body":�"img_news.jpg", ��"headers":�{ ��"Content-Type":�"image/jpeg" ��} ��}```

abubics

2021-12-08 11:56

> perform consumer tests against mock and a pact file should be generated from it and later will be published to provider and verified against actual provider You just described exactly how Pact works :100::ok_hand: except it'd be "published to a broker"

abubics

2021-12-08 11:56

Is the first bit (about the strange requirement & this specific JSON structure) separate to the contract testing workflow?

srividya.ece

2021-12-08 12:10

yes, the first part is a bit separate to how pact works. but,I am not sure how it works.

srividya.ece

2021-12-08 12:22

Also, it's my mistake, I mean will be published to broker.

luanacosta05

2021-12-08 20:34

has joined #general

tjones

2021-12-09 00:24

The pact framework will spin up the pact server for you. The only time you would want to spin them up manually is if you are unable to use the framework (for example if you are not using one of the core supported languages)

tjones

2021-12-09 00:26

If you?re using JS, a JVM language, ruby, Python, C#, Go, Rust or (I think) php, you can use the pact framework to setup the mock servers for you

saurabh.techiee

2021-12-09 09:41

has joined #general

albertcabantog

2021-12-09 10:52

has joined #general

srividya.ece

2021-12-09 10:53

Hi @tjones I want to use JVM (java) but can I setup a standalone server here?

srividya.ece

2021-12-09 12:32

"The pact framework that spin up the *mock server*". Here can I make this *mock server* standalone and can other access this mock server to perform consumer test. This is a strange question, but would like to know if this is possible

bheemreddy181

2021-12-09 22:04

How do we join the AMA event https://www.linkedin.com/events/contracttestingama-comparingpac6869498736658264064/about/

bheemreddy181

2021-12-09 22:06

found that ignore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LcW_8lgySs&ab_channel=Pactflow

tjones

2021-12-09 22:47

Why do you want to do this?

tjones

2021-12-09 22:48

Have you read the documentation here: https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/how_pact_works

tjones

2021-12-09 22:49

The consumer tests (and therefore the configured mock server) are tied closely to the consumer under test. I think you will have a bad time if you try to share the mock

paul.scholes

2021-12-10 10:21

has joined #general

chris.sloan

2021-12-10 10:48

has joined #general

leon.york

2021-12-10 12:42

has joined #general

kyle.craviotto

2021-12-10 16:40

has joined #general

kyle.craviotto

2021-12-10 17:06

hello all, we are evaluating pactflow within our company and I have a few questions regarding the environment and how it interacts with can-i-deploy. 1. Does the environment have to match exactly between the consumer and provider? 2. Is there any way to make it so they don't match? For example in our org, our environments don't always match, we may have one team that has an environment called Test-A where another team just has Test or even Non-Prod

lorenz.schumann

2021-12-10 18:33

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-12-10 21:36

Well if they don't match how would you know if it's safe? From a pact perspective you'll need to match any environments that need to be tested for compatibility

matt.fellows

2021-12-10 21:37

They can be different to the actual environment description which might change over time

kyle.craviotto

2021-12-10 21:40

I see your point, unfortunately we are coming from a place where a consumer might have 3+ test environments but they are all pointing at our one 'test' environment for our provider. I guess in that case we would just make sure that the environment is always 'test' in our non-prod environment. Prod shouldn't be an issue

matt.fellows

2021-12-10 22:04

Mm you could perhaps you could call it with multiple args. I don't have the CLI in front of me but there be provisions for this already

norway.martin

2021-12-10 22:24

You can tag it however you want in Pactflow. As long as you tag them all the same it should work. You can also tag it with multiple environemnts. So you can have both `Test-A` and `Test` .

norway.martin

2021-12-10 22:24

The easier options it to standardize the environments though. It will make other CI/CD processes a lot easier too

kyle.craviotto

2021-12-11 00:33

so you can say --to-environment test-a --to-environment test for example?

luispires.m

2021-12-13 12:32

has joined #general

norway.martin

2021-12-13 15:13

I don't think you can target multiple environments with can-i-deploy. Regarding your questions: 1. Yes. They have to match. That's the whole point of environments. 2. Not sure why your company has teams with different environments names, but you can fix that in Pactflow by just tagging them correctly. For example, if Test-A. Test, and Non-Prod are all test environments, just tag them as `test`. You are not required to use their current names.

fabio.rodrigues

2021-12-13 16:21

has joined #general

kyle.craviotto

2021-12-13 16:33

We are a pretty huge org, so there's a lot of cruft built up over the decades, one thing we are really trying to remove is the idea of having 15+ environments (I'm not kidding)

kyle.craviotto

2021-12-13 16:40

but regardless after reviewing I think it is the correct move to have the environments matching. I think a short term solution may be to 'record-deployment' to all environments that match up with a deployment. For Example: Provider A: is already in test Consumer A: calls Provider endpoint 'test' in environments test-a, test-b, test-c, etc... Consumer A deploys to test-a, test-b unless Provider A - records deployment to test-a, test-b then Consumer A's can-i-deploy check will fail as the environments don't match.

mbailey

2021-12-13 22:17

has joined #general

mbailey

2021-12-14 02:20

I have a general question (and this is #general!) What are the consumer unit test cases for? In other words, at least in the JVM version, I?m defining the Pacts: when I hit this path with X, I should get Y response. Then there are unit tests that essentially say, ?When I hit this path with X, I should get Y response?. Seems like I?m testing my test, as it were. Or are the consumer tests required to run to generate the Pact json?

matt.fellows

2021-12-14 02:22

The best way to think of it is that Pact _is_ a unit testing tool. It just so happens to also produce a contract

mbailey

2021-12-14 02:24

I?ve found cases in unit tests where someone is in essence testing the mock to make sure the mock returns what you told the mock to return. Is this (the consumer unit tests) any different? I?m assuming here that it?s not the unit tests but the pact sections that generate the contract, since they?re not 1-to-1

uglyog

2021-12-14 02:29

The test is meant to test the consumer code. Ie., if we make request X, and should return response Y, then we get the consumer code to make that request, and then check that it has handled the response Y correctly. Then we know that this side of the integration is good.

mbailey

2021-12-14 02:56

I think the disjunct may be that we use Feign - I?m just defining an interface, rather than a service using RestTemplate that may have bugs. So it feels l?m just testing the Pact I defined.

uglyog

2021-12-14 03:00

If your interface is not correct, the mock server may pick that up or the Pact verification should pick that up on the other side

matt.fellows

2021-12-14 03:09

Exactly. There are still assumptions, presumably, to define the interface that Feign will use to generate the HTTP client. These are assumptions are what Pact is designed to formalise into a contract for verification

dkwak

2021-12-14 03:47

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-12-14 05:02

> We are a pretty huge org, so there?s a lot of cruft built up over the decades, one thing we are really trying to remove is the idea of having 15+ environments (I?m not kidding) I like to refer to it as sedimentary rock. Because they are old, hard to remove, and buried beneath many other layers (incl. bureaucracy). But you?re not alone friend!

matt.fellows

2021-12-14 05:05

That approach could work Kyle. So long as all of the teams know what it means

matt.fellows

2021-12-14 05:06

I can see the complexity. @bethskurrie might have already predicted this when planning that feature (Beth?s away on leave today/tomorrow)

haoran.lin

2021-12-14 05:27

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-12-14 05:32

When looking at tools to help intercept requests in Pact JS (to help identify requests that should have gone to the mock server, but did not) I came across this project, and this very interesting comment (which reflects the Pact philosophy pretty nicely): https://github.com/moll/node-mitm/issues/1#issuecomment-44026236

tom450

2021-12-14 08:06

has joined #general

pajaree.tuampitak

2021-12-14 10:00

has joined #general

nitins333

2021-12-14 10:03

has joined #general

jaakko.tompuri

2021-12-14 13:10

has joined #general

albert.moreno

2021-12-14 17:01

has joined #general

mbailey

2021-12-14 21:23

I see what you?re saying about defining the interface. In our case, the interface is defined on the provider side by defining a `@RequestMapping` interface and exporting that to the consumers to build their Feign clients off of. So there can never be an interface error in a client test. Does that remove the assumptions you?re talking aobut @matt.fellows?

matt.fellows

2021-12-14 22:12

I think it falls into the problem space of client SDKs: https://pactflow.io/blog/should-i-write-contract-tests-for-client-sdks/

mbailey

2021-12-14 22:46

Haha you?re way ahead of me!

mbailey

2021-12-14 22:57

I think I am still missing something here: Yes, our API changes, and yes, producers can be released at different times than consumers. But 1. If the provider API changes, isn?t it the Pact tests on the provider side that are going to test that? Unless the provider is somehow generating its own contract and sending it to the broker, the fact that it has broken the API for the client will not be caught by the client tests. It?s the contract that?s important, and in the examples that I see, the consumer tests are just testing against the contract in the same file. And 2. If the client implementation actually changed to require a new field, the client tests will not fail unless someone remembers to update the contract, but does not remember to redundantly update the consumer tests. What is a use case using an SDK where a consumer test would catch an actual error? Apologies if it?s in your article and I?m just not seeing it - I?m a bit lost in the SOAP section.

matt.fellows

2021-12-15 00:00

Right, yes that?s true

matt.fellows

2021-12-15 00:00

the art is in generating a contract here for the different use cases

mbailey

2021-12-15 00:07

I?m not sure I get you. Is there a use case where the contract would not successfully detect a breaking change, but the unit test would, due to different granularity?

matt.fellows

2021-12-15 00:19

(sorry, I started responding but had to run to a meeting? gimme 10 :wink: )

mbailey

2021-12-15 00:40

no worries

matt.fellows

2021-12-15 00:47

So there are a few threads on this topic (search for the link shared above for references to those) e.g. https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1610034769384400 and https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1618958876104600

matt.fellows

2021-12-15 00:48

> I?m not sure I get you. Is there a use case where the contract would not successfully detect a breaking change, but the unit test would, due to different granularity? no, but that?s only part of the benefits of contract testing. 1 benefit, a major one of course, is detecting breaking changes

matt.fellows

2021-12-15 00:49

there are numerous benefits to a provider though, in aiding its ability to evolve over time. If you always assume every consumer uses the entire surface area of a provider, you can never deprecate anything without significant overhead.

matt.fellows

2021-12-15 00:49

If you know exactly which scenarios a consumer is using, down to the field level, Providers have better visibility into how their API is being used and what options they have to change

matt.fellows

2021-12-15 00:49

and then there is of course the CI/CD benefits of decoupling release processes

mbailey

2021-12-15 00:54

I totally agree about benefits for provider testing. The ?entire surface area? issue is what led me to investigate this. There?s a lot of documentation benefit. So I?m sold on contract testing, and consumer-driven contract testing (Spring Cloud Contract does not appear to offer the ability to have breaking provider changes fail out of the box). But all those benefits come from defining the contract. I?m just trying to reduce the startup cost of this - and if the consumer tests are not necessary for the contract testing benefits, that would be a good area to trim. Thanks for the links, I?ll read through them soon.

matt.fellows

2021-12-15 01:29

I think in your case, if you can reliably produce the sets of interactions used by each of the clients (however you do that) then that?s OK/sufficient to generate the contract itself

matt.fellows

2021-12-15 01:30

Where it gets a bit more difficult, is verifying on the provider side. If you auto generate the tests you need to be careful with provider states - because this will become a burden the provider has to live with

matt.fellows

2021-12-15 01:31

> you use pact for your UI tests, you?ll end up with an explosion of redundant interactions that will make the verification process tedious. Remember that pact is for testing the contract used for communication, and not for testing particular UI behaviour or business logic. from https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/testing-scope/#scope-of-a-consumer-pact-test

matt.fellows

2021-12-15 01:31

You may also be interested in a Pactflow feature currently in developer preview called bi-directional contracts: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/bi-directional

matt.fellows

2021-12-15 01:32

It?s separate to Pact, and might be a bit more inline with what you need. Auto-generating client contracts, but also comparing those contracts to what the provider produces (initially by comparing to an OAS)

mbailey

2021-12-15 02:06

Thanks, I?ll take a look. Since we already have a pretty mature ecosystem, not starting from scratch, if there?s a way to jumpstart the consumer-side testing, either by recording contracts in some way, or by generating off of classes/schema, it might be an easier sell to our organization.

himanshu

2021-12-15 06:16

has joined #general

diva.pant1

2021-12-15 14:21

has joined #general

diva.pant1

2021-12-15 14:44

Hi everyone, I am new to Pact and contract testing and trying to understand if contracts are better than schemas in terms providing better validations, then how come using schema for provides in the bidirectional flow becomes even better than just using Pact contracts. I mean I understand the approach in terms of scalability and faster execution, but do OpenAPI schemas provide better validation in this case?

diva.pant1

2021-12-15 14:58

I would also like your opinion on schema testing vs contract testing vs bi-directional contract testing. So far that I have read, in my understanding bi-directional contracts trumps other approaches, right?

mike.geeves064

2021-12-15 15:38

Did you find the article on schemas vs Pact? https://pactflow.io/blog/schemas-are-not-contracts/ That might help explain differences

diva.pant1

2021-12-15 16:16

Hi yes I did, I understand the schemas are just the descriptions, whereas contracts are created between two microservice, and we write a code for it. But then what does schema-based contract testing mean. I read an article on schema based contract testing as well. But didn't quite understand. So in the schema based testing approach how are contracts created for example, after we have the OpenAPI specification schema, the contract is formed between whom? If the contract is made, means some coding is done. So coding is done on which side, provider or consumer?

johnreilly100

2021-12-15 16:36

has joined #general

mbailey

2021-12-15 17:51

Matt pointed me to this doc for project status on that https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/bi-directional

mbailey

2021-12-15 17:53

He suggested sending an email to to request a video about it

mbailey

2021-12-15 17:55

https://pactflow.io/blog/contract-testing-using-json-schemas-and-open-api-part-1/ about schema-based testing - it sounds like there are advantages and disadvantages, but I don?t know yet what they?re developing to make this work.

mbailey

2021-12-15 17:55

Finally all my reading is useful to someone!

elliot.weiser

2021-12-15 19:06

has joined #general

tjones

2021-12-15 22:35

> So far that I have read, in my understanding bi-directional contracts trumps other approaches, No, I don't think so. The bi-directional contract approach that Pactflow has is best if it is not possible to do full contract testing (with Pact at both sides)

tjones

2021-12-15 22:36

In the bidirectional approach, you've got a pact mock being validated against a schema, but because of the way the schema works it's very easy to get false confidence

tjones

2021-12-15 22:36

I would view a pass in bi-directional contracts as a "maybe"

tjones

2021-12-15 22:38

I don't think there's a difference between the bi-directional contracts feature from pactflow and the schema-based approach outlined in those posts

matt.fellows

2021-12-15 22:58

what Tim said

matt.fellows

2021-12-15 23:00

bi-directional contracts is a Pactflow feature and can be though of as contract testing using schema comparison (most schema testing doesn?t incorporate the evolution/versioning component that the broker adds). We think it is a much easier workflow to use, at the cost of reduction in guarantees. See also the https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/bi-directional#trade-offs

mbailey

2021-12-16 00:02

Interesting that you put SCC in the ?*Consumer Driven Contract Testing?* column on that table. I just did a prototype of SCC, and despite it?s home page, it does *not* provide consumer-driven out of the box.

mbailey

2021-12-16 00:03

What is the development timeframe for a workable bi-directional approach?

matt.fellows

2021-12-16 00:10

SCC can be consumer driven, just not by default. Marcin hangs around these traps too, might be able to shed light on it

matt.fellows

2021-12-16 00:11

> What is the development timeframe for a workable bi-directional approach?�(edited) the functionality is stable, there is just currently no UI. We are working on that as we speak (literally). It?s likely we?ll have some UI support this side of xmas, and then continuing to roll out UI and expansions on the approach in Q1/Q2 next year

matt.fellows

2021-12-16 00:11

you can see our roadmap here: https://github.com/pactflow/roadmap

sunit

2021-12-16 07:27

has joined #general

diva.pant1

2021-12-16 15:40

How is Pact different fro VCR testing? https://docs.pact.io/faq/convinceme/ I read about it and the difference I found is Pact is consumer-driven approach and VCR is provider-driven approach. But in any case my question is, say in VCR whenever we change something on the provider side, there are many redundant records being created, but in Pact as well with every new version of the product there are many new pacts are being created. How is one beneficial over other?

felipe.simoes

2021-12-16 18:42

has joined #general

ameadewi

2021-12-16 18:48

has joined #general

yousafn

2021-12-16 20:13

I find tools that record/replay interactions give you all the information up front and you have to pare it down to what consumers care about to understand which consumers you will break by changing the providers api. Starting with a minimal example request/response data from your client to test your particular scenario will probably lead to more readable client tests, and I often find tests to be my best living documentation of a system. Looking at VCR docs, quickly you need a real provider first to record the responses? If so do clients have to wait for the provider to exist?

yousafn

2021-12-16 20:15

Also loving your questions whilst you are getting to grasps with CDC, pact and the other tools in the arena! The questions, information and responses are really useful in challenging my own thinking :)

matt.fellows

2021-12-16 20:26

matt.fellows

2021-12-16 20:27

One thing about most of these record and replay tools is that they do just that. They lack assertions, or flexibility in checking the response

matt.fellows

2021-12-16 20:28

With Pact, providers verify the contracts in a unit test setting and have better control over responses for their use cases

matt.fellows

2021-12-16 20:29

With VCR these checks (checking if the provider is compatible,) usually run externally to the provider service by the consumer team

matt.fellows

2021-12-16 20:29

This can make them very brittle

matt.fellows

2021-12-16 20:30

VCR is probably better suited to 3rd party APIs you don't control and can't ask them to run your test suite

mbailey

2021-12-16 21:30

Nice! Thank you

yousafn

2021-12-16 22:02

If I wasn?t on my phone at the time I?d have linked to that page. :+1::skin-tone-4: maybe one for a slack custom response - pact vs x Agreed on being better suited for 3rd party api?s or api discovery. We?ve used goreplay which is similar for a 3rd party ( our main backend provider ) who we?re old skool and didn?t want to subscribe to our cdc mantra for the front end facing micro service suites. But it always meant we were reactive, not proactive.

abubics

2021-12-17 00:50

In a way it's conceptually similar to these desires (from Kent Beck's lovely https://medium.com/@kentbeck_7670/test-desiderata-94150638a4b3): > Behavioral ? tests should be sensitive to changes in the behavior of the code under test. If the behavior changes, the test result should change. > > Structure-insensitive ? tests should not change their result if the structure of the code changes. When you have recorded requests/responses, they don't know which bits are important, which bits should be flexible. So the tests are sensitive to all changes, not just the relevant ones.

matt.fellows

2021-12-17 03:27

The OAS _is_ the contract in schema based testing

matt.fellows

2021-12-17 03:27

you can generate it by hand or auto generate from code (e.g. annotations or bindings). The latter is preferred in some ways, because it means your OAS is unlikely to drift from your code (implementation)

matt.fellows

2021-12-17 03:27

the challenge then becomes not breaking consumers, which is where schema-based contract testing comes in

diva.pant1

2021-12-17 04:16

Thanks!

diva.pant1

2021-12-17 04:16

Thanks!

michael.scheepers

2021-12-17 08:11

has joined #general

yanis.benekaa

2021-12-17 16:05

has joined #general

kamoljan

2021-12-18 01:49

Is anyone using Android (Kotlin) and iOS(Swift) for consumer driven contract testing? If yes can you share any best practices?

matt.fellows

2021-12-18 11:01

might also be interested in joining #pact-swift

matt.fellows

2021-12-18 11:01

I think with mobile, the main thing to remember is that multiple production versions can co-exist, so you want to make sure your provider verifies _all_ versions of a mobile client

matt.fellows

2021-12-18 11:02

matt.fellows

2021-12-18 11:03

Otherwise, the usual principles for consumer tests apply

kamoljan

2021-12-18 11:18

Thank you @matt.fellows!:pray:

akhandalmani.malik

2021-12-19 06:19

Hi Team, I am trying to validate the below contract json with actual provider. But actually *ACTION* array key value pair list data is not in the same *order* from the actual response. Some times "empId": "EMP744" will be at index 1 and "empId": "EMP755", at index 0. I mean *acton* order key value can be change. Any Idea how to ignore list order comparision with respect to order. { "provider":{"name":"my_provider"}, "consumer":{"name":"my_consumer"}, "interactions":[ { "description": "GET REQUEST", "request": {"method": "GET", "path":"path" },"response":{ "status": 200, "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json" }, "body": { "id": "E200", "name": "xzk", "address": "Asia", *"action":* [ { "empId": "EMP744", "name": "Application Name", "address": "mexico", "desc": "emp744 details", "pin": "453" }, { "empId": "EMP755", "name": "Consolidation Code", "address": "california", "desc": "EMP755 details", "pin": "763" }, { "empId": "EMP766", "name": "Data Source Code", "address": "atlanta", "desc": "emp766 details", "pin": "342" } ] }, "providerStates":[ { "name": "test GET" } ]} }], "metadata":{ "pact-specification": { "version": "3.0.0" }, "pact-jvm": { "version": "3.5.10" } } }

kamoljan

2021-12-19 09:21

Is it still valid example https://github.com/DiUS/pact-workshop-android ?

matt.fellows

2021-12-20 01:24

It?s quite old, but I?m sure the principles are still the same

matt.fellows

2021-12-20 02:43

Take a look at the matching rules. You?re currently trying to do an ?exact match? so if the response is different it will fail.

matt.fellows

2021-12-20 02:44

mike.geeves064

2021-12-20 12:03

Eugh. Not Pact specific I think, but is anyone else having GitHub build issues? I'm having weirdness when it's trying to spin up the Pact Broker docker-compose :disappointed: I wondered if there could be anything with it pointing to latest tags when it wasn't working last night but can't see anything changing and have the typical "works fine locally". The same code retrying builds had a: fail: https://github.com/mikegeeves/pact-python/actions/runs/1599957456/attempts/1 [11 hours ago] fail: https://github.com/mikegeeves/pact-python/actions/runs/1599957456/attempts/2 [30 mins ago] pass: https://github.com/mikegeeves/pact-python/actions/runs/1599957456/attempts/3 [20 mins ago] wtffff. This one weirdly worked for 3 of the python versions but not the 4th: https://github.com/mikegeeves/pact-python/actions/runs/1600297265/attempts/1 [9 hours ago], same 1 hour ago then worked about 30 mins ago: https://github.com/mikegeeves/pact-python/actions/runs/1600297265/attempts/3 :sob:

mike.geeves064

2021-12-20 12:04

There is no /tableflip here, I need one :smile:

dilek

2021-12-20 12:42

has joined #general

diva.pant1

2021-12-20 17:04

Is there a real trade-off between using Pact and OAS. Just OAS is faster, and Pact is reliable?? Contract based testing can be expensive, when we run the tests, just because it gives us confidence is it really a better choice against OAS based contract testing? Can you please point any strong argument against OAS based contract testing

matt.fellows

2021-12-20 20:46

The case against it is laid out here: https://pactflow.io/blog/schemas-are-not-contracts/ (which I think you?ve read)

matt.fellows

2021-12-20 20:47

The comparison/trade-offs are here: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/bi-directional#comparison-to-pact

matt.fellows

2021-12-20 20:47

Pact has stronger guarantees at the usual cost of more tests/complexity

matt.fellows

2021-12-20 20:48

Only you can weigh up the other costs (maintenance, speed of running etc.) based on your own environment.

matt.fellows

2021-12-20 20:49

We (Pactflow) think the bi-directional flow is going to be very useful for a lot of customers in certain situations, especially retrofitting onto existing systems and where there is resistance in using another tool (like Pact).

diva.pant1

2021-12-20 21:12

Okay so we have an existing system, so bi-directional flow is the way to go? And if we decide to go ahead with bi-directional the cost will be comparatively less for bi-directional flows?

tjones

2021-12-20 22:37

No. As I explained last time, using Pact is the approach that gives you the most confidence. However, if you are unable to use pact on the provider side (for example, a provider team who are not interested in using pact), then you can achieve better-than-nothing confidence with the bi-directional flow that Matt describes in his blog posts.

bethskurrie

2021-12-20 22:49

> so you can say --to-environment test-a --to-environment test > for example? No

bethskurrie

2021-12-20 22:51

> but regardless after reviewing I think it is the correct move to have the environments matching. Yes

bethskurrie

2021-12-20 22:55

@kyle.craviotto I think the approach of recording a deployment for each of the conceptual consumer environments could work. You'd need to run can-i-deploy once for each consumer environment though, and then you'd have to work out what to do if one of those failed.

bethskurrie

2021-12-20 22:57

The other approach you could use is using the "application instance" feature of record-deployment for the consumers. With this, you would consider the "Test" environment to be just ONE environment, and you'd give each consumer a different application instance identifier (TestA, TestB). can-i-deploy would just work then, for everyone, just using --to-environment Test.

bethskurrie

2021-12-20 22:57

bethskurrie

2021-12-20 22:57

^^ docs here.

matt.fellows

2021-12-20 23:06

ah, that makes sense

bethskurrie

2021-12-20 23:06

Yes, Beth did think of this :wink:

matt.fellows

2021-12-20 23:11

I?ve been thinking for a while now that our docs almost need a ?use case? type section to help with scanning documentation and mapping use cases to how to do things

bethskurrie

2021-12-20 23:12

Yes, that would be great.

matt.fellows

2021-12-21 00:55

> Okay so we have an existing system, so bi-directional flow is the way to go? And if we decide to go ahead with bi-directional the cost will be comparatively less for bi-directional flows? I?d suggest doing a PoC with both approaches, and then working with the team to assess which approach works best for your situation. In some cases, you may wish to use bi-directional, in other cases Pact and in some cases you may wish to use both approaches. That is to say, it?s not a binary choice

bethskurrie

2021-12-21 01:23

@kyle.craviotto just dumped some docs here https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/recording_deployments_and_releases/#environments

matt.fellows

2021-12-21 06:28

It?s hard to asses the cost from this vantage point without a lot more detail, but assuming you already have sufficient coverage of your consumer and provider, almost certainly the cost of doing bi-directional will be lower than that of Pact. This only takes into account the ?effort? cost of the contract testing bits itself, and not the overall maintenance etc.

sadhana.0203

2021-12-21 07:55

has joined #general

adrian.ernst.lgln

2021-12-21 08:36

has joined #general

dalton.pinto

2021-12-21 09:53

has joined #general

roman.rutkowski.87

2021-12-21 15:42

has joined #general

maxwell.xandeco

2021-12-22 21:43

has joined #general

lixiaoyan68

2021-12-23 06:50

has joined #general

sashaavramchik

2021-12-23 09:07

has joined #general

jamie.manson

2021-12-23 10:51

has joined #general

colin.ansah

2021-12-23 13:21

has joined #general

bruno855

2021-12-23 17:47

has joined #general

appgify

2021-12-23 20:41

has joined #general

jason329

2021-12-23 22:12

has joined #general

shaheen.d2

2021-12-24 07:55

has joined #general

shaheen.d2

2021-12-24 07:57

Hello everyone, As a research analysis I'm looking for open source projects available on github that use Pact or any other type of CDC can anyone give me a hint on where I can find such list?

matt.fellows

2021-12-24 08:01

Welcome! What's the purpose of the research? For use in a commercial setting or something else?

matt.fellows

2021-12-24 08:02

The main OSS project I know of using it is owncloud

matt.fellows

2021-12-24 08:02

I also know IBM have it in their microservice template

shaheen.d2

2021-12-24 08:14

I want to gather lot of contracts and evaluate them in terms of performance, coverage etc.

shaheen.d2

2021-12-24 08:14

Thanks for the answer, can you provide some links please?

matt.fellows

2021-12-24 09:55

Qhttps://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9VBGLUM9/p1622198271090600?thread_ts=1622192698.089600&cid=C9VBGLUM9

matt.fellows

2021-12-24 09:58

https://github.com/IBM/template-node-typescript

laura.koekenberg

2021-12-24 10:32

has joined #general

varnit.garg2424

2021-12-24 12:58

Hello, if I try to verify my pact test against the dummy consumer version(basically the one that doesn't exist), it doesn't fail the pact test even if the contract doesn't match with any of the pact hosted on the broker..Is there any known issue related to that?

varnit.garg2424

2021-12-24 13:03

Build logs shows test is passed which is wierd, if consumer tag is not available then it should fallback to the latest available tag/version and verify the contract... In this case, I don't even see provider version being published to the broker...its just passing the test silently

mike.geeves064

2021-12-24 13:04

Do you mean the Provider Pact tests aren't failing? Do you have successful previous tests against that Consumer? (not the version specifically, some other version for that same Consumer)

varnit.garg2424

2021-12-24 13:06

yes, provider pact tests are not failing if I pass any consumer tag which doesn't exist and expect tests to fail. Since contract uploaded by consumer version doesn't match with what provider is generating. Yes, there are successful previous tests (passed and failed as per the expectations) against that consumer

mike.geeves064

2021-12-24 13:09

Oh Scala, I was going to say maybe try and get the debug logs from the Provider :thinking_face:

varnit.garg2424

2021-12-24 13:29

All the logs are getting uploaded to one server which I can't access at the moment. In general, none of the contracts published on broker expects the messages generated by provider since I tweaked the provider side implementation a bit to ensure that contract should fail.. If I don't pass any tag under consumerSelector or if I pass any valid consumer tag then my provider test is getting failed successfully due to expected issue that provider misses one field that consumer expects in the contract.. It looks like to be an edge case with pact which is not being handled properly. Also to note that I'm using pact4s. Let me try passing fallback tag as well to see if it works then..

craiganthonyrichards

2021-12-25 05:01

has joined #general

tjones

2021-12-28 07:45

Github will also show you who it thinks use it: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/network/dependents?package_id=UGFja2FnZS00NjczOTQzMTY%3D

tjones

2021-12-28 07:46

Different clients have different behaviours if there are no pacts found. Which pact framework are you using?

mch

2021-12-28 12:54

has joined #general

mch

2021-12-28 13:01

Hi, I'd like to ask what is the consensus regarding whether to keep pact files in git. I looked into examples in pactflow docs and it differs from project to project, e.g. in https://github.com/pactflow/example-consumer its not checked (and in .gitignore) but in https://github.com/pactflow/example-consumer-dotnet it's checked in.

florian.becker_pact-s

2021-12-28 14:49

has joined #general

mike.geeves064

2021-12-28 15:28

I don't think you really want to keep them in git ongoing for normal usage. They will be stored in the broker you use so you don't need to. It's helpful to have them in the examples for people to be able to see how they look, and I've found out helpful when experimenting and making changes to try something, to be able to see what <diff>erence it made

oblique

2021-12-28 18:45

has joined #general

oblique

2021-12-28 18:49

Hello everyone. I?m brand new to Pact, I ran some tutorials I found with google and then the 2 lessons from http://pact.io that were hosted on katacoda. So I?ve got a basic handle on how it works. But I?d love some guidance, just some links, on how to use it in a more real world example. For example, my provider hits a mongodb instance for data, not the hard coded data shown in all the tutorials. How do I get a pact for that?

smalladi

2021-12-28 19:22

has joined #general

jordan.nazemi

2021-12-28 19:24

has joined #general

gbhusari

2021-12-28 21:22

has joined #general

pghosh

2021-12-28 21:23

has joined #general

tjones

2021-12-29 04:08

Think of the pact files as build artefacts - in most cases, you don't want to check them in to source control.

mch

2021-12-29 06:32

ok, thanks for response

carlos.agullo

2021-12-29 08:46

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2021-12-29 11:18

"getting a pact" happens when you write a consumer test, which is independent of the provider implementation. Verifying a provider requires you have the ability to mock your DB or seed it with the data needed for each provider state

matt.fellows

2021-12-29 11:19

The examples often use an in memory db that conform to an interface. Is there a particular problem you're facing?

oblique

2021-12-29 13:48

Thanks for getting back to me. Mocking the DB is the answer I?m looking for, so obvious, I?m not sure why I didn?t see that. The problem we?re facing is a large code base that needs more than unit testing. :- )

cyrus.devnomad

2021-12-29 14:15

has joined #general

dimundo

2021-12-29 17:20

Hi! any option to make this not error ? ```Could not create tag. Version a6c35e1a of zzzz does not exist.``` reasosning - in CI at some stage pacts are tagged, one of theme werent yet created, still tag creatin for this - was :smile: sad story - all rest pact tagging after is skipped :disappointed:

tjones

2021-12-30 06:55

I don't know the answer to your question, but to me this sounds like a build process issue that you would want to fix unrelated to pact - it shouldn't be possible to be trying to tag a non existent version, and also ideally builds are repeatable so once the version was published you could just rerun the build

dimundo

2021-12-30 07:42

there is a build stage for tagging pacts after deploy ```tag-pact-uat1: image: pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest stage : tag-pacts needs: - deploy-uat1 when: on_success script: - "pact-broker create-version-tag --pacticipant aaa --version $CI_COMMIT_SHORT_SHA --broker-base-url $PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL_AIR --broker-username $PACT_BROKER_BASIC_AUTH_USERNAME --broker-password $PACT_BROKER_BASIC_AUTH_PASSWORD --tag uat1" - "pact-broker create-version-tag --pacticipant bbb --version $CI_COMMIT_SHORT_SHA --broker-base-url $PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL_AIR --broker-username $PACT_BROKER_BASIC_AUTH_USERNAME --broker-password $PACT_BROKER_BASIC_AUTH_PASSWORD --tag uat1" - "pact-broker create-version-tag --pacticipant ccc --version $CI_COMMIT_SHORT_SHA --broker-base-url $PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL_AIR --broker-username $PACT_BROKER_BASIC_AUTH_USERNAME --broker-password $PACT_BROKER_BASIC_AUTH_PASSWORD --tag uat1" - "pact-broker create-version-tag --pacticipant ddd --version $CI_COMMIT_SHORT_SHA --broker-base-url $PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL_AIR --broker-username $PACT_BROKER_BASIC_AUTH_USERNAME --broker-password $PACT_BROKER_BASIC_AUTH_PASSWORD --tag uat1"``` new functionality were added and there was idea to add 2 pacts `bbb` and `ccc` their tagging were added, but in same MR only `bbb` pact were created so after merge script fails on `ccc` tag and old `ddd` pact was never tagged after

dimundo

2021-12-30 07:43

yes, its a bad thing - adding something in advance, but this kicked from unforeseen side :)

dimundo

2021-12-30 07:45

i could add `|| exit 0` at every line, but this will look even more scary

tjones

2021-12-30 08:25

> but in same MR only�bbb�pact were created This feels like a mistake to me. If the pipeline might not generate all the pacts, I don't think it should try to tag them

dimundo

2021-12-30 08:26

this pipeline will generate all but one wasnt developed :D

dimundo

2021-12-30 08:33

still for me this could be a warn, not error

muirandy

2021-12-30 17:57

has joined #general

tjones

2021-12-31 02:38

Hmm. The general philosophy is that we warn for things that might be an error, and error for things that are definitely an error - in this case, trying to tag a version that doesn't exist is definitely a mistake

tjones

2021-12-31 02:39

You can see the guidelines for framework log levels here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification#logging-in-a-pact-library

mch

2021-12-31 08:59

Hi, I have a question regarding mainBranch selector for verification. In https://docs.pact.io/blog/2021/10/08/why-we-are-getting-rid-of-tags/#support-for-sensible-defaults-and-simplification-of-pact-selection-when-verifying it's written that one should use "the recommended selectors of�`{ mainBranch: true }`�and�`{ deployedOrReleased: true }"` . I get the part regarding `deployedOrReleased` - I want the provider to be compatible with each deployed version of consumer. However, I'm not 100% sure about `mainBranch` - it looks like it's for cases where the pact has been published but the consumer deployment not yet recorded. Could you please let me know if I'm understanding this correctly? Also, I not sure to what value should I set the `mainBranch`. I have 2 branches: `deploy` == staging env and `master` == prod env. Could you please advise?

mch

2021-12-31 09:44

Also is there any difference between `[{ mainBranch: true }, { deployedOrReleased: true }"]` and `[{ mainBranch: true, deployedOrReleased: true }]` or are they equivalent?

tom450

2021-12-31 14:08

apologies for reviving this thread, was wondering if you have any examples of consumer message pact tests in java or kotlin please ?

matt.fellows

2021-12-31 22:40

Howtoexamples

2021-12-31 22:40

https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/examples/

tomknee1

2022-01-01 00:21

many thanks, happy new year

lewis.prescott079

2022-01-02 07:58

Anyone interested in learning more about Pact, join my workshop https://www.ministryoftesting.com/events/introduction-to-contract-testing-with-pact-v2

mch

2022-01-03 13:52

After some digging I found out that mainBranch should be set to `develop` (https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/discussions/400#discussioncomment-1007183) which makes sense. Now the only thing that I'd like to know is the purpose of using both `mainBranch` and `deployedOrReleased` selector. Could anyone assist with that?

matt.fellows

2022-01-04 02:10

Because you usually don't want to break what's currently in production `deployedOrReleased` or what's about to go to production `mainBranch`

matt.fellows

2022-01-04 02:11

You don't have to have that configuration, but it's a good starting point

kyle.craviotto

2022-01-04 15:40

thanks, I'll dig into this today. First day back and all from vacation

oblique

2022-01-04 18:52

The answer is in step 7 of https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-js/ - pay careful attention to how the state handlers are used in the provider tests.

hocautomation

2022-01-05 09:54

has joined #general

deepakdaga2007

2022-01-05 17:49

has joined #general

tomknee1

2022-01-05 21:19

Hi there, does anyone have any example repositories they can share for setting up open source pact broker with Postgres in a k8s cluster? I'd quite like to compare against what I've come up with, apologies that this is more k8s related than pact itself but just curious to see and compare some yaml files if at all possible please, thanks

tomas.hornak

2022-01-05 23:49

has joined #general

juan.cruz

2022-01-06 02:44

has joined #general

marconota.mac

2022-01-06 10:30

has joined #general

marta.rey-benito

2022-01-06 15:56

has joined #general

fr4ngus

2022-01-06 16:20

has joined #general

huhuang

2022-01-08 05:28

has joined #general

frankfullstack

2022-01-09 20:33

has joined #general

gkrawczyszyn

2022-01-10 06:51

has joined #general

tom.kelly

2022-01-10 15:05

has joined #general

dave.sorenson

2022-01-10 15:51

has joined #general

edouard.lopez

2022-01-10 16:25

https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9VBGLUM9/p1641831530004900

gianni.araco

2022-01-11 16:13

has joined #general

anu.johar

2022-01-11 20:25

has joined #general

yann.danot

2022-01-12 10:15

has joined #general

adamdullenty

2022-01-12 11:26

Hey guys, a quick question. Does anyone know of a way to generate any kind of API documentation based on a system's Pact contracts?

matt.fellows

2022-01-12 11:52

The CLI tools can produce a type of documentation: https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/cli/#pact-cli

matt.fellows

2022-01-12 11:53

the `pact docs` command can do that: ```Commands: pact docs # Generate Pact documentation in markdown pact help [COMMAND] # Describe available commands or one specific command pact verify -h, --pact-helper=PACT_HELPER # Verify a pact```

matt.fellows

2022-01-12 11:54

Also, the Pact broker automatically does that too

matt.fellows

2022-01-12 11:55

example pactflow UI, but the open source broker also has a similar, rudimentary UI

david.vancouvering

2022-01-12 22:37

I can't find the documentation for pact docs - does it exist?

yousafn

2022-01-12 23:04

Hey buddy, Here is an older repo from GitHub with some examples and a few stars https://github.com/javajon/pact-with-kubernetes A quick google found me some helm charts for the oss pact broker. My current client is k8s, we?ve still to setup pact there. It?s been on our radar for a while, so happy to get something in place and compare. Feel free to drop me a private message or continue in the thread!

david.vancouvering

2022-01-12 23:58

Hey, another question. I get why you tag the consumer with its branch when you publish the pact. This allows the provider to pick up the right pact when it's verifying, rather than just using `latest` But I also see recommendations to tag the provider with the branch when it publishes its verification result. Why is that? I don't see any workflow where the provider's branch tag is used. Again, I am aware of the new "deployments" and "branches" concepts, but we can't use them yet because we're using the JVM and Maven integrations, which don't yet support these new concepts. Thanks!

matt.fellows

2022-01-13 00:16

The docs are written here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases

matt.fellows

2022-01-13 00:16

but the docs show above is from running the command `pact help`

hsanghavi

2022-01-13 00:57

has joined #general

tjones

2022-01-13 01:52

I think it's for if you're using a feature-branch based workflow

tjones

2022-01-13 01:53

The reason you'd want the verifications tagged is for when you're asking `can-i-deploy` whether it's safe to deploy

tjones

2022-01-13 01:54

you want to be able to select the thing you're asking about deploying

tjones

2022-01-13 01:54

say you have master deployed to prod, and you want to know if you can deploy the consumer against it, then you need to be able to select the master branch, without any other branches.

david.vancouvering

2022-01-13 01:57

I suppose if you use the branch name for `can-i-deploy` rather than the environment, it makes sense, thanks

david.vancouvering

2022-01-13 01:58

Thanks. Looks like pact docs only works with a pact file rather than a pact in the broker?

matt.fellows

2022-01-13 02:03

ah yes, that?s correct

matt.fellows

2022-01-13 02:03

wouldn?t be hard to automatically fetch them of course and feed into that command

matt.fellows

2022-01-13 02:03

But could probably be added to the `pact` command

david.vancouvering

2022-01-13 02:05

Looks like a really interesting tool, when time allows I'll definitely check it out

tjones

2022-01-13 02:39

I think (although I don't know because I don't do branches this way) the idea is that with branch tags, you can use can-i-deploy to check whether it's safe to merge a branch.

tjones

2022-01-13 02:39

The idea being that (in this style) branches that are named the same are supposed to be pact-compatible

david.vancouvering

2022-01-13 02:40

Yes, makes sense. I'd rather not do things that way but it can be a step towards "Pact Nirvana"

vejeta

2022-01-13 03:19

has joined #general

tjones

2022-01-13 09:05

(I don't do it that way)

chvram

2022-01-13 11:04

hi Un ordered array in JSON not working when are trying to check with /compare with Actual Provider Web service Response, Version Pact we are using is 4.1.2.5. any clue on this?

matt.fellows

2022-01-13 11:19

You might be best asking in the language specific channel - e.g. #pact-jvm Also, consider adding some more detail into your question - at the moment, all we know is that you?re having a problem with unordered arrays.

matt.fellows

2022-01-13 11:19

see howtorepro :point_down: for advice on asking a question that is likely to get a good answer

2022-01-13 11:19

https://stackoverflow.com/help/minimal-reproducible-example

sweeneyrichard2

2022-01-13 15:43

has joined #general

sweeneyrichard2

2022-01-13 15:48

Has anyone had success with using Pact for Microsoft Dynamics? Or is that not an appropriate use case? We have microservices that interact with Dynamics which would be Pact appropriate, I was just wondering if Pact could / should be used with Dynamics itself.

tomknee1

2022-01-13 20:27

thanks, i have it all working now but no one on the team im currently assigned to knows anything about k8s so its been hard for me to get a review of what im doing, so good to be able to at least compare against something

diva.pant1

2022-01-13 21:47

Hi our company currently uses vcr testing, and we would like to move to pact testing. I am still new to this and trying to understand how to go about it. The general docs doesn't help me at this point. So we have these spec files with vcr tests, since I do not have to start from scratch, so to implement pact testing we to just make changes in the rspecs right?

diva.pant1

2022-01-13 21:49

What all files do I have to make change in? We use circle ci, ruby

tjones

2022-01-14 01:58

This would be best asked in #pact-ruby

tjones

2022-01-14 02:00

The answer to this depends on whether you are able to run provider verification against Dynamics. If I recall correctly, Dynamics has an HTTP API, so there's no reason you couldn't write pact tests for it

tjones

2022-01-14 02:02

personally, I write pact tests even if I'm not planning to run verification. If you just write consumer tests, then you're essentially using Pact as a mock (which has all the disadvantages, like you're marking your own exam and you don't know if the mock matches the real behaviour). However, the advantage of doing it that way is that you can easily upgrade to a full contract test if you ever do get to the situation where you can run the verification.

tjones

2022-01-14 02:03

Oh, sorry - I see you already did. Hopefully someone there can answer

thuvu.se

2022-01-14 05:51

has joined #general

rahul.meher

2022-01-14 09:02

has joined #general

gavin.campbell

2022-01-14 17:31

has joined #general

davideliu

2022-01-14 17:52

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-01-15 02:54

the other advantage is you get some extra visibility into what your system is doing

matt.fellows

2022-01-15 02:55

We actually covered this in our first ever AMA (?Can I test 3rd party APIs??): https://docs.pact.io/help/amas/#apac-1

matt.fellows

2022-01-15 02:57

You don?t have to align branches, but it?s relatively common in organisations to have naming conventions for their main branch (e.g. `main` or `master` or `develop` ). You could align feature branch names, but that?s messy. The idea is usually on the provider side, to automatically verify pacts from all consumers? main branches automatically.

matt.fellows

2022-01-15 02:58

I?d say a fairly common starting point would be for providers is to ensure they verify all of their consumers currently deployed to production (e.g. `environment: "prod"` and all of the main branches of their consumers (e.g. `branch: "main"`). This covers breaking prod, and breaking what is about to go to prod

pavlo.sprogis

2022-01-16 17:15

has joined #general

jbrady

2022-01-16 21:54

has joined #general

johnathan

2022-01-17 04:42

has joined #general

dimakos.neoklis

2022-01-17 15:04

has joined #general

gueorgui

2022-01-17 16:43

has joined #general

marcbetts

2022-01-17 22:35

has joined #general

lambat.ishanya

2022-01-18 05:10

has joined #general

sprathi

2022-01-18 13:40

has joined #general

emanuela.ceuta

2022-01-18 16:25

has joined #general

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-19 05:00

has joined #general

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-19 05:02

Hello, I have onboarded pactman recently but seems like pact-python is the way to go in future https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/python. And In pact-python, I see ruby apps are pre-downloaded with pact-python and since ruby is not supported within our firm. I am not sure whether I can switch to pact-python. Any reason why pactman is in maintenance mode.

tjones

2022-01-19 05:59

I think pactman is not part of the pact-foundation

tjones

2022-01-19 06:31

> I see ruby apps are pre-downloaded with pact-python and since ruby is not supported within our firm. What do you mean by this? You don't need Ruby available in order to run the binaries

matt.fellows

2022-01-19 07:17

The author of pactman also believes having two implementations of the same thing doesn?t make sense, and also doesn?t have the time to maintain it (yet another reason for not having 2 of them)

matt.fellows

2022-01-19 07:17

`pact-python` is the one you should use, probably

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-19 09:00

Sorry If I wasn't clear. Some of the apps like mock service use Ruby. Since downloading packages is pretty much customized in our firm, I am not sure if they will allow me to pip install pact-python. But I get a direction now that pact-python is the future. Thank you for your quick response

lakitna

2022-01-19 10:38

We're getting 500 responses when uploading OpenAPI Schemas to `{pactflow}/contracts/provider/{pacticipant}/version/{uniqueVersion}`. Did anything change recently, or is this simply an issue on Pactflows end?

matt.fellows

2022-01-19 10:40

No, not that I'm aware. Can you please drop a line to please Sander? We'll look ASAP

lakitna

2022-01-19 10:40

Will do, thanks!

lakitna

2022-01-19 12:10

Just a headsup for those running into the same issue: They have a lead and will follow up on this tomorrow

ajay.kawde

2022-01-19 13:34

has joined #general

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-19 14:40

Guess I spoked too early, I was able to get the pact-python installed(getting some approvals in place). However I had a query, For provider tests I was loading the interactions using something like def get_interactions(pact_json): pacts = BrokerPact.load_file(pact_json, PyTestResult) return [interaction for interaction in pacts.interactions] Is there an alternative in pact-python for this

liam.chen

2022-01-19 21:19

has joined #general

taylor.phillips01

2022-01-19 21:45

has joined #general

sreid

2022-01-19 23:22

Hello, general question, is Pact able to be used on the new MacBook Pro with ARM64? Asking for a friend :slightly_smiling_face:

marko.justinek

2022-01-19 23:24

Depends which language implementation and version.

uglyog

2022-01-19 23:25

Hey Shaun! It does work. For some of the components we build arm binaries. For others, you need to use the emulation to run it.

sreid

2022-01-19 23:25

We are running using the NPM packages for JS/TS ```"@pact-foundation/pact": "9.16.0", "jest-pact": "^0.9.0",```

uglyog

2022-01-19 23:26

As long as node works, it should be good.

uglyog

2022-01-19 23:32

> for the @greet_bot/pact package the terminal needs to be run in rosetta mode so that the x86_64 version can be installed, as it seems like there isn't an ARM64 version

cgoodison

2022-01-19 23:34

here's a guide on using rosetta mode with node that should help: https://www.jurnalanas.com/node-js-mac-m1/

sreid

2022-01-19 23:36

Thanks @uglyog @cgoodison

cgoodison

once rosetta mode is installed and node version for x64 is installed, installing npm packages in that terminal will get you the x64 packages for everything

sreid

more details from my friend here ```? yarn yarn install v1.22.17 [1/4] ? Resolving packages... [2/4] ? Fetching packages... error @pact-foundation/pact-node@10.12.2: The CPU architecture "arm64" is incompatible with this module. error Found incompatible module. info Visit https://yarnpkg.com/en/docs/cli/install for documentation about this command.```

cgoodison

yeah, the above will definitely get around that problem

sreid

e.g. https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-python/blob/master/examples/fastapi_provider/tests/provider/test_provider.py

Thanks!

tjones

2022-01-20 00:13

Hello! That shouldn't happen with the latest version

tjones

2022-01-20 00:15

Key points: ? You will need to have rosetta installed ? You *don't* need to run the terminal through rosetta or run the x86 version of node ? The binary is run though rosetta by macos automatically ? We have enabled the install of pact-node on arm64, assuming that rosetta is available (this means it can incorrectly be installed on linux using arm64, but will not work there)

matt.fellows

2022-01-20 00:18

Ah, nice Tim. should we add this to the readme?

tjones

2022-01-20 00:19

pact-node@10.13.0 and above is able to be installed. The first version of `@pact-foundation/pact` to have this is 9.16.1 - but really just upgrade to the latest version (9.17.2)

tjones

2022-01-20 00:19

> Ah, nice Tim. should we add this to the readme? Yes, I think that's a good idea

tjones

2022-01-20 00:20

For mac users, just use the latest version and you won't notice. For users of the same architecture but not on a mac, we definitely need a note in the readme

tjones

2022-01-20 00:20

(because it will install and fail)

sreid

2022-01-20 00:20

thanks!

tjones

2022-01-20 00:22

Questions about Pactflow should go to #pactflow, this channel is for pact.

tjones

2022-01-20 00:24

I'm not sure what you're asking, sorry. If you are asking if you can load pacts from a broker, then yes you can.

sreid

2022-01-20 01:08

Thanks team, PR merged with version update, all good.

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-20 02:55

Sure. I'll provide some background. I have written my consumer tests and the pact that gets generated is stored locally on say /var/tmp/. Now to run provider tests, I generate a list of interactions as shown as above and run using pytest.param ```def get_interactions(pact_json): pacts = BrokerPact.load_file(pact_json, PyTestResult) return [interaction for interaction in pacts.interactions] pact_interaction = get_interactions(pact_json) @pytest.mark.parameterize('interaction', pact_interaction) def provider_tests(interaction): logic for assertion```

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-20 02:57

So I am looking for alternative in pact-python as how to get the list of interactions Note: the storing of pacts locally is a temporary solution for now

sandeepa.kv

2022-01-20 06:46

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-01-20 07:48

why are you doing it this way and not just using the standard verification interface?

matt.fellows

2022-01-20 07:48

matt.fellows

2022-01-20 07:48

(that fetches from a broker, but the `Verifier` constructor takes arguments to read a pact file directly

matt.fellows

2022-01-20 07:49

I think you?re doing it at too low a level

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-20 08:08

Thanks Matt. The reason I was doing it like that was because each interaction would act as a test case and it would be easy to capture the # of test cases executed and also for each test case I was able to inject headers. Is there a way I could do this with Verifier class 1. Extract each interaction result 2. How to pass header for request(interaction), because we need Spnego Kerb for auth

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-20 08:09

Not sure does extract_params allow me to inject headers?

diva.pant1

2022-01-20 13:21

Hi, so while using pact we create two pact_helper.rb files right, one in service_consumers and other in service_providers, right? https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/ruby/README And does the directory structure should remain same or can we store these files elsewhere?

shane.dombowsky

2022-01-20 14:08

has joined #general

jlbrown

2022-01-20 15:29

has joined #general

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-20 17:44

Okay, So i am setting the header in **kwargs to something like headers={"Authorization: Negotiate <token>"} but the moment I set this get 401 response. Any suggestions please?

gabriel.fatori

2022-01-20 18:36

has joined #general

petersonbtah

2022-01-20 20:16

has joined #general

llast

2022-01-20 21:44

has joined #general

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-21 03:27

Also the console I see its says adding header with but when I take a look at pact.log. I don't see the customer headers i provided ```Sending POST request to path: "/countries" with headers: {"X_PACT_PROVIDER_STATES"=>[{"name"=>"Order ID 123 exists"}]}, see debug logs for body``` I am not sure what is missing here. I am referring to this link https://docs.pact.io/faq/#how-do-i-test-oauth-or-other-security-headers

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-21 03:43

Okay an update, 401 error is gone now but getting 500 server error with `body : {"message": "an error has occurred"`

matt.fellows

2022-01-21 04:20

It looks you?re setting the provider state URL to your actual service (or something like that). Can you please share your setutp?

matt.fellows

2022-01-21 04:21

the provider state URL is designed to take a provider state setup request, and give your application the opportunity to get into that state. Subsequent requests would go to your actual application

devesh.mishra

2022-01-21 04:26

has joined #general

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-21 04:40

Yes I am pointing to my actual service. Can't I just ignore the provide state. Unfortunately I cannot share my set-up due to security concerns

devesh.mishra

2022-01-21 04:47

hey everyone, i have created a test case on the consumer side in *Bazel* project i have added the dependencies needed for test case but on running the test no pact file is generated, i think we have to add the corresponding plugin in the *Bazel* project in order to create the pact file after test run, is there any way we can add this plugin in Bazel project? ```<plugin> <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId> <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId> <configuration> <systemPropertyVariables> <pact.rootDir>target/mypacts</pact.rootDir> </systemPropertyVariables> </configuration> ... </plugin>```

tjones

2022-01-21 05:03

> Can't I just ignore the provide state.

tjones

2022-01-21 05:03

No, probably not

tjones

2022-01-21 05:04

The provider state is for allowing you to set up preconditions (such as "user with ID=2 exists")

matt.fellows

2022-01-21 05:04

Might be best asked in #pact-jvm

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-21 05:04

Not sure if this help but in pactman i was setting provider_state=None and it worked

matt.fellows

2022-01-21 05:06

Maybe try simplifying your setup that doesn't use your private code so you can share with us until it works

matt.fellows

2022-01-21 05:07

Once you get the basics then add back in your code.

devesh.mishra

2022-01-21 05:07

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-21 05:12

Let me get back with basic set-up on this

matt.fellows

2022-01-21 05:14

FYI It's not just about ignoring provider states (which you probably don't), I think your setup is wrong. If you can just compare your verifier config that would probably be a good start

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-21 06:06

I am not sure what do you mean by Verifier config `ver = Verifier('DummyService', provider_base_url='http://some-service/qa/dummyservice')` `suc, _ = ver.verify_pacts('pact.json', headers=get_headers())`

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-21 06:07

This is how I am running, I am not changing anything in Verifier. Note the same thing when i send a Get request it works fine but only for post it end up throwing a 500

tjones

2022-01-21 06:15

`/dummyservice'` <-- you should be verifying against your real service, not a dummy service

tjones

2022-01-21 06:15

> it end up throwing a 500 If the code under test is throwing a 500 during the test ,it is probably failing the test. This might be because pre-conditions have not been met

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-21 06:18

@tjones: That was just an example of how my verifier class looks like. Yes i am verifying against a real service. And as i mentioned the same set of test cases work fine when i use Pactman

tjones

2022-01-21 06:19

Ok. In order to help more, we probably need to see your test setup

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-21 06:20

Okay I am working on it. I'll write some basic code for Consumer and provider tests

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-21 07:36

Here is the sample code i have built https://github.com/sanmechie/pact-pythonissue

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-21 07:37

Now for demonstration, I have used FastAPI as rest service. When I send the post request it ends up throwing 422 error. Looks like the payload being sent is buggy and when I run the same thing against a dotnet service throws 500

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-21 07:37

hope this helps

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-21 07:38

in actual the host is rhel 7

viveksingh.kiit

2022-01-21 09:29

has joined #general

james.demaine

2022-01-21 10:02

has joined #general

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-21 17:33

So here is the update got it finally working. I had to add in consumer request header= {'Content-type:'application/json'}

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-21 17:35

The issue was the request wasn't json and hence the it was throwing 500 in case of dotnet service and 422 in case of fastapi service. After adding header in consumer request. it worked Thanks for your support Timothy and Matt

theferryatbuckland

2022-01-21 20:24

has joined #general

theferryatbuckland

2022-01-21 20:29

Hello, I'm new to using Pact and am going through the video tutorial, and from there I'm using the sample Consumer/Provider examples. Running the Consumer api in a Windows 10 environment with VS Code. When running "npm t", the Pact test (create the consumer contract, etc.) is failing with this error FAIL src/api.pact.spec.js ? Test suite failed to run ```**Cannot find module '@pact-foundation/pact/dsl/matchers' from 'api.pact.spec.js'** 1 | import { Pact } from '@pact-foundation/pact'; 2 | import { API } from './api'; > 3 | import { eachLike, like, regex } from '@pact-foundation/pact/dsl/matchers'; | ^ 4 | import { Product } from './product'; 5 | 6 | const mockProvider = new Pact({ at Resolver.resolveModule (node_modules/jest-resolve/build/index.js:259:17) at Object.<anonymous> (src/api.pact.spec.js:3:1)```

theferryatbuckland

2022-01-21 20:30

Is the "matchers" module a separate module I need to add? This is not expecting a running broker server at this point, is it?

matt.fellows

2022-01-21 21:22

Hi, this is probably best asked in #pact-js going forward. But we can carry on here. Which tutorial are you referring to?

theferryatbuckland

2022-01-21 21:44

The video series hosted on Pact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qd-kq1AzZI&list=PLwy9Bnco-IpfZ72VQ7hce8GicVZs7nm0i&index=5

2022-01-21 21:44

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwy9Bnco-IpfZ72VQ7hce8GicVZs7nm0i

theferryatbuckland

2022-01-21 21:44

I cloned the two repos listed under the "Code from Demo" section: https://github.com/pactflow/example-consumer & https://github.com/pactflow/example-provider

theferryatbuckland

2022-01-21 21:45

I had to update (locally, of course) the default url for the consumer's reference to the provider in order for the consumer to work, but the two sample APIs interact just fine.

theferryatbuckland

2022-01-21 21:47

Then I followed the steps for testing in video 3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qd-kq1AzZI&list=PLwy9Bnco-IpfZ72VQ7hce8GicVZs7nm0i&index=3), and when running "npm t" on the Consumer API, that's where it throws the error about missing the "matchers" module.

david.kormushoff

2022-01-22 00:54

has joined #general

tjones

2022-01-22 04:40

That import statement is not correct. It should be ```import { Matchers } from '@pact-foundation/pact';``` Then later if you don't want to use the `Matchers` prefix, you can do: ```const { eachLike, like, regex } = Matchers;```

tjones

2022-01-22 04:43

Importing deeply from a module like that means that you're relying on the internal structure of the module, it's better to import from the public interface.

matt.fellows

2022-01-23 02:31

strange, the versions should be pinned correctly, but perhaps they aren?t

matt.fellows

2022-01-23 02:31

Tim?s right though, i?ll fix the examples

matt.fellows

2022-01-23 02:33

> I had to update (locally, of course) the default url for the consumer?s reference to the provider in order for the consumer to work, but the two sample APIs interact just fine.�(edited) hmm sholudn?t have to do that. `npm start` in each repo should ?just work?

matt.fellows

2022-01-23 02:34

(I just updated it)

diva.pant1

2022-01-24 11:13

While creating and verifying pacts do we need two separate pact_helper.rb files to make changes in the file or just one,?

diva.pant1

2022-01-24 12:47

So here are two separate files for service_providers and service_consumers @bethskurrie So I have these files stores as spec/...(in pic 3)

theferryatbuckland

2022-01-24 13:25

@tjones thanks for the guidance, I made that change on my local project and it passed the test. Thanks!

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-24 13:56

#pact-python: Hi I am facing peculiar issue, after running my consumer tests, says it generates 4 interactions. Now I cannot feed this pact file [having 4 interactions] directly to Verifier class as I need to generate headers with new token for every request made to Provider(Actual service). But the problem as soon as the 1st provider tests get completed successfully, 2nd test onwards, I Am getting 401 error

chaugule.sandeep

2022-01-24 13:56

Any suggestion on this?

jr.jenks

2022-01-24 14:01

What's the appropriate channel to ask questions about our pipeline logic? We're using .NET, JS and Swift but our pipeline questions apply to all.

tjones

2022-01-24 17:01

This channel, ask away

matt.fellows

2022-01-25 00:11

There are some suggestions here you might find helpful: https://docs.pact.io/provider/handling_auth/

matt.fellows

2022-01-25 00:11

(I would usually go with [2])

tom.tantisalidchai

2022-01-25 05:43

has joined #general

theferryatbuckland

2022-01-25 13:45

@matt.fellows, Also, to follow up with your comment about "npm start" should just work. Yes, I think it should, but the Consumer app (again, not the ones located in the various Workshops repos, but the stand alone) was not initialized with the correct URL of the Provider api. Basically, as far as I can tell, on the "api.js" file, the initializing constructor for the API class gets passed a null value for the "url", so I just updated my instance to manually set "http://localhost:8080" when that value is null. So, for instance, without hardcoding the Provider URL, and with the Provider URL running, I can do a GET with the Provider: http://localhost:8080/product/09. However, in the consumer, from the Console I get the error "Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'endsWith')". Debugging shows me it is because the "url" passed into the API constructor is null. So I just hard coded the || statement to set that url value.

cedric.spengler

2022-01-25 15:08

has joined #general

austin.reifsteck

2022-01-25 15:20

has joined #general

hsd999

2022-01-25 19:06

has joined #general

jr.jenks

2022-01-25 19:06

Question about circular contracts. Say, Service A consumes Service B but Service B consumes Service A. Is it possible to create pipeline logic that allows for that?

hsd999

2022-01-25 19:15

I would like to get your opinion about contract testing. Here is a case: ? Angular client and java back-end micro-services ? API first approach with OpenAPI specs ? Generate API client for Angular and API client for Java for integration units tests - both client will be generated during compilation to run unit tests ? For Angular use json server for test propose with test data So some kind of contract testing we will make in unit testing for Angular and Java and even more we can validate this additionally in CI pipeline. *Question is if we can get additional benefit to go with Pact tool and pure contract testing approach?*

david.vancouvering

2022-01-25 19:26

Hey, have a thought/question. Let's say you are a provider with 5 consumers. 3 consumers use `main` as their trunk branch, and two use `master`. If you run your provider verification with just the tag `master`, you won't verify against the 3 consumers tagged with `main`. Similar problem if you run verification with the tag `main` It seems you need to know the trunk branch names for all your consumers, and you need to verify against _all_ those tags. Am I missing something?

parasonbe

2022-01-25 20:31

has joined #general

parasonbe

2022-01-25 20:33

this might do the trick?

matt.fellows

2022-01-25 22:42

Yes, that?s correct - if using _tags_. When migrating to the _branches and environments_ approach, there is a selector called `mainBranch`. This can be configured individually by each application (`main`, `master` , `develop` or whatever makes sense for them). The provider can then find all pacts for the main branch of consumers without knowing what the name of the main branch is!

matt.fellows

2022-01-25 22:42

matt.fellows

2022-01-25 22:45

There are more things to consider, for one, you won?t know the actual usage of your consumers (because the API clients are generated, you must assume they consume the full interface). This means you can never change a field/endpoint in a backwards incompatible way, even if it?s not being used. Also, you need to ensure that the schema on the provider side is compatible with the client library generated for the consumers (i.e. you need to know a compatability matrix). There are some further points that talk about the differences here: https://pactflow.io/blog/schemas-are-not-contracts/ We also have a feature that works with schemas in pactflow called bi-directional contracts, that solves some additional challenges (including the ones described above). See https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/bi-directional/

david.vancouvering

2022-01-25 22:48

Nice. Can't wait until Maven/JVM has support for branches and environments. Definitely a great improvement

david.vancouvering

2022-01-25 22:48

Thanks!

matt.fellows

2022-01-25 22:51

I?m just checking now

matt.fellows

2022-01-25 22:51

I seemed to recall Ron picking some of it up recently

matt.fellows

2022-01-25 22:52

ah, still open it seems: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-jvm/issues/1465

matt.fellows

2022-01-25 22:56

I can see some mentions of `mainBranch` in groovy tests, so perhaps some groundwork has been laid down to support it?

david.vancouvering

2022-01-25 22:57

OK. Our breaths are bated

jr.jenks

2022-01-26 00:16

Got a question about event-driven microservices and Pact. A and B are microservices. Suppose A sends a request to B and B sends a response. That means that A will be writing the contract for both the request and response, right? And that logic doesn't change, whether we're talking about synchronous communication (Pact 2.0) or async (Pact 3.0), right? Whether the pattern is HTTP or request/response (or command/response, or query/response, or whatever/response), A will be writing the contract? I ask this because somehow my team has got it into their heads that, in the above scenario, A would write the contract for the request and B would write the contract for the response.

matt.fellows

2022-01-26 00:59

Is it a req/response style async interaction or a fire and forget?

matt.fellows

2022-01-26 00:59

I think the answer is the same regardless (the consumer always defines what it needs)

matt.fellows

2022-01-26 00:59

in the case of async, the consumer is the thing reading from the queue/intermediary (e.g. from kafka). The provider is what publishes to it

matt.fellows

2022-01-26 01:00

req/res style async is only available in v4.0 of the specification

jr.jenks

2022-01-26 02:09

Thanks. We're using PactNet so we're not able to go to Pact v4.0 yet. (Right?)

jr.jenks

2022-01-26 02:11

We will be doing both request/response and fire-and-forget. For fire-and-forget, I assume that the firer is the publisher and the listener is the consumer.

matt.fellows

2022-01-26 02:50

I don?t think Pact Net supports req/res style messages yet, but fire and forget it will

matt.fellows

2022-01-26 02:50

you can test out the new branch, it?s currently being worked on

matt.fellows

2022-01-26 02:50

and yes, the model you have above is correct

alex.diaz

2022-01-26 09:05

has joined #general

alex.diaz

2022-01-26 09:49

Hi, first of all, thank you for all your work on this, it is great! We are starting to implement contract testing in our company and we have some questions: The first question is about how we should update the tests in case the Provider changes. In our case, the Provider is an API with a ML model that returns predictions based on a JSON input. We know that Pact is designed for testing the contract used for communication, and not for testing particular behaviours. Therefore, we have implemented the tests to test the integration between the Consumer and the Provider and we ignore everything related to the model. However, there are some cases where the behaviour of the model affects the API output: ? If the JSON body of the request to the Provider is missing a field called `A` the model will fail to generate the prediction and the API will return `Exception happened in API function: Missing field 'A'`. However, this happens only in a model trained with `dataset 1`, but if we deploy a new version of the service with a model trained with `dataset 2` that does not require the field A, the API will work fine. How should we update the tests when we deploy a new version of the API with a new ML model? Because we would get an error in the verification of the contract already existing in the broker, right? Should we update first the Consumer to publish a new contract before pushing the new version of the Provider? The second question is regarding how you suggest we should keep track of the different contract versions. We have `prod` and `dev` environments but the Provider can be updated in 2 different ways: ? We update the ML model with a different model of a more recent trained model (same case as above). Therefore, if the new model does not require a field anymore the tests need to be updated. ? We update the logic of the API. Therefore the Provider would need to publish a new contract every time the ML model is updated or every time the logic of the API is updated, right? And this also should be done per environment (`prod` or `dev`), right? Is anyone using contract testing for APIs with ML models? If yes can you share any best practices, please? Thank you!

cyrus.devnomad

2022-01-26 10:46

Hi I have a question about managing changes to contracts. In the following workshop, it is explained how the case of adding a new parameter to an API should be managed between consumer and provider: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/ci-cd/ However, this case is rather obvious, because the consumer in master is not affected by a new parameter and does not care about it. So, this case is handled as follows: 1.��We create a new feature branch for consumer. 2.��We add a new parameter for the consumer. 3.��We commit our change. 4.��The consumer pipeline fails at can-i-deploy, because it is no longer compatible to provider API. 5.��The webhook is triggered and runs the pact changed verification pipeline and marks the new contract as failed for the new consumer and current provider. 6.��The provider pipeline is not affected by this and can continue to deploy the provider. 7.��We update the provider to include the new parameter added by the consumer in the feature branch. 8.��The provider pipeline can still continue to run successfully because the consumer in master does not care about the new parameter. 9.��We re-run the pipeline for the consumer in feature branch or merge it to master and re-run the pipeline for the consumer in master and end up with new consumer being deployed to production. So far so good. But how the whole process would look like if the consumer in feature branch had changed the name or type of an existing parameter rather than adding a new one. How would the provider had to be updated at step 7 above? Would it have to be updated in a way that it would continue to be compatible to both versions of the consumer (the one in master and the one in feature branch)? I mean providing two parameters one with the name/type of the old consumer and one with the name/type of the new consumer? At least until the consumer version of the feature branch would have been merged to master and then deployed to production or deployed directly to production from the feature-branch?

kskowron

2022-01-26 11:30

has joined #general

jr.jenks

2022-01-26 13:00

When using pending Pacts and the consumer updates a Pact on branch */example-changes*, what cleanup need to be performed if the consumer team decides to delete the branch and no longer wants the changes (before the provider has verified)?

hsd999

2022-01-26 13:42

Thank you for your answer. Right now I understood the differences.

spencerm

2022-01-26 14:33

has joined #general

cristiano.cunha

2022-01-26 14:55

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-01-26 20:50

you?re welcome!

abubics

2022-01-26 23:32

Yes, you shouldn't have looping problems. Even if one triggers the other for verification, the loop stops there (they don't cause automatic changes in each other).

nish063

2022-01-27 02:42

has joined #general

ingcmurcia

2022-01-27 04:41

has joined #general

weijian.duan

2022-01-27 08:58

has joined #general

abraham.gonzalez93

2022-01-27 10:39

has joined #general

tjones

2022-01-27 12:26

To your first question, it sounds like provider states are the solution. Have a look here: https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/provider_states/ Basically you would say: ? When the provider has been configured with Model 1 ? This request ? Generates this response -- ? When the provider has been configured with Model 2 ? This request ? Generates this other response

tjones

2022-01-27 12:27

To your second question, generally you want your version to uniquely identify your deployable. If the model can be considered "data", then it's part of the state of the provider, and not part of the deployable unit

tjones

2022-01-27 12:28

If your consumers will break if Model 1 is not present, then maybe it's not "data" and is instead part of the deployable.

tjones

2022-01-27 12:28

Have a read of this: https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/versioning_in_the_pact_broker/

tjones

2022-01-27 12:30

> Therefore, if the new model does not require a field anymore the tests need to be updated. For me, I would make this a part of the contract if the client would send the wrong request when the provider's model changes.

tjones

2022-01-27 12:32

Do you use `mocha` for tests in javascript, but want the convenience of `jest-pact`'s `pactWith()` function that does all the pact set up and teardown for you? Now you can! https://www.npmjs.com/package/mocha-pact The API is identical to `jest-pact`, except it's compatible with Mocha instead

tjones

2022-01-27 13:43

GitHub packages is failing sometimes, which is causing intermittent failures for downloads of the pact standalone. This affects pact-js, and any other pact framework that downloads the binaries. Here's the github status page: https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/29xnrws671f0

akke.luukkonen

2022-01-27 14:31

Kind of related protip for those using Azure DevOps as their pipeline provider. In the November https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/release-notes/2021/pipelines/sprint-195-update#automatic-retries-for-a-task a `retryCountOnTaskFailure` option was added. It might prevent some intermittent connection failures from failing the whole pipeline. Azure DevOps agents in general don't seem to have the most reliable connections, even to the package feeds hosted in AzDo itself. Or at least we've occasionally seen these types of failures during `yarn install`: ```error An unexpected error occurred: "https://pkgs.dev.azure.com/<organization>/_packaging/<organization>Libraries/npm/registry/ini/-/ini-1.3.8.tgz: Request failed \"503 Service Unavailable\"".```

patrice.krakow

2022-01-27 14:37

Hello World!

patrice.krakow

2022-01-27 14:44

[Newbie question] Following the animations starting at https://pactflow.io/how-pact-works/#slide-1 is it correct to say that the _consumer_ MUST use, within its contract, data that will be later understood by the _Provider_? In other words, for this consumer Pact contract testing to work, you MUST *first* "synchronize" the test data between the _Consumers_ and the _Producer_. If yes, how do you do that? If not, what did I miss?

tjones

2022-01-27 14:47

You don't have to synchronise the data exactly. You can use provider states to tie them together:

tjones

2022-01-27 14:47

https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/provider_states/

tjones

2022-01-27 14:48

You can/should also use matching to mean that you're validating the shape of the data, rather than the exact data:

tjones

2022-01-27 14:48

https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/matching

tjones

2022-01-27 14:49

:taco: for @akke.luukkonen, this is a great tip!

demna

2022-01-27 15:29

has joined #general

mircea.ungureanu

2022-01-27 15:48

has joined #general

cyrus.devnomad

2022-01-27 16:24

Ok, I think I've found the answer to my question. There was a similar question before, which can be found here: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9VPNUJR2/p1613577427179400

cyrus.devnomad

2022-01-27 16:38

And again another discussion about the same problem here: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1614005618012700

nikhilwa84

2022-01-27 17:43

has joined #general

bogdanm.rusu

2022-01-27 18:04

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-01-27 22:21

I?d look to try out some of the workshops (see howtolearn)

2022-01-27 22:21

Here are a number of useful hands-on labs that teach all of the key concepts https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/workshops

matt.fellows

2022-01-27 22:21

The workshops go through these core concepts in a guided way

cventcport

2022-01-27 22:29

has joined #general

alex.diaz

2022-01-28 08:50

Thank you so much!

mayuri.khemani

2022-01-28 09:43

has joined #general

patrice.krakow

2022-01-28 10:02

Thanks! I will have a look at those :+1:

sujith.nair2

2022-01-28 12:33

has joined #general

rob

2022-01-28 16:36

has joined #general

joshua.badger

2022-01-28 21:47

Hey, I?m the original poster of the question that Mike is asking about. Reading through the thread has been enlightening, though I wonder if I add a few more specifics into the question if that will change anything you?ve said. We have a number of preexisting systems in different business units that utilize different databases. They come from multiple acquisitions, so there was never a chance to just build them together in the first place. We need them to play nicely together now while we build out unified systems for real. Rather than directly interface with tons of databases, we simply expose endpoints (REST, GraphQL, etc) to allow access to relevant information. I have two systems, A and B, that need information about a given order. That order may be in Business Unit D, E, or F. Rather than recreate the logic in both A and B to gather the information from the correct source, we have implemented Hub C. Hub C takes a given identifier, performs some logic and references its own database, decides which Business Unit to call out to for information (using differently structured calls for each; some are GraphQL, some are REST), and makes the call, performs some transformations on the data to standardize the format it will return, and then returns it. In some cases (but not all!), it will make multiple calls to one C and another call to D, and all in fulfillment of a single request from A or B. A or B then act on the data returned by C, which may or may not behave differently given which BU that information came from. So B is not purely a passthrough. It also needs some refactoring to make some of those Business Logic layers more mockable. (It?s an older system we?re retrofitting with Pact, but we don?t have the resources to refactor everything into a more easily testable system). You suggested that the solution we came up with closely mirrors an integration test in one of your graphics, and you suggested mocking the API layer on the Hub. I guess my concern is that we ARE trying to mirror an integration test, so that we hit all of our test cases we?ve defined, without needing to deploy all the systems (the entire draw of Pact). Coupling the tests guarantees that when Service A has a condition ?Given Order 123 for product XYZ exists?, it sends a request with Order 123's UUID to Hub C and get information back. The test scenario knows Order 123 comes from Service D, but Service A doesn?t know that until it gets its response back from C. With all the above said, we are trying to find a way to codify all the different ways B calls out to fulfill orders to all its consumers so we don?t miss any. That was the other part of the question: how do we make sure we?ve covered what we think we?ve covered? If we couple the tests in this way, we should guarantee that a given version of all services will behave together nicely. Setting up some provider state and mocking the call to the downstream doesn?t guarantee that mocked call represents reality unless that mock is also utilized in a Consumer test. So, all that said: how do I reframe my thinking to the model Pact would suggest I use while not losing out on that coupling?

radovan

2022-01-29 00:20

has joined #general

abubics

2022-01-29 02:48

Without rereading the few threads, I think a few base approaches still apply: ? If you have a proxy, you probably don't need to treat it as a participant. ? If you have something that does more than just proxy (e.g. domain logic, transformation, etc), you probably should treat it as a participant. ? From Pact's perspective, a contract test is only the interaction between 2 participants, no extra behaviour. I would only test combinations A-C, B-C, C-D, C-E, and C-F with Pact. The logic that decides what C wants to talk to is more the domain of unit and functional tests. I would also stub the data to fulfil those tests before the branching point, to increase specificity (so you know which bit is broken when a test fails), but that's a separate philosophical discussion :)

abubics

2022-01-29 02:52

It also sounds like y'all are trying out contact testing in the midst of a large-scale refactor, which seems like it can only make life harder while forming your mental models. Depending on how long that transition is expected to take, I might consider other testing approaches, rather than churning a lot on unfamiliar testing styles :pray: either way, good luck!

tjones

2022-01-29 15:53

> Setting up some provider state and mocking the call to the downstream doesn?t guarantee that mocked call represents reality unless that mock is also utilized in a Consumer test. If you mean using the mock as the expected behaviour when testing the real behaviour of the consumer test, then yes - otherwise, you shouldn't be using a mock at all in a consumer test. In general, yes, mocks run the risk of not testing what your code is actually doing. If you're mocking at any point, you also need a contract test that confirms that the mock behaves the same as the real code. This problem exists any times mocks are used, not just with pact Personally, I try to only mock at the boundaries of the service - which means the mocks always become fixtures to check the expected behaviour during the pact test for that boundary. If you use this style, then it is easy to reason about coverage - you would check to make sure that each mock state has a corresponding contract test to make sure the real boundary code does the same thing. My view is that an integration test would also achieve all of the advantages of a mock that is contracted against, but with many more disadvantages (brittle tests, hard to reason about coverage, expensive run times, complex set up scripts, need to schedule testing, etc). If you disagree with this claim, then there's nothing wrong with doing integration testing. (although you may have a bad time, long term)

matt.fellows

2022-01-29 22:42

This response is poetry

mike.geeves064

2022-01-30 17:32

I think the example looked at was largely doing as Tim described (phew), but still needs the refactor so it's mocking around the whole thing rather than the http request itself. Would be good to then get input following on from there to extend to cover message as that's definitely going to have valid A>B>C flows so it would be nice to improve those examples especially. Only a small amount of time needed to change my bit just not got there

jr.jenks

2022-01-31 13:33

What's the best naming convention for Pending Pact branches, for teams that are doing continuous, straight-from-main-to-production deployment with lots of tiny code changes deployed frequently? For example, here are some options for the same Pact change: /feature/user-name-now-required-for-each-blog-entry /feature/20220131-require-user-name /feature/story-12345/pact-changes /feature/story-12345/20220131-pact-changes I'm assuming: 1. The name needs to make sense to both the consumer and provider teams. 2. I want to include the date (or something) because the same description "require-user-name" might occur in the future and I don't want the labels to get confused. 3. I don't want to include something like the user-story-id because that has no meaning between teams. (Or do I, since it has meaning to the consumer team?) Thoughts?

dennis.woditsch

2022-01-31 13:39

Hey, if been integrating pact in my company since a few weeks. But I have stumbled a cross an issue I haven't found an answer (yet). We successfully publish contracts for each branch using the `http://au.com.dius.pact.provider` maven plugin. Using following configuration ```<configuration> <pactBrokerUrl>${pact.broker.url}</pactBrokerUrl> <pactBrokerToken>${pact.broker.token}</pactBrokerToken> <projectVersion>${project.version}-${git.commit.id.abbrev}</projectVersion> <branchName>${git.branch}</branchName> </configuration>``` This works just fine. But if we re-run our build for any reason again. We run into issues of ```Failed - Request to path 'https://xx.pactflow.io/contracts/publish' failed with response 409 [2022-01-31T09:40:52.425Z] {"notices":[{"type":"error","text":"Cannot change the content of the pact for xxx-service version 0.1.1-SNAPSHOT-da8c216 and provider xxx-provider-service, as race conditions will cause unreliable results for can-i-deploy. Each pact must be published with a unique consumer version number``` What is the suggest way to handle this cases where we re-run builds and the same pact would be published?

mongeyc

2022-01-31 14:03

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-01-31 20:52

It seems like the contents of the pact itself is changing between builds, which is causing that message. I believe if you use certain matchers without providing an example this can happen, as Pact JVM will generate examples for you dynamically. You could try reviewing those and ensuring you provide examples for them Also, try a few runs locally to see what is changing. The warning is still valid I might be wrong of course

mike.bernard

2022-01-31 21:14

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-01-31 23:10

if you need it to be unique now and the future, then having (3) as part of the name would tick that box

matt.fellows

2022-01-31 23:11

I hadn?t thought too much about the names of the branches being important for the provider, but I tend to use semantic commits and branch names, which aids in readability

matt.fellows

2022-01-31 23:11

do they need to be traceable by the provider?

tjoy

2022-02-01 02:06

has joined #general

max.tilford

2022-02-01 03:17

has joined #general

dennis.woditsch

2022-02-01 07:52

Thanks for the quick response. That might be a good hin to dig deeper into the matchers. I actually wanted to take a easy way first and create non-breaking pacts with hardcoded matchers like that ```@Pact(consumer = "consumer-service") public MessagePact validTitleUpdatedEvent(MessagePactBuilder builder) { return builder .expectsToReceive("valid conference created event") .withContent(LambdaDsl.newJsonBody(lambdaDslJsonBody -> { lambdaDslJsonBody.stringValue("eventName", "ConferenceCreated"); lambdaDslJsonBody.object("payload", lambdaDslObject -> { lambdaDslObject.uuid("conferenceId", UUID.fromString("7205a64a-e495-453a-aff7-a7bc38914fbc")); }); }).build()) .expectsToReceive("valid conference title updated event") .withContent(LambdaDsl.newJsonBody(lambdaDslJsonBody -> { lambdaDslJsonBody.stringValue("eventName", "TitleUpdated"); lambdaDslJsonBody.object("payload", lambdaDslObject -> { lambdaDslObject.uuid("conferenceId", UUID.fromString("7205a64a-e495-453a-aff7-a7bc38914fbc")); lambdaDslObject.stringValue("title", "anyTitle"); lambdaDslObject.numberType("sequenceNumber"); }); }).build()) .toPact(); }``` I have to create some kind of state first as every event needs a `conference created` event. I use this "state-block" on every of my event contract tests

matt.fellows

2022-02-01 08:13

I don?t know the JVM DSL all that well, but i suspect `lambdaDslObject.numberType("sequenceNumber");` is going to generate a random number each time, and therefore a hash of the pact file will be different each time

dennis.woditsch

2022-02-01 08:15

I will check that. Thank you very much

matt.fellows

2022-02-01 08:16

you?re welcome

toanshukumar

2022-02-01 14:15

has joined #general

diva.pant1

2022-02-01 14:34

Hi @matt.fellows could you do Introduction to Pact using Ruby, sometime https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTpkLwYOTZo&list=PLwy9Bnco-IpcdSXA4OutjG_lDCCHOXxYL

juanquis419

2022-02-01 15:01

has joined #general

diva.pant1

2022-02-01 19:38

Can the consumer service and the provider service be in the same directory (not repo but directory)?

matt.murray

2022-02-01 19:40

has joined #general

jr.jenks

2022-02-01 19:51

I have no requirement that the branch names be unique now and in the future, but I was wondering if the logic of pending pacts requires that. Let me try asking a similar question. Forget about my requirements and think only about the logic of pending Pacts. Would it be okay to name a pending Pact branch, today, with the name... February branch name: /feature/user-name-now-required ...and then (assuming that the provider verified that pending pact, my consumer merged, the branches were deleted and everyone was happy) to use the same name again 6 months from now? August branch name: /feature/user-name-now-required Will the tagging and stuff get confused in 6 months because I reused the branch name? Or will the fact that they are Pacts with a different hashes be enough to distinguish between February and August?

mike.bernard

2022-02-01 20:57

@matt.fellows @tjones I came across this thread looking for some help. I'm trying to set up a provider test against an AWS API Gateway. The error I'm getting is 415 (Unsupported Media Type) but that may be somewhat of a red herring. Is there a way to pass authentication credentials in the options passed to the Verifier constructor? The APIs in all of our environments require creds and I'm currently not telling the provider how to authenticate. Of course I'd expect a 403 but figured I'd start here. Thanks in advance!

mike.bernard

2022-02-01 21:46

I just came across https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/master/examples/e2e/test/provider.spec.js#L31 which seems like the way to go for auth. I probably shouldn't jump the gun on the 415 error though. Have y'all seen this before? ```Pact::ProviderVerifier::SetUpProviderStateError: Error setting up provider state 'matrix download url' for consumer 'TestApp' at http://localhost:58137/_pactSetup. response status=415 response body= <html lang="en"> <head> <meta charset="utf-8"> <title>Error</title> </head> <body> <pre>UnsupportedMediaTypeError: unsupported charset "UTF-8"<br>    at /Users/mikebernard/projects/aws-policy-management/node_modules/body-parser/lib/read.js:83:18<br>    at invokeCallback (/Users/mikebernard/projects/aws-policy-management/node_modules/raw-body/index.js:224:16)<br>    at processTicksAndRejections (internal/process/task_queues.js:77:11)</pre> </body> </html>```

mike.bernard

2022-02-01 22:04

Running in debug mode ```DEBUG: Setting up provider state 'all is good' for consumer 'TestApp' using provider state set up URL http://localhost:58216/_pactSetup I, [2022-02-01T17:01:00.772962 #63645] INFO -- request: POST http://localhost:58216/_pactSetup D, [2022-02-01T17:01:00.772989 #63645] DEBUG -- request: User-Agent: "Faraday v0.17.4" Content-Type: "application/json" I, [2022-02-01T17:01:00.776446 #63645] INFO -- response: Status 415```

matt.fellows

I don?t plan on doing one any time soon. The point of these is not an exhaustive ?how to? in a language, but an overview of the core concepts.

matt.fellows

I think the next one would be a ?message pact? demo

matt.fellows

However you want to store your code is irrelevant as far as the testing of it goes

matt.fellows

Pact makes no assumptions about where the code is stored

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 00:13

> Or will the fact that they are Pacts with a different hashes be enough to distinguish between February and August? bingo!

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 00:13

The broker will uniquely version the underlying contract separate to any tags/consumer versions

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 00:14

this is how if you have a tag `master` and a tag `some-new-feature` , if the underlying contract is the same, you can verify using one of the tags, but all contracts with different tags/consumer versions, but the same hash, will automatically be marked as valid for that provider version.

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 00:15

or more often, if V2 of a consumer doesn?t change the contract and V1 of the consumer is compatible with a given provider, V2 will also be and you don?t need to wait for a verification

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 00:19

hmm, I think that is a red herring. Can you please put it into `trace` level and share those logs?

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 00:19

We run a local proxy during provider verification (which is an express app), and that seems to be responding with the `415`

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 00:23

OK so quick googling, it seems this is likely to happen when the encodings library is not properly loaded into the module runtime. It _may_ be something going on in your Jest setup (see https://stackoverflow.com/a/49211552 and the related/linked issues) It may be that the `iconv` library (or related library) is corrupt/broken (see https://github.com/expressjs/body-parser/issues/52) If you haven?t already, try removing the node_modules and re-installing (I suspect you have though)

frederic.gendebien

2022-02-02 08:54

has joined #general

dougie.robertson

2022-02-02 11:15

has joined #general

mike.bernard

2022-02-02 13:28

Sounds good. I'll dig in this morning and provide more updates. Thanks for the direction!

juan.avendano

2022-02-02 13:36

has joined #general

ananda-kumar.irudhaya

2022-02-02 14:13

@matt.fellows do you have examples for event driven architecture (kafka)?

mike.bernard

2022-02-02 21:15

@matt.fellows thanks so much for the help! I made a ton of progress today and got it working end to end. The issue from above was resolved when I added in the library the first stackoverflow post suggested but then after more digging, I set the Content-Type to application/json when signing the requests using aws4 and that resolved it, allowing me to remove the workaround code.

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 21:16

yes, see :point_down: (howtolearn)

2022-02-02 21:16

Here are a number of useful hands-on labs that teach all of the key concepts: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops and https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/workshops

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 21:16

No videos at the moment though

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 21:17

ah, interesting - thanks for letting us know!

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 21:18

I recently point this page up to start capturing common use cases: https://docs.pact.io/recipes/apigateway. If you had any tips examples to share, we?d love a PR to document the learnings

mike.bernard

2022-02-02 21:19

I have another question related to signing the requests. This may not be the best place to ask so if there's a better spot, i'll move. Anyways, I am using the `requestFilter` and `stateHandlers` for each of the APIs i'm testing. The last API call I added is a POST that contains a body. When signing a request that contains a body, you have to include the body because it becomes part of the signature. I have it working by copying in the request body from the consumer app but that seems to circumvent the idea of replaying the requests from the pacts. Is there any way to intercept the body of the request in the request filter so I can add it to the signature?

mike.bernard

2022-02-02 21:19

Perfect! I'll see where I can add some docs and make a PR. Thanks!

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 21:21

I think you?re saying that the request filters don?t currently have access to the body? I think they do, but you can?t modify the body atm as far as I know

mike.bernard

2022-02-02 21:22

I shouldn't have to modify it, but merely grab it so I can add it to the signature. This is what I'm getting when I log out the body in the request filter ```body: {"consumer":"TestApp","state":"create matrix","states":["create matrix"],"params":{}}```

mike.bernard

2022-02-02 21:22

It doesn't have the payload the consumer is sending in.

mike.bernard

2022-02-02 21:23

but it _is_ using the payload when making the request because when I sign the request with that same body, it works. If they were different, the request would fail.

mike.bernard

2022-02-02 21:24

I'm currently doing it statically and rather than making the provider code know about the consumer payloads, I want to retrieve it off the request. Let me know if i'm not making much sense.

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 21:24

hmmm interesting

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 21:24

I think, from memory, the body is actually a stream or a buffer.

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 21:25

I know the current implementation doesn?t let you modify it, because of some detail in the proxy library we use

mike.bernard

2022-02-02 21:26

do you know where I can look to inspect what is on that request object that gets passed in to request filter?

mike.bernard

2022-02-02 21:28

ahh it's an express thing. :thumbsup:

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 21:28

Oh, that?s strange. I thought our request filter didn?t fire for state changes

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 21:29

basically, each test has 2 http interactions - one to setup a pact state change (payload above), the second is the actual test

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 21:29

so the above _is_ the body, just of a request you?re not interested in

mike.bernard

2022-02-02 21:29

got it

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 21:30

looking at the code, the request filter will fire for all requests. This is not what I?d expect as a user, but I might have had good reasons to do it at the time

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 21:30

and yes, the request filter should take a standard express middleware

mike.bernard

2022-02-02 21:31

thankfully the request filter does fire for each state. I was worried about that but she works!! It's necessary because if you have let's say 2 different apis, a GET and a POST, the request to sign needs to contain different info. So we're able to swap out that info within each state handler. :raised_hands:

mike.bernard

2022-02-02 21:32

I took the idea from the `${token}` example in the e2e tests.

mike.bernard

2022-02-02 21:32

anyways, Ill keep digging to try and get at that initial request body to see if I can dynamically pull it to sign the request. I appreciate the help and I'll add some docs with errors and resolutions soon!

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 21:33

Cool, yes, that makes sense

mike.bernard

2022-02-02 22:06

No luck. For some reason that request body is blank, even when I get the proper request logged. I can see the requests to `/_pactSetup` and then the request to the actual API path but even that request's body is empty. Is it common to have to include the consumer's payload in the provider or is this an edge-case I'm after since I'm using aws sig4?

mike.bernard

2022-02-02 22:07

Maybe there's a way for me to fetch the actual pact it's going to validate against? That contains the body and would be reasonable enough to do.

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 22:09

Usually, you wouldn?t send the request to AWS - I tend to use `serverless offline` or `sam local`, which means I can circumvent a lot of this

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 22:09

also, I usually write my code in such a way that I can swap out the gateway if needed. For example, run it behind an express JS app instead of AWS. Most of the time, the gateway is invisible infrastructure to the service itself

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 22:09

but assuming that?s not viable, I know this has been done before

matt.fellows

2022-02-02 22:10

I?ll take a look after some meetings this morning

mike.bernard

2022-02-02 22:19

Sounds good. I'm in EST so may not respond until my tomorrow but thanks for the help again! SAM is probably a viable option but for this POC I was hoping to hit the actual gateway because of a tight timeline. I can investigate sam though, while you're investigating this.

ausachov

2022-02-03 13:15

has joined #general

patrice.krakow

2022-02-03 13:36

@tjones I have read many times the https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/provider_states/ page. At first, it sounds rather logical: _"Provider states allow you to set up data on the provider by injecting it straight into the data source before the interaction is run, so that it can make a response that matches what the consumer expects."_ Indeed, it would be great if the consumer could prepare the provider in a particular state before verifying its customer contract. But, when I am trying to imagine how that could be possible, I have the feeling that it requires a "level of collaboration" between the provider and the consumer which is higher than their actual lack of collaboration that guided me towards the idea of consumer-driven contract testing. So, I have the (wrong?) feeling that consumer-driven contract testing is addressing an issue while making this issue even more problematic, and therefore not solving it at all!? When I read _"The name of the provider state is specified in the given clause of an interaction in the consumer, and then used to *find the block of code to run in the provider to set up the right data*."_, I do not understand how that could work: the consumer is defining the `given` clause and the consumer does (must) *not* know anything about the implementation of the interface called... so how can the provider understand the `given` clause? I am really confused and I am wondering if you could point me to any references/documentation that could help me...

patrice.krakow

2022-02-03 15:07

From https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/terminology, I can also read _"A provider state name is specified when writing the consumer specs, then, when the pact verification is set up in the provider the same name will be used to identify the set up code block that should be run before the request is executed."_ but, I am wondering the kind of (manual human-based?) workflow is needed for the provider (?) to map a specific `given` clause content with a specific "code block" to be run... with a "best-seller" API having hundreds of consumers I do not see that working...

aaron.kibbie

2022-02-03 15:59

has joined #general

patrice.krakow

2022-02-03 16:09

I am also a bit confused between the usage of the words "given" (in https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/ruby/provider_states) and "providerState" (in https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/tree/version-2)... Are they the same thing, or is there a difference?

williangldzn

2022-02-03 20:23

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 05:11

> I am also a bit confused between the usage of the words ?given? (in�https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/ruby/provider_states) and ?providerState? (in�https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/tree/version-2)... Are they the same thing, or is there a difference? so you are comparing the language interface (i.e. the API you would use in your actual tests) with the format of what gets serialised into the contract file. In most cases, you shouldn?t have to care about what goes into the contract (and therefore, a whole lot about the inner details of the specification)

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 05:12

but to answer your question, yes, `given` will eventually spit out a provider state into the pact file. The attribute it gets serialised to actually depends on the version of the spec, so it?s only really relevant if you?re contributing to the framework at that level.

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 05:18

> I do not understand how that could work: the consumer is defining the�`given`�clause and the consumer does (must)�*not*�know anything about the implementation of the interface called... so how can the provider understand the�`given`�clause? Sort of. The given isn?t an implementation detail of the system (maybe of the test), it?s a statement about the expected state of the system. An example is ?user A exists? or ?there are orders?. This state is going to be the same whether or not the provider is a Ruby service, a dotnet service or some other Rube Goldberg machine. How the provider sets that up is completely up to the provider. It may be injecting data into a database, stubbing a third party API etc. This should happen in the context of a unit test on the provider side, so the system can be tested with fine grained precision. This gives us a number of benefits - e.g. the provider test suite can control its own data, it can be run locally, the tests can run in any order and importantly can be run in a controlled, unit test environment. > I have the feeling that it requires a ?level of collaboration? between the provider and the consumer Yes, ultimately that?s unavoidable if you consider what we?re trying to test here. > which is higher than their actual lack of collaboration that guided me towards the idea of consumer-driven contract testing. So, I have the (wrong?) feeling that consumer-driven contract testing is addressing an issue while making this issue even more problematic, and therefore not solving it at all!? Well, no, I wouldn?t agree with that statement. The alternative is an all-knowing end-to-end suite setup by some other entity, that has to run scenarios and setup data across the entire system. In my experience, this only leads to pain - slow tests, flakey tests, test frameworks that are as complicated as the code they are testing, clogging up testing environments, shared data fixtures, blocking releases etc.

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 05:30

> I am really confused and I am wondering if you could point me to any references/documentation that could help me... I?d suggest just giving it a go is possibly the shortest path to enlightenment from here. It seems like you?ve read a lot about the concepts and are asking fairly well directed questions, so you?re probably in good shape to get more out of them. Running the tutorials/workshops might help clarify them in a much more concrete way.

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 05:34

> but, I am wondering the kind of (manual human-based?) workflow is needed for the provider (?) to map a specific�`given`�clause content with a specific ?code block? to be run... with a ?best-seller? API having hundreds of consumers I do not see that working... We do have a number of https://docs.pact.io/faq/#what-is-pact-not-good-for for contract testing, which specifically addresses the ?large number of consumers? problem. In that case, you may wish to look into a different approach that Pactflow has called https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/bi-directional. It is still in developer preview, but essentially it instead opts for a schema comparison test (the consumer contract is compared to a provider spec - such as an OAS). It trades off the extra guarantees something like Pact gives you for a simpler workflow, and removes this specific challenge.

tjones

2022-02-04 06:13

As some of you know already, I've stepped down from maintaining pact-js to focus on other projects (technically last week was my last week as maintainer). The project is in good hands, though! @matt.fellows will still be around to steer the pact-js ship, and I think there might be some more contributions from other familiar faces coming up soon.. It has been several years now since I started maintaining pact-js - so many people to thank - but some specific standouts - @bethskurrie for giving me my first introduction to Pact on a few post-it notes (possibly on the first day we met), @abubics for initially suggesting we use Pact on a project we worked on together, @uglyog for agreeing to spend the time we were supposed to be talking about other things helping me with some pact-jvm issues, @yousafn for taking the initiative to get `jest-pact` out of a git gist and into an npm package with nearly 70,000 weekly downloads, and of course my Pact-JS co-pilot @matt.fellows for being an excellent co-pilot, engineer and friend. The whole team of maintainers have always been friendly and fun to work with through our many many discussions, agreements (and sometimes disagreements). The project is in good hands, and I think the Pact user base will only grow in the next few years - especially now that #pactflow is a thing, making it easier for new and enterprise users to get into Pact. Exciting times! Thanks also to the many Pact users out in the wider community - especially the occasional contributors - shout out to @artur for attention to detail and many many helpful PRs, and @omer.moradd for making things idomatic for Nest-JS users. The community of users and contributors keep the project alive, otherwise it would just be us maintainers. You make it all worth it! Finally, when I took up the Pact-JS reins, it was only possible because of the work of the maintainers + contributors that came before me (Tarcio, Michel, and others). Thank you too, past team! Even though I'm focussing on other projects, I still believe in the value that contract-testing with Pact brings to software development, and I'll keep using it (and probably will occasionally contribute PRs, who knows). I'll still be around on slack, but I'll take a break for a month or two to enjoy the sunshine first :sunglasses: Keep on Pacting, friends. Oh, and please remember to put your framework-specific issues in the right channel :thinking_face::laughing::smiling_face_with_3_hearts:

artur

2022-02-04 07:21

I even don't know what emoji to use a a reply. :rocket: because you brought the project ahead or :disappointed: because you are leaving it? Thank you for working on it and for helping me with random questions. Hope to stay in contact and that your new projects will be equally fun

ricardo.gonzaga

2022-02-04 09:35

has joined #general

patrice.krakow

2022-02-04 10:24

Hello @matt.fellows many thanks for all your answers. Unfortunately, I am more and more thinking that "Consumer-Driven Contract Testing with Pact" might not work in our organization, because of the way the _"Provider State"_ is communicated by the _consumer_ to the _provider_, for the _provider_ to perform the _"Pact verification"_. The _"Provider State"_ is given from the _consumer_ to the _provider_, as a *free English text*. It means that before the _provider_ can perform the _"Pact verification"_, a human being from the _provider_ team needs to read, understand and code the establishment of the "Provider State". It means that the _consumer_ will have to wait for the _provider_ to do something *manually*. This kind of dependency between the consumers and a producer is something we would like to avoid. In addition to that, the understanding by the _producer_ of the expected _"Provider State"_ as expressed by the _consumer_ with a free text sounds quite error-prone.

robin.jacques

2022-02-04 10:51

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 11:04

maybe, we obviously can?t make the decision for you and you?ll have to weigh up the pros/cons. We haven?t come up with a better way to solve the problem in the Pact paradigm in its entirety at this point, but in our experience, this is a lot better than the current standard paradigm of end-to-end tests, which gives practically zero autonomy to the provider?s in how integration tests are performed. As stated earlier, you can skip that whole problem with the *Pactflow* feature I mentioned (bi-directional contract testing). It has slightly less guarantees (I still think quite good) as it is not as strict as pact, but comes with a much simpler conceptual and implementation model. May I ask, something must have drawn you to contract testing with Pact in the first place? What were your motivations, was it interest in a new topic, problems with the current approach? What solutions are you currently investigating?

patrice.krakow

2022-02-04 12:04

1/ I had quick look at "Bi-directional Contracts Guide", but it does not look as good as "Consumer-Driven Contract Testing with Pact" in terms of test coverage. I love the idea of consumers describing in detail (with a lot of request/response pairs) what they expect from their providers. 2/ Within our organization, we (at least, some of us) do recognize the issue with end-to-end testing having applications based on a microservices architecture. We love the idea of testing the different interactions independently. We are struggling with (1) shared test environment, (2) test data, (3) feeding test environment with the right test data at the right moment, (4) ... all the classic issues. The ideal situation would be to give full autonomy to consumers (which is achieved by Consumer-Driven Contract Testing with Pact), as well as not disturbing the providers by consumer tests (the Public API use case). As I see things now, the missing part might be a formal way for the consumer to specify the provider state, so the provider can perform the pact verification in a fully automated way. A (possible) solution might be to ask the provider to develop a specific API to set the provider state, but creating an API to test an API might be the start of an infinite chain as you will need to test the API made for testing an API, and so on ... :grin: In addition to that this new API needed to test the API might be more complex than the API (to be tested). And usually, even if it should probably be the case, we are still not ready to spend more time/effort on testing something than on making something. A good illustration of that technique might be http://mockbank.io which allows you to test an API (the PSD2/Open Banking one) with your own test data that you can set with another "internal" API, or a nice UI using that "internal" API. But, this kind of technique raises another (big) question, should the provider allows you to set the state of its "real" service, or should the provider gives you a simulator of its service. In the case of http://mockbank.io, it is clearly a simulator and I think it must be a simulator: a real banking service should not allow you to set the balance to a certain amount out of nowhere, you MUST have a transaction, the money needs to come from somewhere. So, with a real banking service, it MUST be impossible to set the "Provider State" the way you like for your testing! That's why the provider has to provide a simulator in addition to its real service and keep their behavior aligned. And that is an expensive demand towards providers... To conclude, I think we agree that testing is not an easy/trivial task :wink:

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 12:05

There?s too many things to say about Tim, aside from the obvious contributions to some of the most popular projects in the ecosystem. Dedicated, helpful, friendly, creative, passionate. It might be the last one that defines his time here. It extends from ideas to improve the direction of the project to the day-to-day interactions with the community. Each interaction is always humble, carefully considered and often detailed, but also not patronising - you?ll probably learn something from each response despite the friendly demeanour. See https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1643471597396539?thread_ts=1638704614.250900&cid=C5F4KFKR8 piece of poetry for a recent favourite. Whilst I may have introduced conventional commits to Pact, Tim took it to a whole new level. If you?ve ever contributed anything, you may just have found yourself on the nitpicking side of a PR if you didn?t comply. I believe his diary entries may take the same form. I did make a promise to Tim to uphold these standards, and it didn?t take long! (apologies to @patrice.krakow :stuck_out_tongue: ), but a promise is a promise. Maintaining an Open Source project is very rewarding, but it also can be a source of stress, and we all deserve an opportunity for a break, especially given the past 24 months! We?ll miss you Tim, but enjoy your break! The :door: is always open :wave:

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 12:09

> . To conclude, I think we agree that testing is not an easy/trivial task�:wink: :rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 12:09

Yes, I can definitely agree to that!

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 12:09

So you?ve summed up the situation well

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 12:10

I don?t disagree that provider states aren?t a challenge, it?s just?we don?t have a better way to give both _isolation_ (the major property that makes pact attractive relative to the status quo) and _correctness_ (the ability to ensure that the concrete examples used are definitely supported by the provider).

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 12:11

In terms of practical ways to address provider states, however

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 12:11

it might sound like the consumer can just put garbage into a state. And they can, but there are also protections in pact to guard against consumers putting in rubbish contracts and breaking their provider (pending pacts).

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 12:12

so one approach is to simply have the provider declare all of the valid states it can be in, advertise them to all of its consumers, and then consumers can only use those states

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 12:12

That?s something we could consider adding to the broker, or somewhere else in the tooling. This could reduce the pain point you?re talking about, to an extent - right?

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 12:12

essentially, it?s a data fixture, but _only_ for a single provider (not the entire system)

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 12:14

One way you could support that in the short term, is simply creating a dummy consumer that supports all of the states the provider can be in, and publish that to the broker. Then you can point all of your consumers to that dummy contract and say ?this is everything we support?. This will work for provider driven flows, where the provider already exists. Where a consumer is adding new features to the provider, that?s naturally going to be a collaborative process anyway, so it?s not a big deal to agree on the name of the provider state.

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 12:14

what do you think?

diva.pant1

2022-02-04 12:36

When we ruck our spec files, the contract is saved in `/spec/pacts`, but we have to create the directory right, and how do we configure that the pacts are stored there?

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 12:40

sounds like a question for #pact-ruby?

patrice.krakow

2022-02-04 12:50

I think I like this approach where _"the provider declares all of the valid states it can be in, advertise them to all of its consumers, and then consumers can only use those states"_. It limits a bit the autonomy of the _consumers_, but it should allow a fully automated _pact verification_ :+1: The success of that technique will depend on the quality and quantity of those predefined _provider states_. However, the _consumers_ might send feedback to the _provider_ to enhance the quality and quantity of those predefined _provider states_. And, in this case, we could "sell" to the _provider_ that working on such feedback should not only benefit the _consumer_ who has sent the feedback, but also all future _consumers_, making this way of working quite scalable with an increasing number of _consumers_. That might actually also work with public APIs :smiley:

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 12:57

I'll revisit this idea next week from a project level proposal, but I think you can implement it now with your own internal policy

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 12:57

Thanks for the chat!

patrice.krakow

2022-02-04 13:05

However, I am not so sure about your _"it?s not a big deal to agree on the name of the provider state"_. The state of a _provider_ can depend on some independent degree-of-freedom, and the number of its possible states, being the permutations of this degree-of-freedom, might grow exponentially. For instance, a provider state might end up being something like: ? Given that Patrice has a bank account with the number BE17631383565421 ? Given that Patrice has a balance above 1000 EUR ? Given that Patrice has made several payments during the last 5 days for a total amount above 2500 EUR ? Given that Patrice is logged on his mobile application with the national access means ? Given that Patrice has a saving account with a balance above 10000 EUR ? ... and so on ... So, I think we still need to explore the practicality of setting predefined provider states... I will let you know. MANY thanks for your help so far :star::star::star::star::star:

diva.pant1

2022-02-04 13:05

okay, posted there

joaomiguel.rocha

2022-02-04 17:40

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-02-04 17:44

This is such amazing news for all the new projects ahead that are going to get so much more Tim time. You?ve been such an inspiration in the community and you will be greatly missed but your impact will be long felt. Your engineering skills are impeccable coupled with your passion, and helpfulness, has made it a pleasure both for maintainers, seasoned pro?s and pact newbies alike. I would agree that Open Source is hugely rewarding, but it can take it?s toll and it is great to maintain a healthy balance but also to take time to get away from it all and have some time enjoying life, with family and friends. That is why many of your contributions for automation, help free up some of our maintainers and contributors to be more efficient with their time and work on what really matters, people and collaboration. Thanks for supporting me through my Javascript adventures, and helping keep my imposter syndrome at bay. Enjoy the sunshine and hopefully catch you out in Aus one day!

matt.fellows

2022-02-04 22:16

:taco: :taco: :taco: for @pact544, who?s kicked off the year with a bunch of major contributions to the #pact-net project. I keep wakin up to an inbox that looks like this :laughing: Not too far away from a proper Nuget release it seems!

pact544

2022-02-07 07:52

What a nuisance that guy is eh? :rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:

jacek.sienniak

2022-02-07 08:45

has joined #general

jamie.weatherby

2022-02-07 15:25

has joined #general

joaobrandao.rodrigues

2022-02-07 16:30

has joined #general

extra

2022-02-07 21:31

has joined #general

austin.reifsteck

2022-02-07 22:39

Hi! :wave: I've been reading through some of the pact docs and I am very interested in the auto-generated docs that are viewable in the Pact Broker. It occurred to me that one way to define an API could be the union of all of its contracts. However, documentation seemed to be on a per-contract basis. Is there any support (current or planned) to view some aggregation of all of a provider's contracts in a format that could be loosely seen as an API spec?

matt.fellows

2022-02-07 22:43

We?ve certainly discussed this before. Might be worth taking a look at http://pact.canny.io to see if the request is there and voting on it

elenatuzel

2022-02-08 08:27

has joined #general

vadim

2022-02-08 09:19

has joined #general

patrice.krakow

2022-02-08 11:27

Hello @matt.fellows just wanted to share my latest thoughts... I think that going for a solution in which _"the provider declares all of the valid states it can be in, advertise them to all of its consumers, and then consumers can only use those states"_ is not a good idea as I think that the best thing about Consumer-Driven Contract Testing is the "Consumer-Driven" part, I would not like to bridle the consumer developers when they define their Pact. In addition to that, the important additional manual work asked to the provider developers for properly setting the "Provider States" defined by the consumer developers, needed before the "Pact Verficication" can take place might be forth it, when compared to the very important additional manual work needed to maintain and prepare "connected test environment(s)" needed to perform valuable end-to-end testing.

anna.khv

2022-02-08 12:19

has joined #general

dhospital

2022-02-08 16:15

has joined #general

mike.bernard

2022-02-08 16:34

Does anyone have any insight on this?

patrice.krakow

2022-02-08 18:08

Hello (again) @matt.fellows I am continuing my exploration of Pact but I found the examples not that easy to understand because of the entangling of Pact with the specific language used to code the consumer tests and the provider service. I just have a high-level understanding of JavaScript and I am not familiar with any of the numerous "stuff" used, e.g. ava, mocha, chai, axios, etc. That's why I have tried to create what would be for me a super simple scenario in order to illustrate/understand a typical _Consumer-Driven Contract Testing_ workflow with _Pact_, see https://github.com/patricekrakow/play-with-pact. In this scenario, I have reached my "critical point" in which the _Pact verification_ does not work because the "test data" invented by the _consumer_ does not match the test/real data used by the _provider_. Following the error message "WARNING: State Change ignored as there is no state change URL provided", I guess there is a way to allow the `pact_verifier_cli` to send the Pact file to the _provider_ so it can set the state according to the _Provider State_. So, I guess I have to implement a specific API endpoint for that on the _provider_, could you point me to the right document/specification to do that (without a library)...

jcabrera

2022-02-08 18:26

has joined #general

david.vancouvering

2022-02-09 00:55

Hey. I was watching the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnOy9Sv9Opo and @bethskurrie said the recommended approach is for the consumer to code against new functionality on a feature branch so it doesn't break the provider. I totally get why this approach solves the problem of not introducing a contract into the main branch until it's ready to go live. However, this pretty much goes against trunk-based development. This is a key practice that has been shown to improve software delivery performance (see the book Accelerate). For reference you can see the https://cloud.google.com/architecture/devops/devops-tech-trunk-based-development as well as https://trunkbaseddevelopment.com/ It's great that pending pacts helps solve this, but I am concerned in general that as you develop tools and features for Pact, you're assuming a workflow that actually isn't best industry practice these days. For example, an important workflow we need to support is to put new changes behind a feature flag. We want to test the new pact that's behind this feature flag without causing the provider to have their build break now that the pact has been verified (which is what would happen with pending pacts). I think we can do this with tags (need to try it) but I'm concerned you're moving away from tags to the concepts of branches, deployments and features. In that world, there is no space for scoping a pact and its verification based on a feature flag. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks!

abubics

2022-02-09 01:02

There are a few flavours of trunk-based, the one I see most often is very short-lived feature branches. I think might be the best-practice assumed workflow, or you need compile-time feature flags to not break the trunk.

matt.fellows

2022-02-09 01:03

Yeah, even the guide above has PRs that are attached to a branch (and, if not a branch, something conceptually identical to one)

matt.fellows

2022-02-09 01:03

that being said, you?re on the mark and we are thinking of ways to incorporate feature toggles into this workflow also

matt.fellows

2022-02-09 01:03

david.vancouvering

2022-02-09 01:04

Yea, but those are short-lived branches, like a day. In teams that are really good about delivering functionality in small chunks, an API change could go out in a day. But in other teams/orgs this is not the case, and generally the consumer will want to push out their changes even while the provider is still working on their side.

david.vancouvering

2022-02-09 01:05

Feature toggles is an example; my point is that the recommended workflow for Pact is going against the grain of very short-lived feature branches

matt.fellows

I don?t think Pact takes a position on the lifetime of a branch, but perhaps you?re suggesting as a result of having branches as a concept it might _result_ in longer-lived branches as a consequence?

david.vancouvering

Long-lived feature branches are really problematic; this is not just theoretically true, I still have scars on my back from teams that have done this

matt.fellows

haha yes, most of us have!

david.vancouvering

https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/tags/#using-tags-with-feature-toggles-instead-of-feature-branches

I don't see how you can recommend keeping a new API change on a branch without it becoming a long-lived branch

matt.fellows

2022-02-09 01:07

right, in that case you can definitely toggle (I do think we have some docs on that).

david.vancouvering

2022-02-09 01:07

Oh that's great. I couldn't find any

matt.fellows

2022-02-09 01:07

david.vancouvering

2022-02-09 01:08

Haha thanks. Sometimes search just doesn't work

david.vancouvering

2022-02-09 01:08

But, are tags going away as a thing?

matt.fellows

2022-02-09 01:09

no, I don?t think we?re looking to remove them

matt.fellows

I would expect, at some point, a concept like a feature toggle to make its way into the broker so that they can be incorporated into standard workflows as a _first class citizen_ though

david.vancouvering

Ok, well that's good. I think I've made my point and I will stand down :slightly_smiling_face: Realizing, reading your docs, that the same git sha is actually different versions of the consumer depending on which set of flags are toggled on or off. :thinking_face:

david.vancouvering

Yea I do prefer first-class concepts over a bag of tags

matt.fellows

> bag of tags :rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:

matt.fellows

2022-02-09 01:11

On the docs above, it?s possiblre there are better ways that advised. If you come up with them, do let us know - it?ll help with any future feature support and of course, docs

david.vancouvering

Yea, it's actually an incredibly common anti-pattern. A developer says "we don't know what the schema is, so we just implemented a table with key column and a value column. It's so nice and flexible!" I go :scream: and explain the problem with what I call a "bag of flags"

matt.fellows

Yes, it?s also ?very flexible? - what could be bad about that?!

matt.fellows

Also, please vote on: https://pact.canny.io/admin/feedback/feature-requests/p/add-better-support-for-workflows-that-are-managed-by-feature-toggles-rather-than?boards=feature-requests&search=toggle (every vote counts :stuck_out_tongue: )

david.vancouvering

https://twitter.com/MissAmyTobey/status/1402741114080161792

abubics

2022-02-09 01:18

yeah, "bag of tags" is usually a workaround for "we don't know what we/you want/need yet" :sweat_smile:

ardiel.fuentes

2022-02-09 07:14

has joined #general

patrice.krakow

2022-02-09 08:32

@matt.fellows I have found the `--state-change-url <state-change-url>` option of `pact_verifier_cli` so I will be able to continue my investigation. It still feels a bit "weird" that the _Provider_ may have to update her/his code when receiving a new Pact, and I guess that it is (super) important that the way the _Provider State_ is set is not (too) fake, but reflect the actual behavior of the _Provider_. However, once again, these efforts need to be put in perspective with the work needed to maintain and prepare "connected test environment(s)" in order to perform valuable end-to-end testing.

ruud.von.faber

2022-02-09 09:11

has joined #general

james.perepiczka

2022-02-09 11:02

Hi, I wanted advice on the best approach for using Pact when you require pre-requisite data. For example, I want to test a success response structure for Service A, but in order to trigger that response I would need to hit multiple endpoints on Service B in order to create data to be utilised by Service A to give a success response. What is the approach here? Do you add setup api calls to run before the pact test to generate the required data? or do you do something in the provider like stubbing out a datasource?

matt.fellows

2022-02-09 11:17

Thanks Patrice, sorry I didn?t g et to the bottom of my inbox/slack messages today #inboxZeroFail

matt.fellows

2022-02-09 11:17

glad you?re back on track!

matt.fellows

2022-02-09 11:19

Yes, the equivalent in pact is called ?provider states?

matt.fellows

2022-02-09 11:19

the consumer says ?given *User A exists* A *request to get User a* (at path `/users/a` should return a `200` with a `{..}` etc.?

matt.fellows

2022-02-09 11:20

the provider then is responsible for ensuring ?User A exists? before the tests run. How that happens is language specific, but basically there is a state hook that fires before the specific test is executed and the provider can do what it needs (seed a database, stub a call etc.)

patrice.krakow

2022-02-09 12:55

Hello @matt.fellows I am progressing :wink: I have implemented within the _Provider_ the `POST /` endpoint in order to set the Provider Sate so the Pact verification is successful. I will update https://github.com/patricekrakow/play-with-pact. But I still have an error from the `pact_verifier_cli`: ```play-with-pact>pact_verifier_cli --file consumer.pact.json --url http://localhost --port 3000 --state-change-url http://localhost:3000 12:50:48 [ERROR] Failed to load pact - Failed to load pact 'http://localhost' - Request failed - error sending request for url (http://localhost/): error trying to connect: tcp connect error: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it. (os error 10061)``` What is this "load pact" about? Why `http://localhost` is supposed to "load" the Pact file???

agustin.gomes

2022-02-09 13:23

has joined #general

agustin.gomes

2022-02-09 13:26

Hi everyone :wave: happy to be here

thijme.langelaar

2022-02-09 13:29

has joined #general

agustin.gomes

2022-02-09 13:31

My team is looking to introduce Contract test in our CI/CD pipeline. I was looking for the best strategy here to setup the broker as a first step. what yould be your advice? ? Building a Helm chart around the `https://hub.docker.com/r/pactfoundation/pact-broker` docker image? ? Free trial on https://pactflow.io? ? other option? Would appreciate any feedback or input :slightly_smiling_face:

dharmesh.kumar

2022-02-09 13:52

has joined #general

patrice.krakow

2022-02-09 14:03

@matt.fellows FYI, I have just updated https://github.com/patricekrakow/play-with-pact. It would now be nice to eliminate/understand the `Failed to load pact` error... Many thanks in advance for your help :+1:

athaper

2022-02-09 14:14

has joined #general

dennis.woditsch

2022-02-09 15:30

We are currently also using the free trial to establish contract testing and it's sufficient. We will buy a team license after we have an initial setup. We agreed that we do not want to struggle with additional overhead maintaining a pact broker

agustin.gomes

2022-02-09 17:02

Thank you @dennis.woditsch For now I started with the free trial of pactflow, it felt the best way forward for the reasons you mention too

svranyes

2022-02-09 20:16

has joined #general

samuel.whittaker

2022-02-09 23:40

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-02-09 23:42

from `pact_verifier_cli`: > -u, --url <url>... URL of pact file to verify (can be repeated) the `--url` is the url of the _pact_ to verify. You can pass in multiple sources, so `--file` is a path to a pact file, `--url` is a path to a pact on a web server somewhere, etc.

matt.fellows

2022-02-09 23:44

I can?t see where you?re setting the flags to verify your _provider_ though. It might be using the defaults, but I?d expect to see `-p` and `-h` in there, as well as the state change URL if you have them

patrice.krakow

2022-02-10 08:30

Oh, I think I have mixed `-u` with `-h` :woozy_face:

patrice.krakow

2022-02-10 09:05

@matt.fellows That was that! Replacing ```pact_verifier_cli --file consumer.pact.json --url http://localhost --port 3000 --state-change-url http://localhost:3000``` by ```pact_verifier_cli --file consumer.pact.json --hostname localhost --port 3000 --state-change-url http://localhost:3000``` fixed it :grinning: Many thanks again for your help/support! I now have all I need for a first try selling _Consumer-Driven Contract Testing with Pact_ to my colleagues :+1:

patrice.krakow

2022-02-10 09:44

@matt.fellows I have updated https://github.com/patricekrakow/play-with-pact. As I explained earlier, I have started my own little "Play with Pact" demo because I was missing an "end-to-end" example of the _Consumer-Driven Contract Testing with Pact_ workflow in which the usage of Pact would not be "entangled" with the usage of a specific language. If it makes sense to you, I would be happy to contribute to a new https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/ or maybe update the existing "Other Languages" one, but I feel it more as a "No Language" than an "Other Languages". Before the "Pact JS", "Pact JVM", "Pact Net", ... I see a room for a "Pact" or "Pact Alone" or "Vanilla Pact", ... What do you think? I would like to make sure that such documentation does make sense for you before starting working on it...

david.hvilava

2022-02-10 10:53

has joined #general

cyrus.devnomad

2022-02-10 13:51

Hello I'm trying to implement a pact solution for the multiple dependent microservices scenario A -> B -> C. The most detailed description of the problem and the potential solutions seems to be the following GitHub Gist: https://gist.github.com/bethesque/43eef1bf47afea4445c8b8bdebf28df0#file-index-md What is meant with the following sentence? "Then, in your Pact test for CClient, you can use the same alligator instance as a "link" to tie your stubbing to an artifact that will get verified." Can someone elaborate a bit more on that? "your Pact test": Which pact test is meant here "AB provider test" or "BC consumer test"? "same alligator instance": Is the same subbing instance to be used in both tests? "AB provider test" and "BC consumer test"? Who writes to the shared artifact and who reads from the shared artifact? Thanks

carlos.ferrao

2022-02-10 15:46

has joined #general

rios.martinivan

2022-02-10 20:18

has joined #general

charles.kuo

2022-02-10 21:42

has joined #general

david.vancouvering

2022-02-10 22:25

Starting to learn about pending pacts and work-in-progress pacts. *Pending pacts* - _don't break the build_ for new pacts that have not yet passed verification. *Work in progress pacts* - _run verification_ for the latest pact for any branch which is still pending, and which was not explicitly specified by the provider verification configuration. I was looking at using WIP to manage feature flag variations. But if WIP only runs for pending pacts, how do I make sure that a feature flag pact that _previously passed verification_ will get verified in the future, when the provider changes?

matt.fellows

2022-02-11 02:15

Yep, that would no doubt be helpful to others

matt.fellows

2022-02-11 02:17

I think: 1. A new page under https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/other_languages (maybe we just call it ?demonstration? or ?example?? We can iterate on that) 2. The page contains the rationale for when you would do this (which, in my view, is if you can?t use a language specific DSL directly) 3. A cross-referenced link on the ?https://docs.pact.io/recipes? page to this

abubics

2022-02-11 05:01

Generally there's no "provider test". There are just consumer tests and provider verifications.

abubics

2022-02-11 05:02

"your Pact test for CClient" would be the test that exercises CClient, and is verified by C API.

abubics

2022-02-11 05:06

But really, you don't typically need to think about AB and BC at the same time. They have separate lifecycles and workflows and pipelines.

sudhanshu.testing

2022-02-11 05:12

has joined #general

cyrus.devnomad

2022-02-11 08:26

I would like to learn how to implement either of the approaches. The one where I would not look at AB and BC at the same time, which you refer to and the one where I would look at them at the same time. Once I would understand both approaches and how to implement them, I could still choose the more typical solution, you are referring to. But knowing both approaches would give me a bit more feeling of control over the whole thing, which I'm kind of lacking currently :blush: But do I understand it correctly, in the more typical approach you are referring to, I would have to set the "AB provider verification" boundary at B API or B Controller yes? I mean I would have to mock any calls towards the inner parts of B Codebase and set the state of B at B API or B Controller boundary yes?

cyrus.devnomad

2022-02-11 08:59

By the way, how do typical pipelines for B look like? Do my pipelines look valid/typical? B provider pipeline: -��Test CClient -��Test B-API or B-Controller -��Publish BC pact -��Can-i-deploy -��Deploy B verify changed AB pact pipeline: -��Test CClient -��Test B-API or B-Controller

patrice.krakow

2022-02-11 09:15

Great, I will work on that... We should indeed probably iterate on the name - https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html :grin: - I will probably start with the (code) name "Pact NoDSL". Regarding the rationale, my main motivation is to provide a "tool" to help the understanding of _Pact_. I see it more as educational material for training than something you would actually use for your project. By the way, the distinction and the relation between Pact and language-specific DSLs was something that takes me some time to grasp and was a source of confusion when I first discovered Pact. I hope that having a "Pact NoDSL" part might be a way to progress more naturally from Pact (alone) to language-specific DSLs. In a "Pact NoDSL", you write separately the "consumer test(s)" and the Pact file, it can then be the right moment to introduce the idea of writing them at the same time, using a DSL.

alessandro.polidori

2022-02-11 15:02

has joined #general

krisakins

2022-02-12 20:19

has joined #general

ian.cervantez

2022-02-13 03:32

has joined #general

abubics

2022-02-13 23:55

There are a bunch of diagrams in the docs (https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana/step_4/#consumer-pipeline), about pipelines :slightly_smiling_face: the specifics will always depend on what your situation looks like, but the high level is generally consistent

abubics

2022-02-13 23:56

There's not really an approach where you'd look at AB and BC at the same time. The intent is to isolate those interaction points so you can run things independently (otherwise you end up back in integrated testing land).

abubics

2022-02-13 23:59

As far as stubbing goes, you get to decide where it makes sense to cut. Depending on your internal architecture you may have different options. I prefer to cut just inside the provider, once requests have been parsed, to make sure they make sense. Other people might not have such a clean internal structure, and choose to stub on the outside, e.g. stubbing entire external dependencies.

antonio.gamiz

2022-02-14 06:51

has joined #general

antonio.gamiz

2022-02-14 06:57

Hi! Does anyone know where the documentation for the body of the POST request of the provider setup url parameter is? I get the following body: ```{ "consumer": "Consumer", "state": "User exists and has resources", "states": [ "User exists and has resources" ], "params": {} }```

marko.justinek

2022-02-14 06:58

What Pact implementation are you using?

antonio.gamiz

2022-02-14 07:07

pact python

marko.justinek

2022-02-14 08:15

Tried asking in #pact-python?

antonio.gamiz

2022-02-14 09:26

Oh, I thought that was independent of the implementation, thanks!

matt.fellows

2022-02-14 09:45

Actually in this case you?re right, but most people probably wouldn?t know that - so all is forgiven

matt.fellows

2022-02-14 09:57

I missed this. Your summary of WIP/Pending is how I think about it

matt.fellows

2022-02-14 09:58

Good question on feature flags. @bethskurrie any thoughts?

matt.fellows

2022-02-14 10:01

I don?t actually know where the canonical source is, but this is the Ruby application. I believe it sends both the array format (`states`) and the single `state` property to support both V3 and V2 clients. Params is a v3 thing, and can be passed through from the consumer test.

matt.fellows

2022-02-14 10:02

The properties you see there are the only ones I?d expect to see - the consumer that this test is for, state name itself and any parameters that go with it.

matt.fellows

2022-02-14 10:02

In the case of V2 pacts, I?d only expect that `state` and `consumer` are populated

cyrus.devnomad

2022-02-14 11:23

So if for example in case of A sending 11 to B the valid expected response of B were x,y,z where x & y were independent of C and z were dependent on C, I could basically stub z along x and y yes? And would have the case 11 --> z to be included in the BC-consumer tests or not necessarily?

antonio.gamiz

2022-02-14 14:01

Ohhh, I see, thanks a lot!! :slightly_smiling_face:

zish.gatrad

2022-02-14 16:01

has joined #general

james.troughton

2022-02-14 16:08

has joined #general

david.vancouvering

2022-02-14 17:52

Great, thanks, looking forward to your thoughts @bethskurrie

spencerm

2022-02-14 19:41

Hey, I have a general question about a scenario I?m facing. I have a frontend service that wants to request data from an API. However, this backend must be abstracted from the frontend. I am creating a set of AWS Lambda functions to act as the abstraction layer that the frontend will call. Say one of these endpoints is itemLambda - it will receive a request from the frontend, make a request to one or more of the other backend endpoints and return a json response to the frontend of the requested data. Most of the time, these lambda functions will just directly return the JSON data they receive from the other backend services. I want to set up a pact contract between each lambda and the backend. These lambdas are written in typescript, so realistically they can have any structure of JSON returned to them and, as they just return the JSON, they will not fail. Therefore, does it make sense to introduce some sort of runtime type checking, e.g. zod, to validate that the received json will be interpretable by the frontend? I?m specifically thinking about the consumer pact tests here, in that any json could be provided and they would pass, meaning we have little confidence in the contract. Or is there another way to deal with such a scenario, e.g. contract: backend endpoint <-> lambda <-> frontend

marko.justinek

2022-02-14 20:59

Right, I assumed you were asking how to use your framework to fill in the ?missing? values, sorry.

abubics

2022-02-15 00:18

Yep, that sounds right to me :slightly_smiling_face: The z binding through to C can be tested in a separate runtime/lifecycle, and should be from the perspective of B making a request to C (independent of the AB request). If you break up the coupling that way, it could be any data, not strictly 11->z (which would be a required data coupling if run in the context of the AB request).

manuelam20

2022-02-15 00:41

has joined #general

dchen

2022-02-15 08:03

has joined #general

aristides.suarez

2022-02-15 08:14

has joined #general

marcelino.garcia

2022-02-15 08:22

has joined #general

varnika.singh

2022-02-15 09:11

has joined #general

antonio.gamiz

2022-02-15 13:29

Hi! I?m still quite new to pact and I?m getting this error: `There is no verified pact between version a41c5fa63a9104db55e530f826acb52bfbcfcfdc of Backend and the version of Routes currently deployed to production (no such version exists)` when I run can-i-deploy from my consumer (Backend)

antonio.gamiz

2022-02-15 13:30

these are the last two verifications I have

antonio.gamiz

2022-02-15 13:30

do you know why I?m getting that error?

antonio.gamiz

2022-02-15 13:31

I do not know if those N/A values maybe the problem

antonio.gamiz

2022-02-15 13:33

oh maybe do i need to call record_deployment?

antonio.gamiz

2022-02-15 15:51

it was that, hehe

bernard

2022-02-15 16:22

has joined #general

david.uzumaki

2022-02-15 16:33

has joined #general

abhishekc.jh

2022-02-15 17:21

has joined #general

nuno.frias

2022-02-15 19:28

has joined #general

faran

2022-02-15 22:31

has joined #general

andy

2022-02-16 00:35

has joined #general

fushinoryuu

2022-02-16 01:40

has joined #general

david.vancouvering

2022-02-16 02:22

Hey @bethskurrie checking in - any words of wisdom for us? Thanks!

abdelior

2022-02-16 08:48

has joined #general

abdelior

2022-02-16 08:50

Hi all!

abdelior

2022-02-16 08:51

I wanted to ask if anybody has worked with Pact and Flutter applications as a consumers :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2022-02-16 10:05

Maybe check out and see where #pact-dart is at?

abdelior

2022-02-16 10:40

Thanks Matt!

misterjkl

2022-02-16 13:12

has joined #general

brian.azizi

2022-02-16 14:05

has joined #general

richelle.raaphorst

2022-02-16 15:17

has joined #general

diva.pant1

2022-02-17 14:15

https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/ruby/readme/ The link is broken

guillermo.aguirre

2022-02-17 20:06

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-02-18 00:18

This looks to be fixed now. Thanks for letting us know

matt.fellows

2022-02-18 06:03

Happy Friday :wave: In case you missed it, lots happening over at Pactflow HQ. As a sneak preview, if you were ever wondering how to combine contract testing with OpenAPI, this might be for you! https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/CLS16AVEE/p1645163512468319

aforeman

2022-02-18 06:04

This is gonna be a game-changer!!

adamslack

2022-02-18 15:55

has joined #general

bernard

2022-02-18 17:14

~Hi everyone, I'm publishing an OAS contract via GitHub Actions, and I'm seeing this error... any idea where I'm going wrong with this...?~ Solved it, environment variable for my URL had double quotes around it. ```error publishing contract + results Error: connect ECONNREFUSED 127.0.0.1:80```

darwin.cahyadi

2022-02-18 18:00

has joined #general

rishi.speets

2022-02-19 14:43

has joined #general

krisakins

2022-02-19 15:54

Sorry if this isn't the right place to pose the question. I'm really interested in contract testing & pact. I'm just trying to get an idea of how widespread the adoption is. I saw on http://pact.io there some big names listed like Atlassian, but can I be pointed to any other well-known microservice-heavy organizations that heavily invest in contract testing? Even if they don't use pact, but perhaps use contract testing to address the integration testing problem at large. Not that big names always matter, but I think demonstrated success can provide confidence. Part of this is me trying to 1) make sure this is the right path for my team, 2) convince my team/manager that we should go forward

matt.fellows

2022-02-19 22:09

Maybe the customer stories / articles here: https://docs.pact.io/blogs_videos_and_articles

matt.fellows

2022-02-19 22:13

Here's a sample of some of our customers at Pactflow (and therefore Pact)

matt.fellows

2022-02-19 22:18

I particularly like the Nubank case study even though it's not Pact. It reads as if they've watched and consumed our material, down to Dora metrics and scaling language.

matt.fellows

2022-02-19 22:19

There are a couple of case studies on https://pactflow.io/ also

krisakins

2022-02-20 00:34

That's perfect, thanks @matt.fellows!!

matt.fellows

2022-02-20 01:36

Nice article on contract testing in software testing weekly: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dawid-dylowicz_softwaretestingweekly-softwaretesting-testautomation-activity-6900792450357579776-2YM-

ybergstrom

2022-02-21 03:24

has joined #general

gyuvaraj10

2022-02-21 08:03

has joined #general

gyuvaraj10

2022-02-21 08:05

I want to create Webhooks with Personal access token of Azure DevOps since the user credentials usage is disabled. I couldn't find any documentation that can help me on this in the pact docs. Please someone suggest

athissen

2022-02-21 08:09

has joined #general

andrefcsousa

2022-02-21 10:19

has joined #general

katharina.pavic

2022-02-21 12:37

has joined #general

ipoe

2022-02-21 14:54

has joined #general

jeroen.vandijk

2022-02-21 16:40

has joined #general

ondikumana

2022-02-21 22:13

has joined #general

nithyag.ganesan

2022-02-22 10:01

has joined #general

ntiwari

2022-02-22 11:48

has joined #general

phil.vint

2022-02-23 11:01

has joined #general

phongthornk

2022-02-23 11:04

has joined #general

phongthornk

2022-02-23 11:10

Hello Pact Team, I really don't know where I can ask for the right channel? However, I try to run workshops which JS and Golang. I've found the same problem with Ruby. So I am not sure how to fix it. Golang: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go ```<class:CGIHandler>': incompatible character encodings: ASCII-8BIT and UTF-8 (Encoding::CompatibilityError)``` JS: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-js Anyone please help me to fix this :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2022-02-23 11:12

hmm I?ve seen this before but I don?t think we ever fully chased it down

matt.fellows

2022-02-23 11:12

I think it might be an environment variable

matt.fellows

2022-02-23 11:12

any chance you could please take a dump of your environment, redact anything important, and share?

matt.fellows

2022-02-23 11:13

Do you also happen to have a ruby installation at all?

phongthornk

2022-02-23 11:23

Pact need to install Ruby, right?

phongthornk

2022-02-23 11:24

I think Pact can run without require Ruby installation

phongthornk

2022-02-23 11:25

However, I try to find a software list to install to make sure I missed something to install. So I just see only workshop and it make me understand to have at all.

matt.fellows

You don?t need to install Ruby, no

matt.fellows

I was interested if you did, because that could explain the problem

matt.fellows

I?m expecting some environment variable or configuration that Ruby is detecting that?s not utf-8 (ascii-8bit).

matt.fellows

What?s your OS/arch?

matt.fellows

What is your default language and encoding?

phongthornk

Linux

phongthornk

2022-02-23 11:28

Not sure for how to check

phongthornk

2022-02-23 11:28

encoding UTF-8

phongthornk

2022-02-23 11:29

I ty with JS workshop first it get the same errors

matt.fellows

2022-02-23 11:30

strange

phongthornk

2022-02-23 11:32

Maybe it is just a warning message. I see the next error about this

phongthornk

I still confusing about MOCK_SERVER and PACT_BROKER Is that the same thing?

matt.fellows

matt.fellows

mock server is used locally to mock the provider API

matt.fellows

https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/CLS16AVEE/p1646127535851819

the pact broker is used to share contracts and collaborate

matt.fellows

2022-02-23 11:34

I suspect that?s because the ruby process didn?t start correctly so the golang tests are not able to talk to the mock

phongthornk

2022-02-23 11:34

Mock server that start from pact lib, right?

phongthornk

2022-02-23 11:36

Actually, I will start using pact with PHP but the document is not hard to understand. I will try to do the workshop first.

phongthornk

2022-02-23 11:41

@matt.fellows Could you please let me know if you have any update?

lukasz

2022-02-23 14:55

has joined #general

patrice.krakow

2022-02-23 17:25

Hello All :wave: I am still exploring Pact and I just wanted to share this little demo of "How to use the `--provider-state-header-name` option of the `pact-stub-server` in order to select one specific _provider state_ in case multiple matching _interactions_ are found" | https://github.com/patricekrakow/play-with-pact/blob/main/misc/select-provider-state.md Sometimes, as a _consumer_, you want the API to return a different _response_ for the exact same API _request_ *depending* on the _provider state_. By default, when the `pact-stub-server` received a _request_ for which there are multiple matching _interactions_, it will just select the first one. However, you can specify the _provider state_ you want via a custom HTTP header, I love it :star-struck:

yousafn

2022-02-24 00:06

This is excellent Patrice, thanks for sharing back with us all.

yousafn

2022-02-24 00:08

Can you ```echo $LANG``` on your machine?

yousafn

2022-02-24 00:11

I get `en_GB.UTF-8`

abubics

2022-02-24 00:15

I get `en_AU.UTF-8`, and I've had weird problems in WSL with unsupported locales. Definitely good to check :ok_hand:

phongthornk

2022-02-24 05:44

I get `en_US.UTF-8` @yousafn

phongthornk

2022-02-24 05:46

The problem related to a terminal? I using ZSH not Bash.

phongthornk

2022-02-24 05:49

For more detail ```go test -tags=integration -count=1 http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/consumer/client -run 'TestClientPact' 2022/02/24 12:46:45 [INFO] checking pact-mock-service within range >= 3.5.0, < 4.0.0 2022/02/24 12:46:45 [INFO] checking pact-provider-verifier within range >= 1.31.0, < 2.0.0 2022/02/24 12:46:45 [INFO] checking pact-broker within range >= 1.22.3 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/webrick-1.3.1/lib/webrick/httpservlet/cgihandler.rb:21:in `<class:CGIHandler>': incompatible character encodings: ASCII-8BIT and UTF-8 (Encoding::CompatibilityError) 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/webrick-1.3.1/lib/webrick/httpservlet/cgihandler.rb:19:in `<module:HTTPServlet>' 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/webrick-1.3.1/lib/webrick/httpservlet/cgihandler.rb:17:in `<module:WEBrick>' 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/webrick-1.3.1/lib/webrick/httpservlet/cgihandler.rb:16:in `<top (required)>' 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/webrick-1.3.1/lib/webrick/httpservlet.rb:13:in `require' 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/webrick-1.3.1/lib/webrick/httpservlet.rb:13:in `<top (required)>' 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/webrick-1.3.1/lib/webrick/httpserver.rb:16:in `require' 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/webrick-1.3.1/lib/webrick/httpserver.rb:16:in `<top (required)>' 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/webrick-1.3.1/lib/webrick.rb:225:in `require' 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/webrick-1.3.1/lib/webrick.rb:225:in `<top (required)>' 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/webrick-1.3.1/lib/webrick/ssl.rb:8:in `require' 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/webrick-1.3.1/lib/webrick/ssl.rb:8:in `<top (required)>' 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/webrick-1.3.1/lib/webrick/https.rb:11:in `require' 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/webrick-1.3.1/lib/webrick/https.rb:11:in `<top (required)>' 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-mock_service-3.9.0/lib/pact/mock_service/cli.rb:173:in `require' 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-mock_service-3.9.0/lib/pact/mock_service/cli.rb:173:in `require_common_dependencies' 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-mock_service-3.9.0/lib/pact/mock_service/cli.rb:30:in `service' 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in `run' 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/invocation.rb:127:in `invoke_command' 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor.rb:392:in `dispatch' 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/base.rb:485:in `start' 2022/02/24 12:46:46 [ERROR] service: from /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/app/pact-mock-service.rb:15:in `<main>' 2022/02/24 12:46:56 [ERROR] Expected server to start < 10s. Timed out waiting for Mock Server to start on port 41519 - are you sure it's running? --- FAIL: TestClientPact_GetUser (0.00s) --- FAIL: TestClientPact_GetUser/the_user_exists (0.00s) client_pact_test.go:73: Error on Verify: Post "http://localhost:41519/interactions": dial tcp 127.0.0.1:41519: connect: connection refused FAIL Post "http://localhost:41519/pact": dial tcp 127.0.0.1:41519: connect: connection refused FAIL http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/consumer/client 11.194s FAIL```

matt.fellows

2022-02-24 06:08

No, I use ZSH it?s not the terminal

matt.fellows

2022-02-24 06:10

can you please run `file -ib /home/altelma/projects/J�rmungandr/pact-workshop-go/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/webrick-1.3.1/lib/webrick/httpservlet/cgihandler.rb` ?

matt.fellows

2022-02-24 06:11

I?m wondering if somehow, the files themselves are encoded differently

matt.fellows

2022-02-24 06:12

I think you?re on linux, I believe that?s the right flag to get the encoding

phongthornk

2022-02-24 06:16

I get this `text/x-ruby; charset=us-ascii`

matt.fellows

2022-02-24 06:18

I noticed your file path had extended characters in it. Seems unlikely to be the cause, but if you move it to a dir like `/tmp/foo` do you still have the same issue?

phongthornk

2022-02-24 09:41

@matt.fellows Wow. It works :slightly_smiling_face: Thanks so much

matt.fellows

2022-02-24 11:01

oh really!!

phongthornk

2022-02-24 12:03

Yeah. It is complicated :slightly_smiling_face:. However, I walk through step 11 of the workshop. I try to publish the pact file to https://test.pact.dius.com.au https://test.pact.dius.com.au/pacts/provider/GoUserService2022/consumer/GoAdminService2022/latest I got failed when I run the command `make provider` ```FAIL: TestPactProvider/has_a_matching_body (0.00s) pact.go:629: Verifying a pact between GoAdminService and GoUserService Given User sally exists A request to login with user 'sally' with GET /user/10 returns a response which has a matching body pact.go:635: Verifying a pact between GoAdminService and GoUserService Given User sally exists A request to login with user 'sally' with GET /user/10 returns a response which has a matching body Actual: null Diff -------------------------------------- Key: - is expected + is actual Matching keys and values are not shown -{ - "firstName": "Sally", - "id": 10, - "lastName": "McSmiley Face??", - "type": "admin", - "username": "sally" -} Description of differences -------------------------------------- * Expected a Hash (like {"firstName"=>"Sally", "id"=>10, "lastName"=>"McSmiley Face??", "type"=>"admin", "username"=>"sally"}) but got nil at $``` I already tested with the local pact file. It works. @matt.fellows Do you have any ideas?

phongthornk

2022-02-24 12:22

In the log file not attach Authorization in header ```# Logfile created on 2022-02-24 19:20:00 +0700 by logger.rb/47272 I, [2022-02-24T19:20:02.367233 #78258] INFO -- : Running example 'Verifying a pact between GoAdminService and GoUserService Given User sally exists A request to login with user 'sally' with GET /user/10 returns a response which has status code 200' I, [2022-02-24T19:20:02.374053 #78258] INFO -- : Sending GET request to path: "/user/10" with headers: {"X_PACT_PROVIDER_STATES"=>[{"name"=>"User sally exists"}]}, see debug logs for body D, [2022-02-24T19:20:02.374120 #78258] DEBUG -- : body : I, [2022-02-24T19:20:02.392009 #78258] INFO -- : Received response with status: 401, headers: {"Content-Length"=>"0", "Content-Type"=>"application/json; charset=utf-8", "Date"=>"Thu, 24 Feb 2022 12:20:02 GMT", "X-Api-Correlation-Id"=>"8c2aa5ba-ea1e-4a39-8dfd-20a333d6f387"}, see debug logs for body D, [2022-02-24T19:20:02.392090 #78258] DEBUG -- : body: ```

matt.fellows

2022-02-24 12:23

It looked like what was published has a different name to what you're verifying (missing 2022cin the application names)

matt.fellows

2022-02-24 12:23

So you're probably verifying a different contract

phongthornk

2022-02-24 15:01

@matt.fellows Oh that's true. I see code to set provider name not using `os.Getenv` Now It works. Thanks so much.

ezequiel.uhrig

2022-02-25 13:46

has joined #general

emin.sahin

2022-02-26 13:53

has joined #general

ihassin

2022-02-27 21:20

has joined #general

yumiihuang

2022-02-28 09:55

has joined #general

yousaf

2022-02-28 11:57

has joined #general

gerry

2022-02-28 12:56

has joined #general

agustina.bosso

2022-02-28 16:04

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-03-01 09:39

deactivateduser320370

2022-03-01 11:41

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-03-01 11:47

Hey, thanks for the warm welcome Matt. I am so excited to be here, and to be able to dedicate my full time to Pact and it's incredible community. If you have any questions, thoughts, wishes or just want to vent or chat, feel free to reach out, my door is always open.

luke.bickell

2022-03-01 14:46

has joined #general

james.williams

2022-03-01 16:29

has joined #general

aforeman

2022-03-01 22:13

Welcome @yousafn@yousafn@yousafn ! So pleased to have you join us :pactflow-platypus-slack: :tada:

qluck

2022-03-01 22:15

has joined #general

peter.pinda

2022-03-01 23:37

has joined #general

tjones

2022-03-02 02:14

Great choice!!

yousafn

2022-03-02 11:29

Thanks for all the guidance, advice and helping me become a better engineer@tjones. Looking forward to catching up at some point in the future.

patrice.krakow

2022-03-02 11:38

QUESTION(S): If you would draw the "scope" of respectively "functional testing" (owned by the provider) and "contract testing" (owned by the consumers) as a Venn diagram, (a) would you fully include the "contract testing" circle/set within the "functional testing" circle/set, or (b) would you have a part of the "contract testing" circle/set not included within the "functional testing" circle/set? If you would go with option (b), what would be a representative example of a "contract test" not being as well a good "functional test"? I do have my own answers to these questions - being more "dynamic" than just replying (a) or (b) - but, I am wondering what are your thoughts... P.S. This question has been triggered by the great video _"Best practices for writing consumer tests"_ with @bethskurrie | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPuHb9Rl8Zo&t=1333s

yousafn

2022-03-02 12:23

Great discussion topic @patrice.krakow I think my answer would be it depends on my current client situation and problem they are trying to solve. Without contract testing I would expect to have functional testing at both the provider and consumer side with unit tests and component integration tests. These would use mocks/doubles and could go out of sync from the providing service. We would normally have system integration tests that run through some smoke/sanity tests of core user flows when its deployed into a shared environment. This is where we would see our biggest problems, where regressions were introduced not due to changes in the functional flow, but due to the messaging exchange breaking down due to a schema change in an API. Contract testing plugged that gap, and the way the pacts are generated in the consumer side code, means the pacts are generated as a side effect of the functional testing taking place on the consumer side. (so I would use a unit testing framework such as jest to assert that my client does whatever it should with a valid response, as I assert against the clients output) so getting my functional testing covered, but with the benefit of generating that pact for provider verification, ensuring that when we deploy we don't have a regression because of a schema change. We might still find that a system integration test may still fail but just to application logic and not message schema. On the provider side, the contract verification isn't about functionally testing the providers business logic.

patrice.krakow

2022-03-02 13:32

I was writing my question in the context of https://docs.pact.io/consumer#use-pact-for-contract-testing-not-functional-testing-of-the-provider, avoiding the pitfall of having the consumer testing the provider API. The goal of the consumer is not to discover _bugs in the provider (though this might come up as a by-product)_. So, it is clear that the functional testing of the provider API goes beyond a specific Pact written by a specific customer. So, from a Venn diagram perspective the "provider functional testing scope" is certainly not included in the "consumers contract testing scope". The fact that discovering _bugs in the provider [...] might come up as a by-product_, makes it clear that there is a non-empty intersection between the "consumers contract testing scope" and the "provider functional testing scope". Then, the last question is if the "consumers contract testing scope" is fully included in the "provider functional testing scope", or if there are tests in the "consumers contract testing scope" that are not in the "provider functional testing scope". My answer is *"eventually no"*. Let me explain... The goal of the "provider functional testing" is to _ensure that the provider does the right thing with a request_, coming for *any/all* consumers! So, it's a "no". However, there is a dynamic. When the provider first defines its functional tests, you cannot expect him to cover all possible requests, and the contract tests from the consumers can enrich its functional tests. So, a contract test will be either already included within the "provider functional testing scope", or the provider will extend its functional tests in order to have it eventually included. So, as shown in the diagram below, I would see the "provider functional testing scope" successively expanding with new contract tests to eventually cover the "consumers contract testing scope". Note that, ideally, at each "iteration" the intersection is bigger making the needed expansion smaller/easier and smaller/easier.

dmitry.korolev

2022-03-02 14:02

Hi All :wave: I am curious if somebody dealt with applying contract tests to libraries. I have a provider with quite complex API, and the team who develops this provider also ships the client library that hides the complexity of this interface. They still want to guard this interface with contract tests, which resulted into contracts between the provider and the library. The library of course is not deployable by itself, so they cannot apply can-i-deploy tool to it. Therefore, when consumers that integrate the library are deployed, there is no way to see if some contracts are broken or not. The alternative is of course to implement contracts between services ignoring the library, but then consumers will need to know the details about the API in between the library and the provider, which is currently nicely hidden from them. Any thoughts? :slightly_smiling_face:

pact544

2022-03-02 14:05

Shipping a client library _and_ doing consumer driven contract testing sound like complete opposites to me

2022-03-02 14:41

*This polly is closed.* @lewis.prescott079 has a polly for you!

patrice.krakow

2022-03-02 14:48

Hello @dmitry.korolev. When you wrote _"this interface"_, are you talking about (1) the (network) interface of "Service A" exposed to the "Client library", or (2) the (code) interface of the "Client library" exposed to the "Service B" and "Service C"?

dmitry.korolev

2022-03-02 14:49

Hello Patrice, I meant the network interface exposed by Service A and consumed by Client library.

dmitry.korolev

2022-03-02 14:52

To some extent yes. So, do you think that an old school integration test approach will be more appropriate in this case?

omer.bilgin

2022-03-02 15:51

has joined #general

banolik

2022-03-02 18:35

has joined #general

ancyaziz

2022-03-02 22:26

has joined #general

ancyaziz

2022-03-02 22:35

I am new to Pact Contract Testing. I am using Pact-go and I have a Struct with String[], I need to write a pact:example for this, but I am getting error "`struct field tag `json:"tags" pact:"example="Name::CustomerName","Status::Live""` not compatible with reflect.StructTag.Get: key:"value" pairs not separated by spaces`". JSON value is ```"tags":["Name::CustomerName","Status::Live"]``` Under Struct, this is what I have which is throwing error. `Tags []string `json:"tags" pact:"example="Name::CustomerName","Status::Live""`` can someone tell me the correct format of pact:example for string[]?

timothyg

2022-03-02 23:40

has joined #general

harihararaj.lk

2022-03-03 09:44

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-03-03 11:38

I see you?ve asked in Pact Go - I?ll answer there.

matt.fellows

2022-03-03 11:39

I wrote an answer to this question a while back here :https://pactflow.io/blog/should-i-write-contract-tests-for-client-sdks/

matt.fellows

2022-03-03 11:40

We also answered it in one of our AMAs: https://docs.pact.io/help/amas#north-america-2

matt.fellows

2022-03-03 11:40

> How can I do contract testing with API clients/SDKS?

toyamarinyon

2022-03-03 13:25

has joined #general

david342

2022-03-03 13:26

has joined #general

yesilmenadil

2022-03-03 16:14

has joined #general

dajaman1

2022-03-03 20:30

has joined #general

smalladi

2022-03-03 21:40

I am new to pact contract testing . When i try to build provider service i am facing below error . Could you please help .

smalladi

2022-03-03 21:40

http://au.com.dius.pact.core.pactbroker.NotFoundHalResponse: No HAL document found at path 'https://test.pactflow.io/pacts/provider/ProviderPact/for-verification' at app<//au.com>.dius.pact.core.pactbroker.HalClient.handleHalResponse(HalClient.kt:307) at app<//au.com>.dius.pact.core.pactbroker.HalClient.access$handleHalResponse(HalClient.kt:141) at app<//au.com>.dius.pact.core.pactbroker.HalClient$postJson$3.invoke$lambda-0(HalClient.kt:482) at app//org.apache.hc.client5.http.impl.classic.CloseableHttpClient.execute(CloseableHttpClient.java:202) at app//org.apache.hc.client5.http.impl.classic.CloseableHttpClient.execute(CloseableHttpClient.java:143)

uglyog

2022-03-03 22:02

You need to configure the authentication correctly, that resource requires a username and password

smalladi

2022-03-03 22:08

```pactbroker_host pactbroker_token``` I have these two properties

uglyog

2022-03-03 22:08

Are they correct?

uglyog

2022-03-03 22:09

I think that URL uses a username/password, not a token

smalladi

2022-03-03 22:11

ya they are correct values

smalladi

2022-03-03 22:12

but before i was able to use host, token. I am doing the same for one other application and it is not working

smalladi

2022-03-03 22:21

If i run the pact provider test alone

smalladi

2022-03-03 22:21

No HAL document found at path 'https://brownbag.pactflow.io/pacts/provider/ProviderPact/for-verification' http://au.com.dius.pact.core.pactbroker.NotFoundHalResponse: No HAL document found at path 'https://brownbag.pactflow.io/pacts/provider/ProviderPact/for-verification' at app<//au.com>.dius.pact.core.pactbroker.HalClient.handleHalResponse(HalClient.kt:307)

uglyog

2022-03-03 22:36

The stack trace and logs will have a cause of the error. 99% of the time it is the authentication that is not correct

waqif

2022-03-03 23:32

has joined #general

dmitry.matveev

2022-03-03 23:44

has joined #general

mail_4brad

2022-03-04 02:48

The problem becomes when you have more than one client using the library, because that can lead to clients using different versions of the library. Do you choose to maintain integration tests to ensure coverage for every client version you ever released? (Maybe that is maintainable if breaking changes are minimal). Do you have a strategy for retiring old client versions now?

matt.fellows

2022-03-04 07:36

https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/CLS16AVEE/p1646367464971509

matt.fellows

2022-03-04 07:37

Just a little news over in Pactflow town :point_up:

david342

2022-03-04 09:58

I'd be very interested in this !

matt.fellows

2022-03-04 10:11

Whilst you?re waiting, @mcruzdrake is running a workshop very soon. Use the promo code MARIEWQF for a nice little incentive:shushing_face: Learn more here :point_right: https://bit.ly/3tffW5a

reuben.tonna

2022-03-04 14:32

has joined #general

negrolyze

2022-03-04 15:34

has joined #general

smalladi

2022-03-04 16:11

```at app//au.com.dius.pact.core.pactbroker.HalClient.handleHalResponse(HalClient.kt:307) at app//au.com.dius.pact.core.pactbroker.HalClient.access$handleHalResponse(HalClient.kt:141) at app//au.com.dius.pact.core.pactbroker.HalClient$postJson$3.invoke$lambda-0(HalClient.kt:482) at app//org.apache.hc.client5.http.impl.classic.CloseableHttpClient.execute(CloseableHttpClient.java:202) at app//org.apache.hc.client5.http.impl.classic.CloseableHttpClient.execute(CloseableHttpClient.java:143) at app//au.com.dius.pact.core.pactbroker.HalClient$postJson$3.invoke(HalClient.kt:481) at app//au.com.dius.pact.core.support.KotlinLanguageSupportKt.handleWith(KotlinLanguageSupport.kt:39) at app//au.com.dius.pact.core.pactbroker.HalClient.postJson(HalClient.kt:480) at app//au.com.dius.pact.core.pactbroker.PactBrokerClient$fetchPactsUsingNewEndpoint$2.invoke(PactBrokerClient.kt:345) at app//au.com.dius.pact.core.support.KotlinLanguageSupportKt.handleWith(KotlinLanguageSupport.kt:39) at app//au.com.dius.pact.core.pactbroker.PactBrokerClient.fetchPactsUsingNewEndpoint(PactBrokerClient.kt:344) at app//au.com.dius.pact.core.pactbroker.PactBrokerClient.fetchPactsUsingNewEndpointTyped(PactBrokerClient.kt:307) at app//au.com.dius.pact.core.pactbroker.PactBrokerClient.fetchConsumersWithSelectors(PactBrokerClient.kt:276) at app//au.com.dius.pact.provider.junitsupport.loader.PactBrokerLoader.loadPactsForProvider(PactBrokerLoader.kt:231) at app//au.com.dius.pact.provider.junitsupport.loader.PactBrokerLoader.load(PactBrokerLoader.kt:118) at app//au.com.dius.pact.provider.junit5.PactVerificationInvocationContextProvider$resolvePactSources$pactSources$1$pacts$1.invoke(PactJUnit5VerificationProvider.kt:83) at app//au.com.dius.pact.core.support.KotlinLanguageSupportKt.handleWith(KotlinLanguageSupport.kt:39) at app//au.com.dius.pact.provider.junit5.PactVerificationInvocationContextProvider.resolvePactSources(PactJUnit5VerificationProvider.kt:83) at app//au.com.dius.pact.provider.junit5.PactVerificationInvocationContextProvider.provideTestTemplateInvocationContexts(PactJUnit5VerificationProvider.kt:44) at app//org.junit.jupiter.engine.descriptor.TestTemplateTestDescriptor.lambda$execute$0(TestTemplateTestDescriptor.java:103) at java.base@17.0.1/java.util.stream.ReferencePipeline$7$1.accept(ReferencePipeline.java:273) at java.base@17.0.1/java.util.ArrayList$ArrayListSpliterator.forEachRemaining(ArrayList.java:1625) at java.base@17.0.1/java.util.stream.AbstractPipeline.copyInto(AbstractPipeline.java:509) at java.base@17.0.1/java.util.stream.AbstractPipeline.wrapAndCopyInto(AbstractPipeline.java:499) at java.base@17.0.1/java.util.stream.ForEachOps$ForEachOp.evaluateSequential(ForEachOps.java:150) at java.base@17.0.1/java.util.stream.ForEachOps$ForEachOp$OfRef.evaluateSequential(ForEachOps.java:173) at java.base@17.0.1/java.util.stream.AbstractPipeline.evaluate(AbstractPipeline.java:234) at java.base@17.0.1/java.util.stream.ReferencePipeline.forEach(ReferencePipeline.java:596) at app//org.junit.jupiter.engine.descriptor.TestTemplateTestDescriptor.execute(TestTemplateTestDescriptor.java:107) at app//org.junit.jupiter.engine.descriptor.TestTemplateTestDescriptor.execute(TestTemplateTestDescriptor.java:42) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.lambda$executeRecursively$6(NodeTestTask.java:151) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.ThrowableCollector.execute(ThrowableCollector.java:73) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.lambda$executeRecursively$8(NodeTestTask.java:141) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.Node.around(Node.java:137) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.lambda$executeRecursively$9(NodeTestTask.java:139) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.ThrowableCollector.execute(ThrowableCollector.java:73) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.executeRecursively(NodeTestTask.java:138) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.execute(NodeTestTask.java:95) at java.base@17.0.1/java.util.ArrayList.forEach(ArrayList.java:1511) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.SameThreadHierarchicalTestExecutorService.invokeAll(SameThreadHierarchicalTestExecutorService.java:41) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.lambda$executeRecursively$6(NodeTestTask.java:155) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.ThrowableCollector.execute(ThrowableCollector.java:73) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.lambda$executeRecursively$8(NodeTestTask.java:141) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.Node.around(Node.java:137) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.lambda$executeRecursively$9(NodeTestTask.java:139) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.ThrowableCollector.execute(ThrowableCollector.java:73) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.executeRecursively(NodeTestTask.java:138) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.execute(NodeTestTask.java:95) at java.base@17.0.1/java.util.ArrayList.forEach(ArrayList.java:1511) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.SameThreadHierarchicalTestExecutorService.invokeAll(SameThreadHierarchicalTestExecutorService.java:41) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.lambda$executeRecursively$6(NodeTestTask.java:155) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.ThrowableCollector.execute(ThrowableCollector.java:73) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.lambda$executeRecursively$8(NodeTestTask.java:141) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.Node.around(Node.java:137) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.lambda$executeRecursively$9(NodeTestTask.java:139) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.ThrowableCollector.execute(ThrowableCollector.java:73) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.executeRecursively(NodeTestTask.java:138) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.NodeTestTask.execute(NodeTestTask.java:95) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.SameThreadHierarchicalTestExecutorService.submit(SameThreadHierarchicalTestExecutorService.java:35) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.HierarchicalTestExecutor.execute(HierarchicalTestExecutor.java:57) at app//org.junit.platform.engine.support.hierarchical.HierarchicalTestEngine.execute(HierarchicalTestEngine.java:54) at app//org.junit.platform.launcher.core.EngineExecutionOrchestrator.execute(EngineExecutionOrchestrator.java:107) at app//org.junit.platform.launcher.core.EngineExecutionOrchestrator.execute(EngineExecutionOrchestrator.java:88) at app//org.junit.platform.launcher.core.EngineExecutionOrchestrator.lambda$execute$0(EngineExecutionOrchestrator.java:54) at app//org.junit.platform.launcher.core.EngineExecutionOrchestrator.withInterceptedStreams(EngineExecutionOrchestrator.java:67) at app//org.junit.platform.launcher.core.EngineExecutionOrchestrator.execute(EngineExecutionOrchestrator.java:52) at app//org.junit.platform.launcher.core.DefaultLauncher.execute(DefaultLauncher.java:114) at app//org.junit.platform.launcher.core.DefaultLauncher.execute(DefaultLauncher.java:86) at app//org.junit.platform.launcher.core.DefaultLauncherSession$DelegatingLauncher.execute(DefaultLauncherSession.java:86) at app//org.junit.platform.launcher.core.SessionPerRequestLauncher.execute(SessionPerRequestLauncher.java:53) at org.gradle.api.internal.tasks.testing.junitplatform.JUnitPlatformTestClassProcessor$CollectAllTestClassesExecutor.processAllTestClasses(JUnitPlatformTestClassProcessor.java:99) at org.gradle.api.internal.tasks.testing.junitplatform.JUnitPlatformTestClassProcessor$CollectAllTestClassesExecutor.access$000(JUnitPlatformTestClassProcessor.java:79) at org.gradle.api.internal.tasks.testing.junitplatform.JUnitPlatformTestClassProcessor.stop(JUnitPlatformTestClassProcessor.java:75) at org.gradle.api.internal.tasks.testing.SuiteTestClassProcessor.stop(SuiteTestClassProcessor.java:61) at java.base@17.0.1/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) at java.base@17.0.1/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:77) at java.base@17.0.1/jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) at java.base@17.0.1/java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:568) at org.gradle.internal.dispatch.ReflectionDispatch.dispatch(ReflectionDispatch.java:36) at org.gradle.internal.dispatch.ReflectionDispatch.dispatch(ReflectionDispatch.java:24) at org.gradle.internal.dispatch.ContextClassLoaderDispatch.dispatch(ContextClassLoaderDispatch.java:33) at org.gradle.internal.dispatch.ProxyDispatchAdapter$DispatchingInvocationHandler.invoke(ProxyDispatchAdapter.java:94) at jdk.proxy2/jdk.proxy2.$Proxy5.stop(Unknown Source) at org.gradle.api.internal.tasks.testing.worker.TestWorker$3.run(TestWorker.java:193) at org.gradle.api.internal.tasks.testing.worker.TestWorker.executeAndMaintainThreadName(TestWorker.java:129) at org.gradle.api.internal.tasks.testing.worker.TestWorker.execute(TestWorker.java:100) at org.gradle.api.internal.tasks.testing.worker.TestWorker.execute(TestWorker.java:60) at org.gradle.process.internal.worker.child.ActionExecutionWorker.execute(ActionExecutionWorker.java:56) at org.gradle.process.internal.worker.child.SystemApplicationClassLoaderWorker.call(SystemApplicationClassLoaderWorker.java:133) at org.gradle.process.internal.worker.child.SystemApplicationClassLoaderWorker.call(SystemApplicationClassLoaderWorker.java:71) at app//worker.org.gradle.process.internal.worker.GradleWorkerMain.run(GradleWorkerMain.java:69) at app//worker.org.gradle.process.internal.worker.GradleWorkerMain.main(GradleWorkerMain.java:74)```

smalladi

2022-03-04 16:12

full stack strace, i could not see anything related to credentials

42amehmeto

2022-03-04 19:17

has joined #general

rawatankit90

2022-03-04 22:33

has joined #general

tom.daley

2022-03-07 09:09

has joined #general

leon.brown

2022-03-07 09:26

has joined #general

aurelia.rochat

2022-03-07 10:16

has joined #general

alanbos

2022-03-07 18:29

Having embarked upon looking at consumer-driven contract testing against a GraphQL server, I've come to the point where I need to step back and ask folks here about the appropriate strategies for this compared to testing REST contracts. With a REST provider, contracts tend to be based on quite specific endpoints with focused responses, and (tricks with Accept headers and query parameters aside) there isn't a whole lot of flexibility in what the consumer can expect out of e.g. the response to a GET. This allows provider tests (state change handlers) to be less consumer-focused (ideally completely decoupled from a specific consumer). With GraphQL, the entry points to the graph that a particular consumer app uses may be relatively small in number to choose from, but the number of different navigation paths from that starting query grow exponentially as the graph becomes larger and more connected. So what should such contracts be about? It seems to me that at its simplest the contract could be verifying the schema-correctness of the provider query; schema-correctness is relatively simple to test in most GraphQL servers, but what about the details of the response matching, and how far down the GraphQL server stack should be mocked in the state change handler? Is this an appropriate use of pact? With the chances that any two consumer app's queries being alike _very_ small, it feels like a full-stack state change handler that needs to provide the right returned data shape is going to either become extremely messy to maintain, or will need to do a lot of introspection and mock relatively high up the stack, or there will be effectively one state change handler per consumer contract. If anyone has any opinions or experience on the benefits of different approaches to GraphQL consumer-driven contract testing, I'd be very interested - TIA.

kabhatiya

2022-03-08 00:51

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-03-08 06:12

As a start, I put my general thoughts here previously: https://pactflow.io/blog/contract-testing-a-graphql-api/

matt.fellows

2022-03-08 06:17

I don?t have any recent good experiences with large GraphQL rollouts

matt.fellows

2022-03-08 06:17

@sreid might have something to add?

sreid

2022-03-08 08:03

Hey @alanbos, Yep, graphql pacts can be tricky! One of the things we did was to have interactions use a print of the GQL (parsed GraphQL) as the `withQuery` and formatted variables format GQL definition: ```import { gql } from '@apollo/client' export const GQL_QUALIFIED_NAME = gql` mutation mutationName($type: TokenType!, $token: String!) { mutationName(type: $type, token: $token) { transactionId id orderNumber } } ```` Consumer test file ```// These must be static for Pact versioning const exampleRequestToken= '8b06e062-32e3-41b3-b3ae-fbddb637eca0' // generator: generateFakeGuid(), const graphQLResult = { transactionId: '2c8ac019dfbe430d087b1d23', // generator: generateFakeMongoDBId(), id: 'ac1a5c72-73e8-4d36-bd79-6c1fbfcfb27f', // generator: generateFakeGuid(), orderNumber: '320403409' // generator: generateFakeExternalOrderId() } const requestFormat= { token: Matchers.regex({ generate: exampleRequestToken, matcher: Matchers.UUID_V4_FORMAT }), type: REQUEST_TOKEN_TYPE } const resultFormat = { transactionId: Matchers.regex({ generate: graphQLResult.exampleResultId, matcher: '^[0-9a-f]{24}$' }), id: Matchers.regex({ generate: graphQLResult.exampleResultGUID, matcher: Matchers.UUID_V4_FORMAT }), orderNumber: Matchers.regex({ generate: graphQLResult.exampleOrderNumber, matcher: '^[0-9]{9}$' }) } // Define Interaction on client new ApolloGraphQLInteraction() .uponReceiving('internal test name') .given('pact scenario name must be identical in provider and consumer') .withOperation('mutationName') .withQuery(print(GQL_QUALIFIED_NAME)) .withRequest({ path: '/graphql', method: 'POST' }) .withVariables(requestFormat) .willRespondWith({ status: 200, headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json; charset=utf-8' }, body: { data: { mutationName: Matchers.like(resultFormat) } } }) ) // Execute interaction on client await expect( client.mutate({ mutation: GQL_QUALIFIED_NAME , variables: { token: exampleRequestToken, type: REQUEST_TOKEN_TYPE } }) ).resolves.toEqual({ data: { mutationName: graphQLResult } })```

matt.fellows

2022-03-08 08:08

Thanks for sharing @sreid :taco:

sreid

2022-03-08 08:22

The other tricky bit we had was getting Pact to understand how to host these queries. We ended up spinning up an Express server to handle the request from Pact on the Provider side our pact server: `note: we didn't resolve getting typedefs dynamically built at test time, so they are manually added here` ```import express from 'express' import { Express } from 'express-serve-static-core' import { ApolloServer, gql } from 'apollo-server-express' import { Server } from 'http' // TODO really needs to use scheama.gql, and not be manually updated const typeDefs = gql` enum TokenType { TOKEN_TYPE_A TOKEN_TYPE_B } ` export default class GraphQLTestServerFactory { apolloServer: ApolloServer expressServer: Express // eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/explicit-module-boundary-types constructor(resolvers) { // Provide resolver functions for your schema fields this.apolloServer = new ApolloServer({ typeDefs, resolvers }) this.expressServer = express() this.apolloServer.applyMiddleware({ app: this.expressServer }) } listen({ port }: { port: number }): Server { return this.expressServer.listen({ port }) } }``` Then jest problems, but it provided enough flexibility to test multiple scenarios Provider Test file: ```let testFactory: GraphQLTestServerFactory const mutationNameMock = jest.fn() beforeAll(() => { jest.setTimeout(30000) // IO is slow sometimes const resolvers = { Mutation: { mutationName: (_, params) => mutationNameMock(params), }, } testFactory = new GraphQLTestServerFactory(resolvers) }) // Test describe('Pact Verification', () => { it('validates charge Paydock with token', async done => { const opts: VerifierOptions = { stateHandlers: { 'pact scenario name must be identical in provider and consumer': async () => { mocked(serviceA.internalFunctionA).mockResolvedValueOnce(valueA) mocked(serviceA.internalFunctionA).mockResolvedValueOnce(valueB) mocked(mutationNameMock).mockImplementationOnce(({ token, type }) => mutationsClass.mutationNameMethod(type, token), ) return Promise.resolve('this worked') }, 'a different pact scenario': async () => { mocked(serviceA.internalFunctionA).mockResolvedValueOnce(valueA) mocked(serviceA.internalFunctionA).mockResolvedValueOnce(valueC) mocked(mutationNameMock).mockImplementationOnce(({ token, type }) => mutationsClass.mutationNameMethod(type, token), ) return Promise.resolve('this worked') }, 'a failing pact scenario': async () => { mocked(serviceA.internalFunctionA).mockResolvedValueOnce(valueA) mocked(serviceA.internalFunctionA).mockResolvedValueOnce(undefined) mocked(mutationNameMock).mockImplementationOnce(({ token, type }) => mutationsClass.mutationNameMethod(type, token), ) return Promise.resolve('this worked') }, }, provider: 'provider-service-name', consumerVersionSelectors: [{ tag: 'master', latest: true }], pactBrokerUrl: process.env.PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL, enablePending: true, includeWipPactsSince: '2020-01-01', providerVersion: process.env.BUILDKITE_COMMIT, providerVersionTags: process.env.BUILDKITE_BRANCH, providerBaseUrl: 'http://localhost:4002', publishVerificationResult: http://process.env.CI === 'true', logLevel: 'info', } const output = await new Verifier(opts).verifyProvider() console.log(output) done() }) })```

sreid

2022-03-08 08:23

It doesn't wrap neatly into jest scenarios, and there may be better approaches, but this hopefully gets you started

varnit.garg2424

2022-03-08 08:48

Hey Guys, I've come across this below question, can you please provide some insights? Bascially, per my understanding there are two ways to create/run pact tests.. 1. create and run the pact tests just like unit tests i.e mock all the input data as we do in traditional unit tests (no need to spin up the dependencies and no need to create the instance of application) 2. spin up the environment, run the instance of the application along with all the dependencies like database etc and then run the pact tests.. I understand that the major usp of pact is that it provides fast feedback and hence #1 should be relevant. However, I would like to hear your thoughts as well.

matt.fellows

2022-03-08 09:15

We've done AMAs on the scope of these tests before: https://docs.pact.io/help#join-an-upcoming-ask-me-anything-ama-session

matt.fellows

Are you talking about consumer or provider side here?

matt.fellows

Consumer should be closer to a unit test

varnit.garg2424

and how about provider side?

matt.fellows

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go#consumer

Provider usually you would start the application locally and stub out dependencies

varnit.garg2424

2022-03-08 09:19

Oh, but why can't the provider tests be closer to a unit test? what if we just mock the function which returns the end result?

matt.fellows

2022-03-08 09:28

Can you perhaps elaborate on what exactly you're mocking here?

luis.garelli

2022-03-08 09:29

has joined #general

varnit.garg2424

2022-03-08 10:41

Let's suppose in case of event driven architecture, there is one boundary function which takes some input and generate the output which will then be put in to the queue. I'm mocking the input data to that function. I found this on pact official website, then pact tests are two set of unit tests (one set on consumer side and another one on provider side) Having said that, I'm curious to understand what is the need to start the provider application locally?

alanbos

2022-03-08 10:55

Many thanks @sreid - that's very useful in helping to understand just how the provider verification might proceed. I guess my questions about GraphQL-based contract testing are as much about the _what_ and _why_ as the _how_. If you have a growing number of client apps (consumers) all with very specific interactions with a very rich connected graph, then it feels to me that the contracts become extremely specific to the consumer and possibly quite complex to verify; the entry points (supported queries and mutations) may be smaller in number and more analogous to a set of REST entry points - but its the flexibility in specifying the response shape that feels to me where the contract approach struggles. I wonder whether a simpler level of contract that is based on schema validity (i.e. is this GraphQL request schema-valid?) might strike the appropriate balance between affording protection to consumers and not introducing an unbounded set of highly specific contracts to be maintained in the provider.

andrevdrodrigues

2022-03-08 12:50

has joined #general

tobias

2022-03-08 13:11

has joined #general

mutharaju.kk

2022-03-08 14:34

has joined #general

will.robinson

2022-03-08 14:54

has joined #general

bernard

2022-03-08 16:13

Hi :wave: I'm reusing a participant (my consumer) with a colleague who has created a provider. And I'm seeing two integrations in PactFlow. The error I would like to fix is below... ```Computer says no �_(?)_/� There is no verified pact between version 2eaea58+1646755788 of pactflow-example-consumer and the version of pactflow-example-provider currently deployed to production (no such version exists)``` But I don't want to verify the `pactflow-example-provider` I only want to verify the new integration `pactflow-example-provider-restassured`.

fragonib

2022-03-08 16:22

has joined #general

bernard

2022-03-08 16:33

I was able to resolve this error by deleting my local `pacts/*.json` file.

jason.wang

2022-03-08 19:05

has joined #general

qluck

2022-03-08 20:54

Hi all! I'm trying to find a good way to debug my tests in Intellij. Does anyone have a run configuration or any general tips of how to set this up? Thanks in advance!

sreid

2022-03-08 23:10

@alanbos I guess my advice here has some facets. ? Making a service too generalized in possible use cases may result in something that _by nature_ is hard to develop edge cases for ? Consumers should be able to validate their scenario is supported by the provider ? Consumer driven contract tests give assurances to the consumer that what they expect to happen, will happen, by the design of contract testing ? Consumers should be providing these Pacts to you for their scenario's, especially if they're quite complex ? Graphql has inbuilt schema validation ? Graphql queries define result shapes that could be a subset of data. ? I think this is a limitation around Pact's query and response definitions that they can't be exhaustively tested for each possible combination ? Contracts allow expectations of valid combinations to be set, and new Consumer Contracts can be easily added for new combinations, if the Consumer wanted a guarantee of the interface compatibility. It sounds like contract testing is exactly what you need. If their is a concern that a single provider is possibly doing too much work, it might be time to refactor into smaller responsibility interfaces.

matt.fellows

2022-03-08 23:31

The main point of graphql, as I understand, is that consumers choose what data to return. But the Provider still must be able to return the full dataset. So whilst each consumer may have wildly different shaped queries, it shouldn?t actually change the provider implementation. What you do get however, is complete visibility into the types of queries you need to actually support. Where it might get tricky is dealing with all of the various provider states. There are strategies here, but they are no different to regular HTTP Pact.

matt.fellows

2022-03-08 23:33

so that question is going to be very language specific. Which language - Java?

matt.fellows

2022-03-09 00:09

Thanks for clarifying. So in message Pact, you can definitely get closer to a true unit test.

matt.fellows

2022-03-09 00:10

I asked, because in an HTTP provider test, you usually have several important layers that can be tested - e.g. the controllers, routing etc. and the actual request handlers. Extensive mocking here can be problematic, because the goal is to make sure the provider can both understand and respond correctly.

matt.fellows

2022-03-09 00:10

The answer is ?it depends?, basically. If you have really good coverage across various layers of the system where you have confidence in narrowing the scope of a pact test - all power to you

varnit.garg2424

2022-03-09 00:28

Got it. Thank you for explaining it in detail! :slightly_smiling_face:

sam680

2022-03-09 05:12

has joined #general

annette.reid

2022-03-09 07:43

has joined #general

alanbos

2022-03-09 08:25

Thanks both for your thoughts on this - @matt.fellows when you say "the Provider must still be able to return the full dataset", what would that practically entail in a large highly connected graph - the nature of graphql servers tending to be mostly gateways to their own set of external "providers", this seems to imply mocking all of those backend services in order to ensure that consumer contracts are covered; it would be very complex to introspect the query issued by a particular contract and figure out dynamically what mocks are required, and I feel that writing a dedicated state handler for every contract seems excessive in terms of coupling and brittleness. I'm wondering what all the effort of such mocking actually achieves; in GraphQL the schema is the language of the contract - if my query is schema-valid, what extra assurances does a consumer gain from the provider filling in the response, especially if most of the provider stack exercised by doing so tends to be boilerplate server framework code? The implied contract of a GraphQL server is "if your query is schema-valid, I will respond with data in the shape you ask for". Anyway thank you for taking the time to respond to my existential angst :-) I think my current feeling is that contract testing as a pathway to checking schema validity of the consumer's request seems the most useful approach, but detailed response checking isn't worth the investment of effort.

edouard.lopez

2022-03-09 09:56

Hello, One of our provider send a JSON like ```{ "level": 0, }``` But suddenly, they changed the `level` value to `2` which broke our consumer. Is this something we should verify with a contract test?

matt.fellows

2022-03-09 10:01

Have a read of this: https://docs.pact.io/consumer/contract_tests_not_functional_tests

alanbos

2022-03-09 10:43

P.S. Had I got my thinking hat on properly, I would have realised that e.g. ApolloServer can be easily run in a mode where all resolvers are mocked without any explicit action. So that means not only can the consumer assert on schema-validity of the request, but also on the expected shape (and more importantly here, the datatypes/values that come back in the leaf nodes of the response tree).

alex1toryanik

2022-03-09 11:08

has joined #general

aleem.riaz

2022-03-09 12:17

has joined #general

mike.geeves064

2022-03-09 12:28

An example of going from something like `{"level": 0}` to `{"level": "OFF"}`where you have a possibly unexpected different type due to a change stringifying an enum would be a valid use case, done that one before :slightly_smiling_face:

josephwoodward

2022-03-09 12:30

has joined #general

josephwoodward

2022-03-09 13:02

Hi, has anyone here experimented with PACT's messaging API? I'm looking at the state providers/handlers but I don't see much about their usage in the messaging API.

matt.fellows

2022-03-09 13:08

They should be exactly the same as the HTTP ones

matt.fellows

2022-03-09 13:08

Which language?

josephwoodward

2022-03-09 13:08

josephwoodward

2022-03-09 13:09

It's probably my lack of understanding of how it works then. My understanding is the support is still early so I didn't now how complete it was.

matt.fellows

2022-03-09 13:10

One sec

matt.fellows

2022-03-09 13:11

matt.fellows

2022-03-09 13:11

Go fully supports messages

matt.fellows

2022-03-09 13:12

The v2.x.x branch does to if you're up for using the next major

josephwoodward

2022-03-09 13:19

Thanks, I've been looking through the docs but couldn't see much mention of how to use the states from the messaging perspective. I'll take a look at the 2.x.x branch.

josephwoodward

2022-03-09 13:20

Perhaps a naive question, but how do the `Params` values get set? (https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/a40972e9597b0112937c5e1af79308f253bfd9c9/dsl/message.go#L56). I see `Given` sets the Name.

sebastianman45

2022-03-09 15:29

has joined #general

sebastianman45

2022-03-09 15:39

Hi guys, good morning :sunglasses::wave:; I'm new to testing with PACT, is there any way to get the response of the calls to the APIs after the provider side verification was done? my code is as follows ```describe("Validate pact of identity", () => { it("Validate pact of identity creation", () => { let opts = { providerBaseUrl: baseUrl.BASE_URL, changeOrigin: true, provider: "Create identity", logLevel: "DEBUG", pactUrls: [ path.resolve( process.cwd(), `./__tests__/contract/pacts/${identity_data.nameConsumerPactFile}-${identity_data.nameProviderPactFile}.json` ), ], requestFilter: async (req, res, next) => { req.headers["authorization"] = "Bearer UQiQPSG-MtD3mNHG0JZT2mqfBh1", next() }, consumerVersionTags: ["QA"], providerVersionTags: ["QA"], publishVerificationResult: false, providerVersion: "1.0.0" } return new Verifier(opts).verifyProvider() .then((res) => { console.log('-------> here I need to get the response <-------', res); }).catch((res) => { console.log('Pact Verification FAIL!: Get identity ', res); }); }) })```

edouard.lopez

2022-03-09 15:42

The type is the same, but the value is inconsistent, it doesn't make sense to have `level: 2` on the first level of the object. IMHO that sound like https://docs.pact.io/consumer/contract_tests_not_functional_tests#does-the-provider-return-the-expected-response So we should enfore the value for this level

qluck

2022-03-09 16:05

@matt.fellows we're using NodeJS

yousafn

2022-03-09 16:51

Hey @sebastianman45, Try setting the `logLevel` to `trace` See this https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/pull/462 for context . Hope that helps :crossed_fingers:

yousafn

2022-03-09 17:35

Ahh that doesn't appear to work, the code is in place in pact-js, but from what I can see pact-js's exported Verifier, calls pact-node, which in turn calls the pact-provider-verifier, which doesn't support the trace method and fails here `pact-node@10.17.1: Created '/Users/saf/dev/pactoss/jest-pact-typescript/node_modules/@pact-foundation/pact-node/standalone/darwin-1.88.81/pact/bin/pact-provider-verifier'` https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-provider-verifier/blob/7d52ff479e9ba982db49b9e120f4c876a515de97/lib/pact/provider_verifier/cli/verify.rb#L118 ```[2022-03-09 17:30:14.098 +0000] WARN (31571 on Yousafs-MacBook-Pro.local): pact-node@10.17.1: Pact exited with code 1. Error: Invalid log level 'trace'. Must be one of: debug, info, warn, error, fatal. at ChildProcess.<anonymous> (/Users/saf/dev/pactoss/jest-pact-typescript/node_modules/@pact-foundation/pact-node/src/verifier.ts:275:58)```

sebastianman45

2022-03-09 17:42

Hi @yousafn ) thanks for answering :sunglasses:, I want to contextualize my need a little more; the API that I am calling generates a guid that I need to capture in order to delete the data it generates (if I don't delete it, it could cause problems later); I don't know if there is any way to capture the response after of the validation of pact to later remove it with a hook :thinking_face:

yousafn

2022-03-09 17:50

Ahh brilliant, thanks for the additional context. I dug a little more into the code https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/commit/efa1e1034f0c58b26fe0cf4e148cdb728f5ae84d#diff-bcf94b082b5b493850358e0d5c89b94a20bf5fac5e6e5261c339688891f16047R131 and it seems if you do set 'debug' now request/response logging will be provided. We are currently capturing them, but not storing them, just outputting to the logs (as `trace` ) which isn't being set, so those refs probably want changing to `debug` as well. It wouldn't be too hard to store the req/responses in an object and return them. Would welcome a PR :sunglasses: otherwise feel free to raise a feature request via the GitHub issues on https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js or via our public roadmap https://pact.canny.io/

sebastianman45

2022-03-09 20:20

Thank you so much for you help :raised_hands: @yousafn, I already have created the issue in the repo https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/836

sergio.artero

2022-03-09 20:31

Hi, we are using the dockerized version of PactCLI (*pactfoundation/pact-cli:0.50.0.20*) and we are seeing this error verifying a contract when the provider responds with a `set-cookie` header (I have truncated it for readability purposes) ```pact-cli_1 | Failure/Error: replay_interaction interaction, options[:request_customizer] pact-cli_1 | pact-cli_1 | NoMethodError: pact-cli_1 | undefined method `strip' for nil:NilClass pact-cli_1 | # /usr/lib/ruby/gems/2.7.0/gems/rack-2.2.3/lib/rack/mock.rb:260:in `block in identify_cookie_attributes' ...``` Do you have any clue on how to fix this? Thanks in advance!

victor.lau

2022-03-09 20:46

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-03-09 20:52

might be best asking in #pact-js. What?s different about Pact that means you can?t use the usual debugging features?

matt.fellows

2022-03-09 20:53

If you expect level 0 to be the response for a particular shaped request, then you need to ensure the provider always does so, you usually telegraph this via a provider state

matt.fellows

2022-03-09 20:54

if the `0` can be any number, then a `like` matcher is appropriate

matt.fellows

2022-03-09 20:55

They aren?t, at the moment. The type is there because it may be received

matt.fellows

2022-03-09 20:55

I think we could actually support a `GivenWithParams(string, params)` in that API now

diva.pant1

2022-03-09 21:09

Random question, but when we do contract testing, then we create the json files explicitly right. The response that we want, do we write that explicitly in json file before running the Pact test?

qluck

2022-03-09 21:40

I mean I guess I just haven't figured out the correct run configuration. I'll ask in the pact-js channel to see if anyone has a good idea. Thanks!

matt.fellows

2022-03-10 04:43

No, the contract is generated by the act of writing and running pact (unit) tests

matt.fellows

2022-03-10 04:44

Where did you get this idea from? If in our docs, we should clarify as it is not expected that these are manually edited

lewis.prescott079

2022-03-10 09:24

I made a podcast about contract testing for Microservices. The first installment we talk about the challenges of testing including domain boundaries, breaking down monoliths and much more: https://anchor.fm/pactman-consulting

diva.pant1

2022-03-10 09:52

Yes its not mentioned in the docs, but after running my unit test I don't see a json file being generated, so I wonder where I am going wrong

matt.fellows

2022-03-10 11:47

So I?ve just cloned https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby cd `example/zoo-app` `bundle install` `rake spec` the pacts are generated: ```cat spec/pacts/zoo_app-animal_service.json { "consumer": { "name": "Zoo App" }, "provider": { "name": "Animal Service" }, "interactions": [ { "description": "a request for an alligator", "providerState": "there is an alligator named Mary", "request": { "method": "get", "path": "/alligators/Mary", "headers": { "Accept": "application/json" } }, "response": { "status": 200, "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json;charset=utf-8" },....```

matt.fellows

2022-03-10 11:47

what happens if you do the same?

matt.fellows

2022-03-10 11:48

If I then try to verify it: ```? animal-service git:(master) ? rake pact:verify SPEC_OPTS='' /Users/matthewfellows/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.7.3/bin/ruby -S pact verify --pact-helper /Users/matthewfellows/development/public/pact-ruby/example/animal-service/spec/service_consumers/pact_helper.rb INFO: Reading pact at ../zoo-app/spec/pacts/zoo_app-animal_service.json WARN: Please note: we are tracking events anonymously to gather important usage statistics like Pact-Ruby version and operating system. To disable tracking, set the 'PACT_DO_NOT_TRACK' environment variable to 'true'. Verifying a pact between Zoo App and Animal Service Given there is an alligator named Mary a request for an alligator with GET /alligators/Mary returns a response which has status code 200 has a matching body includes headers "Content-Type" which equals "application/json;charset=utf-8" Given there is not an alligator named Mary a request for an alligator with GET /alligators/Mary returns a response which has status code 404 Given an error occurs retrieving an alligator a request for an alligator with GET /alligators/Mary returns a response which has status code 500 has a matching body includes headers "Content-Type" which equals "application/json;charset=utf-8" 3 interactions, 0 failures ? animal-service git:(master) ? rm ../zoo-app/spec/pacts/zoo_app-animal_service.json ? animal-service git:(master) ? rake pact:verify SPEC_OPTS='' /Users/matthewfellows/.rvm/rubies/ruby-2.7.3/bin/ruby -S pact verify --pact-helper /Users/matthewfellows/development/public/pact-ruby/example/animal-service/spec/service_consumers/pact_helper.rb Error reading file from ../zoo-app/spec/pacts/zoo_app-animal_service.json No such file or directory @ rb_sysopen - ../zoo-app/spec/pacts/zoo_app-animal_service.json /Users/matthewfellows/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.7.3/gems/pact-support-1.17.0/lib/pact/consumer_contract/pact_file.rb:53:in `read' /Users/matthewfellows/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.7.3/gems/pact-support-1.17.0/lib/pact/consumer_contract/pact_file.rb:53:in `get_local' /Users/matthewfellows/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.7.3/gems/pact-support-1.17.0/lib/pact/consumer_contract/pact_file.rb:43:in `render_pact' /Users/matthewfellows/.rvm/gems/ruby-2.7.3/gems/pact-support-1.17.0/lib/pact/consumer_contract/pact_file.rb:24:in `read' /Users/matthewfellows/development/public/pact-ruby/lib/pact/provider/pact_source.rb:17:in `pact_json' /Users/matthewfellows/development/public/pact-ruby/lib/pact/provider/pact_spec_runner.rb:124:in `collect'```

matt.fellows

2022-03-10 11:50

Given that these projects work, I would 1. Check if they work for you 2. If the do, find out what?s different about your setup 3. Create a reproducable example that somebody can run to help guide you (see howtorepro for more on that) I?m guessing that perhaps Ruby is not a language you use very often? (I don?t use it/know it well) If that?s the case, i?d strongly suggest you pair with somebody that does.

2022-03-10 11:50

https://stackoverflow.com/help/minimal-reproducible-example

bernard

2022-03-10 12:20

:wave: @matt.fellows should we expect the consumer to be deployable if the provider has not implemented the business logic for an endpoint which has been declared in an OAS document?

matt.fellows

2022-03-10 12:32

No. Is this in the bi-directional contract testing flow?

matt.fellows

2022-03-10 12:32

I?d expect to either a) not publish the OAS to Pactflow, or publish the OAS to Pactflow but b) fail the provider test (and send that failure notice to Pactflow)

matt.fellows

2022-03-10 12:33

b) would result in a compatible contract, but because the provider self-verification is failing, the `can-i-deploy` check would fail, because the provider doesn?t implement the OAS (so it?s not trustworthy)

matt.fellows

2022-03-10 12:34

or put another way - would you want to deploy the consumer if the business logic of the provider wasn?t there, but the provider code was compatible with the spec?

matt.fellows

2022-03-10 12:34

(I wouldn?t)

bernard

2022-03-10 12:46

Hi @matt.fellows yes it's bi-directional

bernard

2022-03-10 12:47

We've updated the OAS (by adding a new endpoint) and published it to PactFlow.

bernard

2022-03-10 12:48

But the provider didn't have a test and implementation of that endpoint.

bernard

2022-03-10 12:48

But the consumer was able to publish and it was compatible after writing an interaction and consumer test.

bernard

2022-03-10 12:50

How can we b) fail the provider test (and send that failure notice to Pactflow)?

bernard

2022-03-10 13:00

What can I do to not be able to deploy my consumer if the provider hasn't implemented the endpoint, but the provider has published an OAS which makes my consumer compatible?

bernard

2022-03-10 13:20

I can see in PactFlow that... Your Provider Contract Is Not Compatible With The Provider Codebase. And I don't want to the consumer to be able to deploy. What would I have to do differently to make that happen?

yousafn

2022-03-10 13:52

Awesome! Have got this on Lewis! :headphones: Congrats on getting started!

diva.pant1

2022-03-10 14:08

When I run rake spec I get error

diva.pant1

2022-03-10 14:57

rake pact:verify gives error

bernard

2022-03-10 15:50

:here: Is anyone available to have a chat about a Consumer Pact being deployable when the implementation for a Provider endpoint hasn't been implemented?

kenneth.krause

2022-03-10 16:41

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-03-10 17:55

Hi Bernard, Checks would be required on the provider sides ci workflow when using BDC, prior to uploading the OAS spec to Pactflow, these would ensure that an OAS published, is honourable by the provider codebase. The onus here, is on the providing team to ensure they have checks in place. You have the ability to upload your provider OAS specs on branches, and mark them as deployed when they reach a particular environment, which allows your provider to develop breaking features on a branch, and get validation feedback via can-i-deploy as to whether that contract would honour the consumers needs.

yousafn

2022-03-10 17:57

> What can I do to not be able to deploy my consumer if the provider hasn't implemented the endpoint, but the provider has published an OAS which makes my consumer compatible? provider verifies OAS spec against providing service prior to uploading pactflow contract. You are able to upload a result along with the provider verification which would give you feedback via the pactflow UI, that the provider codebase is not compatible with its OAS spec. Hope that helps @bernard

bernard

2022-03-10 17:58

Thanks @yousafn I'll look into that

caiquedpfc

2022-03-10 20:11

I?m also getting the same problem

matt.fellows

2022-03-10 21:00

For reference, set the `success` property to `false` here: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/bi-directional-contract-testing/contracts/oas#failure-result

matt.fellows

2022-03-10 21:00

Are you saying the consumer is passing `can-i-deploy` in this case?

matt.fellows

2022-03-10 22:13

You might be best prefixing them with `bundle exec ?`

matt.fellows

2022-03-10 22:13

I can?t say for sure, but looks like you?re using Ruby 3 there - maybe it?s not supported? (I?m not sure)

matt.fellows

2022-03-10 22:13

have you tried 2.x.x?

sergio.artero

2022-03-10 22:24

@matt.fellows do you mind to confirm this is the proper channel to ask for this type of support?

matt.fellows

2022-03-10 22:25

Might be best raising an issue on github itself with the specific details that?s causing the issue

sergio.artero

2022-03-10 22:29

Great, I opened https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-cli/issues/43 a few days ago and thought it would be easier if I moved the conversation here. Reopened. Thanks for the prompt response.

bergner

2022-03-11 06:19

has joined #general

gotax80534

2022-03-11 06:55

has joined #general

diva.pant1

2022-03-11 08:21

Yes using ruby 3.1.0

josephwoodward

2022-03-11 09:37

@matt.fellows Would you be happy for me to create a PR to add support for `GivenWithParams`?

matt.fellows

2022-03-11 09:48

Sure thing! Alternatively you could look at using the beta which is going to be the next major release. I think the API is close enough to stable

mathias

2022-03-11 10:17

has joined #general

jtcsek

2022-03-11 13:02

has joined #general

bernard

2022-03-11 15:52

@matt.fellows yes the Consumer was passing `can-i-deploy`.

bernard

2022-03-11 16:05

Hi @matt.fellows and @yousafn firstly thanks for getting back to me. I think your feedback has resolved our issues. We were missing a step in the Provider workflow where the OAS has to be verified against the local API. Before running tests and attempting to publish.

yousafn

2022-03-11 16:20

Fabulous, pleased to help @bernard

joachim005

2022-03-14 08:16

has joined #general

alexstout009

2022-03-14 14:32

has joined #general

paul.richards

2022-03-14 14:38

has joined #general

akif.tahir

2022-03-14 15:00

has joined #general

lramos

2022-03-14 16:29

has joined #general

michael036

2022-03-14 18:31

has joined #general

lauren.coggin

2022-03-14 19:27

has joined #general

mkanika1811

2022-03-15 09:22

has joined #general

patrice.krakow

2022-03-15 09:46

Hello @bernard I am in for a chat :wink: When you wrote "Consumer Pact being deployable", strictly speaking, you do not deploy a Pact, right? You (only) deploy the "Consumer", correct? In a (nice) API-first approach, the Provider can indeed define/document an API endpoint (i.e. an interface) and even share it, *before* finishing (even starting) the implementation. Based on that definition/documentation, a Consumer could indeed start developing and testing, writing/generating a Pact file. Then, the critical part in your scenario is the _*Pact Verification*_. The Pact verification MUST (but you are asking for a SHOULD) done against the Provider implementation, that you don't have. Still, you could "analyze" the Pact and marked it as verified, but you CAN NOT change your mind afterward, once you say yes to a particular Pact file, you say *yes forever!* So, if you said "yes", then your implementation *MUST* follow the Pact file, that's the risk you have been taken by verifying without actually verifying. P.S. You can, of course, still change your mind, but then it MUST be the implementation of the "next version" of the API endpoint, you cannot change an existing version, even if the implementation was actually not "existing" :grin:

ian.pringle

2022-03-15 11:02

has joined #general

karl.wagner

2022-03-15 12:25

has joined #general

phongthornk

2022-03-15 18:26

Hello Folk, Is it possible to write a test on the 404 response? Test always fails, but pact file still genearte.

lewis.prescott079

2022-03-15 19:08

Yes in your test you can assert the expected response code. As long as the Pact verify and finalize is called this should work fine. The test shouldn't fail. As you are expecting a 404 response

lewis.prescott079

2022-03-15 19:11

Feel free to share a code example

matt.fellows

2022-03-15 23:59

Usually, the issue is that your HTTP client throws an exception when you receive a 4xx or 5xx response. So Pact is returning the expected status code, but your test throws an error. Whatever language you use, you will need to make sure you catch that exception first

matt.fellows

2022-03-15 23:59

if you have example code we could advise more

matt.fellows

2022-03-15 23:59

Best to ask that in the language specific channel though e.g. #pact-js

phongthornk

2022-03-16 03:21

@lewis.prescott079 @matt.fellows OK, Thanks for you both. I will check my code and let you know again. I think it make sense.

phongthornk

2022-03-16 03:27

Next question, I try to publish pact file to Pactflow but got 409 responses like this ```Client error: `PUT PATH_OF_PACT resulted in a `409 Conflict` response: This is the first time a pact has been published for "SsoUserService". The name "SsoUserService" is very similar to the (truncated...)```

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 03:29

this is a general pact broker thing. As you can see, you have published a contract where the names of two systems are very close to each other, and is likely to result in confusion. Double check to make sure!

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 03:29

docs are your friend (search 409 and you?ll get this article): https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/troubleshooting#409-when-publishing-a-pact

phongthornk

2022-03-16 03:38

Ahh, thanks. Let me check

chaitasi.patel988

2022-03-16 04:04

has joined #general

athaper

2022-03-16 05:38

Hey guys I had a question , pact is used to test the integration between 2 services or integration between UI and a service but is there any use case where we can use it to test one single API ? keeping the consumer and producer as the same API and testing different endpoints of that API , does it make sense or possible somehow ?

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 05:39

What exactly would you want Pact to do that other tools couldn?t do here?

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 05:40

e.g. a functional testing tool

athaper

2022-03-16 05:42

Yea like instead of testing the integration between 2 services could we test the different endpoints of a single service by keeping the consumer/producer as the same ? Currently what I?m aware of is pact is only or can only be used to test the integration between 2 services

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 06:18

> test the different endpoints of a single service by keeping the consumer/producer as the same ? I?m not sure what that would look like? If you only have a provider and no consumers, you could write a dummy client that exercises all of the endpoints and create a pact from it

athaper

2022-03-16 06:50

> you could write a dummy client that exercises all of the endpoints and create a pact from it yep that?s what I?m thinking but writing the code that exercises all of the endpoints in our service and the code that verifies the pact in the same service as well . will that be possible or if the pact can be used like this can it serve as an alternative for functional testing of a service ?

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 06:54

you can definitely run pact in that way, yes

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 06:54

I wouldn?t see it?s an alternative to functional testing in a general sense, but yes, in that context it would be possible to exercise it in ways that would be more maintainable and extend beyond a purely contract testing tool

athaper

2022-03-16 06:59

that clears my doubt , thank you Matt :raised_hands:

phongthornk

2022-03-16 08:23

I was already checking the code no exception in my test code. Not sure can I share the code here? or should go to share on #pact-php?

lewis.prescott079

2022-03-16 08:24

Yes share over there. I'm not too good with php myself

phongthornk

2022-03-16 08:28

One more question, If it throws an exception like this. How can I handle the expectation? Do Pact have any expectation support throw an exception?

lewis.prescott079

2022-03-16 08:31

You can handle exceptions in your tests usually https://backendtea.com/post/phpunit-exception-test/

alanbos

2022-03-16 09:07

`arrayContaining(X1, ..., Xi, ..., Xn)` as I understand it means "match if and only if the returned array contains at least one instance of each `Xi`" , and allows _other non-matching elements to appear in the returned array_. Is there a variant of this which says, _every_ element of the returned array *must* match either `X1` ... or `Xi` ... or `Xn`?

jose.iglesias

2022-03-16 09:23

has joined #general

phongthornk

2022-03-16 09:46

@lewis.prescott079 Thank you. I understand the problem now :slightly_smiling_face:

phongthornk

2022-03-16 09:47

clear

diva.pant1

2022-03-16 09:50

Can we use Pact testing for DSL?

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 10:08

No, because that is the "optional attributes" problem in disguise

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 10:09

https://docs.pact.io/faq#why-is-there-no-support-for-specifying-optional-attributes

phongthornk

2022-03-16 10:10

I see the new feature of Pact as a "https://pactflow.io/bi-directional-contract-testing/". I really need to know what is different between an old and a new feature.

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 10:11

For clarity, this is not a Pact feature. It's a Pactflow feature

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 10:12

Does this help https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/bi-directional-contract-testing?

alanbos

2022-03-16 10:15

Interesting - so as an example I ask for e.g. a list of contacts for a Person; I'm expecting either phone or email contacts so I want to assert that the returned list doesn't contain anything I can't handle (e.g. a fax contact). If the provider is enhanced to start returning fax contacts too, it doesn't feel like my contract will protect me against that breaking change.

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 10:19

It?s more the inverse that Pact is designed to protect in this case. The case you?re referring to is probably best left to the standard array matching, and the scenarios can be separated by provider states to ensure only each type of contact is tested

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 10:19

Pact does assume Postel?s law here ?be liberal with what you accept?

alegab0710

2022-03-16 10:20

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 10:20

i.e. if extra data comes back, you should ignore it. but this is probably an edge case of that principle

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 10:20

You can of course also test that specific scenario without Pact quite easily

alanbos

2022-03-16 10:44

Thanks Matt - I'm not sure the provider state approach would fly here since the consumer would by definition only be directing the provider to return types it knows about.

alanbos

2022-03-16 10:47

But I understand your argument, I think in the case of GraphQL queries the Postel approach would be to request something like: ``` contacts { __typename: always lets us know what this is ... on PhoneContact { ... } ... on EmailContact { ... }``` and if the provider always returns one of each type it supports arrayContaining will not fail.

bernard

2022-03-16 11:57

Hi @patrice.krakow thanks for getting back to me. That's right I only deploy the Consumer. In our API-first approach we would like the Consumer to be aware that an endpoint has not been implemented. We came to the resolution that the Provider's API should be verified by a tool like *https://dredd.org/en/latest/index.html* before allowing a pact to be published.

bernard

2022-03-16 11:58

Hi :wave: if my Provider is tagging an environment, why can't I see it when I run `broker list-environments`?

alegab0710

2022-03-16 12:25

Hi everyone! :wave:. Me and my collegue are doing an internship at a large regional IT-organisation and have been asked to work on a proof-of-concept project to see if Pact could be something that they could implement in their organisation for integration testing and deploy testing etc. Their system is a large system built on many jvm based components built with Maven and running with Mule. It uses AMQ message queues and they want us to test the functionality for testing their components both in pipeline and for integration with other components. I find it rather difficult to find good literature on Pact in these type of enviorments and mainly just for one provider - consumer testing with HTTP. D you guys have any tips or links for me to study and checkout for this purpoise? Thanks :smiley:

serghei.pogodin

2022-03-16 12:31

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 12:51

how are you tagging an environment? (just to confirm what we?re talking about here)

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 12:51

do you mean `pact-broker record-deployment` (which would record that an application has been deployed to an environment)

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 12:52

or do you mean via `--provider-version-tag` (or another provider tag)

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 12:52

if the latter, they aren?t environments - they are tags

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 12:52

tags != environments

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 12:57

I don?t think we have good async/message pact tutorials, you?re right

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 12:58

section on non-HTTP testing (Message Pact): https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/how_pact_works#non-http-testing-message-pact

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 12:58

There are a number of examples here: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/examples/

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 12:59

Here?s a great doc about Kafka from @muirandy: https://muirandy.wordpress.com/2022/02/18/contract-testing-with-pact-kafka-and-schema-registry-part-1/

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 12:59

https://dius-au.medium.com/contract-testing-serverless-and-asynchronous-applications-6e614e301fc1

matt.fellows

2022-03-16 12:59

https://dius-au.medium.com/contract-testing-serverless-and-asynchronous-applications-part-2-76b5576c789e

jeremy.vincent

2022-03-16 14:29

has joined #general

alegab0710

2022-03-16 15:47

Thank you @matt.fellows f�r the links! I will check these out!

1.g10squad

2022-03-16 16:01

has joined #general

patrice.krakow

2022-03-16 16:06

In our setup, we have a way to address the question of the implementation of an API endpoint... In our (home-made) API Management solution, we make a radical distinction between the API endpoints, being solely the interfaces, and their implementations. The API (endpoints) definitions are captured within OpenAPI documents, the implementations are classic "pieces of software", and we have the explicit link between the two being the _*authorization to implement*._ Most of the API Management solutions have a workflow for the _authorization to consume_, usually called _subscriptions_, we have an additional similar mechanism for the _authorization to implement_. A service/component/piece-of-software MUST have the _authorization to implement_ one or multiple API endpoints. This _authorization to implement_ is materialized by a signed JSON Web Token which is sent at run-time to our _"API Endpoint Discovery"_. In this manner, a running instance of a service/component/piece-of-software declares at run-time that it is implementing a particular set of API endpoints. That knowledge is used by the consumers who do not know in advance the physical address (internal DNS) of the service/component/piece-of-software implementing the API endpoint they want to call, but they query at run-time the _"API Endpoint Discovery"_. In your scenario, our _"API Endpoint Discovery"_ would also be able to answer the question: "Is there already a running instance implementing the API endpoint that is used by this (new) consumer I would like to deploy?" I don't know what kind of environment you have and if you could consider this kind of "architecture", but I would be happy to describe further what we have done and what we plan to do if it could help :wink:

alistair.c.kung

2022-03-16 18:44

has joined #general

adam.howard

2022-03-17 02:05

has joined #general

johnathan

2022-03-17 02:30

Welcome to the team @yousafn :raised_hands:

jonatan.jaworski

2022-03-17 02:32

has joined #general

lewis.greenway-jones

2022-03-17 08:52

has joined #general

pierre.gerard

2022-03-17 11:59

has joined #general

phongthornk

2022-03-17 13:56

Hello, I had a question. Pact standalone can run on alpine or not? I try to run it from pact-php server not start properly. when I try to run manually I got this error ```/var/www/vendor/pact-foundation/pact-php/pact/lib/ruby/bin/ruby: line 6: /var/www/vendor/pact-foundation/pact-php/pact/lib/ruby/bin.real/ruby: No such file or directory```

yousafn

2022-03-17 15:29

HI @phongthornk, Check out our official docs on the subject https://docs.pact.io/docker#alpine-linux and let us know how you get on. These examples below are a bit older but images I have previously built and used Here is an older one I did for node (https://github.com/YOU54F/pact-standalone-docker-slim/issues/11) and one I did for ruby alpine (https://github.com/YOU54F/pact-standalone-docker-slim/blob/master/ruby_base/Dockerfile)

pierre.gerard

2022-03-17 15:57

Hello All :pactflow-platypus-slack: ! I'm pretty new with pact and I'm looking for french speaking users to "build" a french pact community :slightly_smiling_face:

viswanathan.sarma

2022-03-17 22:39

has joined #general

phongthornk

2022-03-18 03:41

Thanks @yousafn Let me try and let you know :slightly_smiling_face:

phongthornk

2022-03-18 03:54

It works. Thank you so much @yousafn

phongthornk

2022-03-18 06:19

Hello, Does the Pact support testing with multiple Providers? Example like below: ```Frontend Service ====> Auth Service Frontend Service ====> User Service Frontend Service ====> Order Service``` All of the example services run together in the same environment. Is it possible to configure this?

matt.fellows

2022-03-18 06:21

yes

matt.fellows

2022-03-18 06:22

You just need to have a different provider name for each separate integration point

matt.fellows

2022-03-18 06:22

it will create 1 contract file per consumer <==> provider combination

matt.fellows

2022-03-18 06:22

each contract can have 1 or more _interactions_ in it

phongthornk

2022-03-18 06:23

Make sense. Thanks @matt.fellows

yousafn

2022-03-18 11:14

no problem @phongthornk, could you confirm the official docs image worked for you?

yousafn

2022-03-18 11:47

Hey Pierre, :pactflow-platypus-slack: This is very exciting, thanks for reposting this to general! I like the idea of regional Pact communities, especially under a think globally, act locally mantra. I'd love to think about how we could support you and others in getting this off the ground!

madhulika.mitra

2022-03-18 15:56

has joined #general

madhulika.mitra

2022-03-18 16:06

Hi Team. I need to add a request signature to my request before testing from provider side. While i was able to add couple of headers using CustomHeaders, how do i get the entire request so i can add signature and send it In java - @TargetRequestFilter is being used.. do we have something for c#?

matt.fellows

2022-03-18 21:50

Might be best asking in the #pact-net channel

phongthornk

2022-03-19 23:47

@yousafn I do not use the image. I just add the 3 line from your link https://docs.pact.io/docker#alpine-linux ``` && wget -q -O /etc/apk/keys/sgerrand.rsa.pub https://alpine-pkgs.sgerrand.com/sgerrand.rsa.pub \ && wget https://github.com/sgerrand/alpine-pkg-glibc/releases/download/2.29-r0/glibc-2.29-r0.apk \ && apk add glibc-2.29-r0.apk``` It works with this way

rupam.saha

2022-03-21 09:26

has joined #general

christian.jeppesen

2022-03-21 10:10

has joined #general

anand.kannan

2022-03-21 10:10

has joined #general

mikhail.yartsev

2022-03-21 10:10

has joined #general

phongthornk

2022-03-21 10:47

Hello @matt.fellows, I was trying to do the same as you mentioned before. But no option to set provider name in #pact-php

matt.fellows

2022-03-21 10:57

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-php#basic-consumer-usage `$config->setProvider(...)` sets the provider name

matt.fellows

2022-03-21 10:58

The provider is set on the *pact* configuration, not set on the *interaction*

phongthornk

2022-03-21 11:46

I follow with the way of phpunit.xml ===> see this from the pact-php `Keep in mind that both the test suite and the arguments array must be the same value.`

phongthornk

2022-03-21 11:47

As you mention in the code. I need to start the mock server manually and set the configuration depending on a test case, right? So I need some example for PHP

phongthornk

2022-03-21 11:48

However, start Mockserver by manually got slow response on test not sure why

phongthornk

2022-03-21 11:52

See this file https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-php/blob/master/src/PhpPact/Consumer/Listener/PactTestListener.php If I need to start Mockserver manually, I will customize it to send pact files to Pactflow. Look like #pact-php support only config from env

matt.fellows

2022-03-21 12:12

Ah sorry I'm not familiar enough with Pact PHP to advise. But it must be possible, it's a very standard scenario.

matt.fellows

2022-03-21 12:12

Might need to raise an issue on the repo to get visibility for the maintainers

david.vancouvering

2022-03-21 16:16

Hey. This is becoming a real issue for us. Are there plans to address this?

bblechman

2022-03-21 16:36

has joined #general

bernard

2022-03-21 16:58

Hi, i'm running tests using Jest. ```beforeAll(() => mockProvider.setup()); afterEach(() => mockProvider.verify()); afterAll(() => mockProvider.finalize());``` And I'm seeing this error. The Jest tests are run inside a docker container. ```[2022-03-21 16:53:42.071 +0000] INFO (19 on b0e28777c48a): pact-node@10.17.2: Creating Pact Server with options: {"timeout":30000,"consumer":"studio-frontend-consumer","cors":false,"dir":"/app/pacts","host":"127.0.0.1","log":"/app/logs/pact.log","logLevel":"INFO","pactfileWriteMode":"overwrite","provider":"pactflow-example-provider-restassured","spec":2,"ssl":false,"pactFileWriteMode":"overwrite"} [2022-03-21 16:53:42.135 +0000] ERROR (19 on b0e28777c48a): pact-node@10.17.2: Pact Binary Error: /app/node_modules/@pact-foundation/pact-node/standalone/linux-x64-1.88.83/pact/lib/ruby/bin/ruby: line 6: /app/node_modules/@pact-foundation/pact-node/standalone/linux-x64-1.88.83/pact/lib/ruby/bin.real/ruby: No such file or directory [2022-03-21 16:53:42.135 +0000] WARN (19 on b0e28777c48a): pact-node@10.17.2: Pact exited with code 127. [2022-03-21 16:53:42.136 +0000] INFO (19 on b0e28777c48a): pact-node@10.17.2: Removing Pact process with PID: 47``` My previous error led me to install `bash` in the container. Any help??

matt.fellows

2022-03-21 19:35

Best to ask these specific questions in #pact-js going forward

matt.fellows

2022-03-21 19:35

assuming you?ve taken a look at the notes for docker: http://docs.pact.io/docker

matt.fellows

2022-03-21 19:35

and https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js#alpine--docker

phongthornk

2022-03-22 03:15

Yes, you're right. As I try to see issues on #pact-php I see many things hard to be complete on PHP to connect to Ruby. Firstly, I see the default Listener of the package no has any option to config per integration. I need to customize by myself. Sorry for bothering you @matt.fellows.

phongthornk

2022-03-22 03:16

However, thanks so much to support me :slightly_smiling_face:

phongthornk

2022-03-22 03:16

What's the language you hand on?

matt.fellows

2022-03-22 03:21

I help maintain JS and Golang

matt.fellows

2022-03-22 03:21

And other general things across the community

jeffrey2011998

2022-03-22 09:22

has joined #general

jeffrey2011998

2022-03-22 09:24

:wave: Hi everyone!

bernard

2022-03-22 09:31

Yes @matt.fellows, after reading those docs, I managed to fix it.

xavier.arque

2022-03-22 11:33

has joined #general

aubrey

2022-03-22 14:32

has joined #general

balazs

2022-03-22 15:51

has joined #general

seasharp37

2022-03-22 22:17

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-03-23 03:03

Hi David, I?ll raise it with the Pactflow team tomorrow for discussion

matt.fellows

I?ve been thinking about this, and am not sure WIP pacts is the best approach. I was thinking one approach could be to treat each consumer+toggle as a separate contract and use the `record-deployment` feature to explictly select consumers deployed to an environment - in this case, that would represent a specific toggle

matt.fellows

But that is bad for other reasons - for one, there will be a lot of applications making it hard to reason about

matt.fellows

I think toggles might need to be supported as a first class concept

matt.fellows

they might be another way though

david.vancouvering

2022-03-23 03:15

So you would treat each variation of a consumer as a different consumer? I guess it's a workaround but ideally I'd like the Pact model to reflect the domain, which is that the same consumer can have multiple variations. One form of variation is over time, which is represented as versions. The other is over space, represented as feature toggled/configured variations (it may not be just toggles, it could be experiments or customers choosing different features, which I see a lot in the enterprise space). It seems like actually both variations over time and variations over space are both _versions_. It means that you can actually have multiple versions _deployed_ simultaneously as well as _released_ simultaneously

david.vancouvering

2022-03-23 03:17

If you allow for multiple versions to be deployed to the same environment simultaneously via `record-deployment` and then have the verifications take that into account just as with releases, we'd have what we want

matt.fellows

2022-03-23 03:40

Yes, that is true and a good point

matt.fellows

2022-03-23 03:41

This might model more onto the `release` concept, originally conceived to support mobile use case (i.e. you can have multiple versions of an application released to market at any point at time)

david.vancouvering

2022-03-23 03:42

You might argue that the distinction between release and deploy starts getting a little fuzzy or even non-existent. Sorry, that's a tough thing to say when you put so much work into it.

matt.fellows

2022-03-23 03:42

yes

david.vancouvering

2022-03-23 03:43

We're still using tags because the JVM doesn't support deployments and releases. Based on my statement that feature toggles are different versions of the same consumer that can be deployed on the same environment at the same time, here's what I think could work. But I'm not sure if the current Pact libraries support this... ? When version a pacticipant, the version identifier includes the feature toggle name as well as the git hash ? When we verify a provider, we have to verify all versions of that provider with the same git hash (e.g. all active toggles) and publish each one as a separate verification ? When we run consumer tests, we have to run for all versions of the provider with the same git hash and publish each one separately. Assuming the test passes, we publish the pact and tag with the branch name. ? When we deploy a pacticipant to an environment, we tag _all versions that have the same git hash_, regardless of the feature toggle ? When we run can-i-deploy for a pacticipant to a given environment, we need to check _all_ versions tagged with that environment, not just the latest (not sure if we can do this. I don't see an `--all` option)

matt.fellows

2022-03-23 03:43

_actually, the language I used consulting was that a ?deployment? was when the code was shipped to an environment, and it was ?released? when made available to a customer (i.e. just a step)_

david.vancouvering

2022-03-23 03:44

I often say you deploy code and you release features (when you turn the toggle on)

david.vancouvering

2022-03-23 03:44

Which calls out that even if a version of an application supports a toggle, it's not released to an environment until the toggle is turned on

david.vancouvering

2022-03-23 03:45

You might even say that really `can-i-deploy` should be `can-i-release`

david.vancouvering

2022-03-23 03:45

And runs not when the code is deployed but when the toggle is getting turned on

david.vancouvering

2022-03-23 03:46

If you don't use feature toggles, then those two concepts happen simultaneously, but they are still separate concepts

david.vancouvering

2022-03-23 03:46

And of course, once a toggle is on, then every deploy has to continue to support that toggle's contract

matt.fellows

2022-03-23 03:47

yeah. I guess the challenge here is that the terms/language needs to work across concepts that have subtle variations (branches, toggles, ?). So it might be hard to put that genie back into the bottle.

david.vancouvering

2022-03-23 03:49

Yea, you discover your domain as you implement it, and of course things also evolve, but now you're stuck with a model that doesn't correctly represent the domain. That can create a mismatch that is hard to work with. It's a bummer.

david.vancouvering

2022-03-23 03:50

I can imagine first defining best practices working with what you've got, and then maybe building tooling that is backward-compatible with the existing system but better aligns with the domain. Not saying that's easy, just spitballing here

david.vancouvering

2022-03-23 03:52

For example I described a possible approach using tags above. I believe it needs more refinement, but let's say I get it working. I can imagine building scripts that layer over the Pact API that do what I want for feature toggles so each team doesn't have to handle all the tricky details. That's sort of what I meant.

matt.fellows

2022-03-23 03:53

BTW we?ll be picking up the feature branch/environments etc. work in the Pactflow backlog soon to drive implementation across the ecosystem. We kicked off some planning late last week for that. Just thinking out loud, I wonder if this would be a better approach than WIP for you. As you describe above, you simply tag all variations of your feature variations (versions) with a tag. On the provider side, you can take advantage of the `latest` https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/consumer_version_selectors set to `false`. This would have the effect of always verifying _all_ versions with that tag. You would need to remove the tag from the version afterwards once undeployed, which is the messy bit. I think releases is probably going to be the better tool once you can take advantage of it. From that page: ? `latest`: true. Used in conjuction with the `tag` property. If a `tag` is specified, and `latest` is `true`, then the latest pact for each of the consumers with that tag will be returned. If a `tag` is specified and the latest flag is _not_ set to `true`, _all_ the pacts with the specified tag will be returned. (This might seem a bit weird, but it?s done this way to match the syntax used for the matrix query params. See https://docs.pact.io/selectors).

matt.fellows

2022-03-23 03:54

(I have to duck off to a meeting, but have popped a reminder in my calendar to discuss with the team tomorrow)

david.vancouvering

2022-03-23 03:54

ok duck away, talk more

david.vancouvering

2022-03-23 03:55

I was thinking something like what you describe. But, I don't want to tag an environment with a toggle until it's enabled. So I'd want to automate applying tags when I roll out toggles. Will play around with this and share what I learn when I learn it

saritacutinha

2022-03-23 07:09

has joined #general

rachelb

2022-03-23 10:16

has joined #general

shaheen

2022-03-23 23:11

has joined #general

shaheen

2022-03-24 00:16

Hi everyone, I have maybe a crazy question. I would like to overhaul our current integration testing system. Lets just say it is a publishing type system but interacts with http like System1 -> System 2 -> System 3 (system 1 takes input and publishes to system2), and some other external actor interacts with system 3 and we want to make sure those interactions are correct and the propagation from system 1 got to system 3. Right now its black box where we interact with system 1, wait a while, and then test and make sure system 3 responds with correct results. In my ideal world, we have scenario 1, it interacts with system1, knows what outputs system 1 should have when it interacts, and that is one test. We then take the exact output of that test and use it to test system 2 and so on. Right now when I look at bidirectional testing, it feels like it just makes sure the interfaces conform, but does not fully replace knowing if the output system 1 created is causing the right results in system 2. Is Pact maybe not the right tool for what I am trying to achieve (replace our end 2 end testing with service level tests) but trust that all the interactions that system1 generate cause the correct interactions in system2. Not sure if this is far too much info to get help on as well but looking for any guidance!

abubics

2022-03-24 00:35

Sounds like you're talking about 2 different kinds of testing, and they both have value in different ways. I don't think you can get same kind of confidence from only one, and you should keep both separate: ? Contract testing (consumer-driven) is still great value, and should give you high confidence in the individual interfaces. ? Functional (across several boundaries) will give you the final sanity check, making sure that expected state translates through all the layers. This doesn't need to be so exhaustive, if you have the foundational confidence from the other tests. I'd stay away from bi-directional, unless you need it as a starting point to reduce implementation time, but it will slow you down in different ways.

shaheen

2022-03-24 00:51

Ya, I agree, I feel like I am trying to make our functional tests better and I was seeing if pact could help. However, obviously its designed for contract level testing here. Thanks for feedback.

abubics

2022-03-24 01:09

Sounds like a good direction :slightly_smiling_face: The goal isn't to replace everything with contract tests, it's to reduce the overhead of testing by doing the right kinds of testing in each place.

david.vancouvering

2022-03-24 01:14

By the way, the eBay team is looking for guidance on how to work with feature toggles, so I am going to write something up. I realized, I should just write it up for PactFlow docs, and then point the eBay folks there. So expect another PR in the next few days :slightly_smiling_face:. I know it would be better to get one done at a time, but there is a lot of pull for feature toggle guidance... My guidance will be using tags, rather than deploys and releases, since we can't use those yet. Is that OK?

sentyaev

2022-03-24 12:36

has joined #general

altan.demirkiran

2022-03-24 14:06

has joined #general

jonathan.fortunati

2022-03-24 21:53

has joined #general

simon.dicola

2022-03-25 10:25

has joined #general

simon.dicola

2022-03-25 10:26

:wave: Hi everyone!

mrooschuz

2022-03-25 14:52

has joined #general

ashok.pathak

2022-03-25 15:17

has joined #general

rdanthuluri

2022-03-27 03:28

has joined #general

cudi.unal

2022-03-28 11:25

has joined #general

ashraf.anwar.iw

2022-03-28 13:12

has joined #general

b.costa

2022-03-28 13:15

has joined #general

mark.hopper

2022-03-28 14:53

has joined #general

ashraf.anwar

2022-03-28 15:08

has joined #general

damianruizdev

2022-03-28 18:44

has joined #general

damianruizdev

2022-03-28 18:47

Hey everyone, our company is currently trying to integrate Pact into our nx monorepo and we keep running into errors when trying to run the tests. Was curious if anyone has ever integrated Pact into an nx monorepo that uses angular, jest, and cypress. The initial error we're running into is jest and cypress types clashing when running the Pact test. Our monorepo is configured to support both jest/cypress and we have jest tests in other libs that run fine so not sure what about Pact is causing this behavior.

gibraltor999

2022-03-28 18:59

Hello, In one of our projects (React, NodeJS tech stack) we are using BFF (backend for front end, which in our case is Consumer) to speak to domain services (provider). Any tips on how can I write consumer driven tests for BFF queries?

yousafn

2022-03-28 19:31

Hey @gibraltor999, We often advise against traditional Pact contract testing for BFF's. see https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/what_is_pact_good_for#why-pact-may-not-be-the-best-tool-for-testing-pass-through-apis-like-bffs We think our new feature Bi-directional contract testing over at Pactflow might be more suitable for these pass-through layer use-cases, @matt.fellows wrote a blog here https://pactflow.io/blog/bi-directional-contracts/ and we discuss some of the use cases for BDCT https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/bi-directional-contract-testing#use-cases which although doesn't explicitly call out BFF's. might help provide some food for thought

yousafn

2022-03-28 19:32

Hi @damianruizdev, I would recommend posting in your language specific channel #pact-js for best visibility by those in the JS ecosystem :thumbsup:

matt.fellows

2022-03-28 21:53

I wouldn?t say it?s not applicable to BFFs, but depending on how much of a pass through it is, it might not be ideal. If the BFF has actual logic and is not just a proxy, CDC should be OK

david.vancouvering

2022-03-29 02:16

Making good progress on this doc. One area where I feel my understanding is a bit fuzzy is what happens when you publish a new version of a pact and kick off a webhook to run provider verification. I get how you can indicate which pact version needs to be verified. But how do you know what provider version to use when running the verification. We clearly don't want to run verification for *all* provider versions. So which ones are we supposed to run verification for? Let's say we deploy a provider to staging, preprod and prod. Should we find out what version is active for each of those environments, check out that version, and run verification? Now let's add feature toggles onto this. Now staging, preprod and prod will have *multiple* provider versions. So instead of running three tests we run six or nine or twelve or... Am I missing something? Thanks!

david.vancouvering

2022-03-29 02:40

I published an initial draft of a doc PR for feature toggles. Feedback much appreciated! Still need to figure out the provider workflow, so that's a `TODO` but wanted your feedback on the rest. https://github.com/pact-foundation/docs.pact.io/pull/133/

matthew.churcher

2022-03-29 08:48

has joined #general

gibraltor999

2022-03-29 11:16

Our BFF is acting like a proxy.. just gets the response from domain service and wrapping it into its own response model..

matt.fellows

2022-03-29 11:17

hmm that?s tricky. Can?t just ignore it, because the shapes are different

matthew.churcher

2022-03-29 13:43

oops wrong room

ben.brugman

2022-03-29 14:32

has joined #general

matthew.churcher

2022-03-29 15:00

I'm having trouble with the bi-direction coding kata.. `Step5 - npm run deploy` > `No environment found with name 'production'. Available options: <none found>`

yousafn

2022-03-29 15:23

Hi @matthew.churcher, Have you just created a Pactflow broker, or have you had one a while? You can create environments via the Pactflow UI https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/user-interface/settings/environments/ I saw a similar issue with an Broker instance I have owned for many years now, when I first came to run the workshops. noted https://github.com/pactflow/example-consumer/issues/31 in an issue.

matthew.churcher

2022-03-29 16:03

I don't appear to be able to create environments via the ui or api.. may be that's the problem :thinking_face: API returns environment already exists but they don't ... :scream_cat:

matthew.churcher

2022-03-29 16:07

i think it's permissions, i signed in using sso and ended up with fewer rights

hassan.shaikley

2022-03-29 16:14

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-03-30 07:05

Sounds like it Matthew. I'll make a note to update the docs for minimum role/permissions

oakkub.1995

2022-03-30 07:10

has joined #general

oakkub.1995

2022-03-30 10:26

Hello, I?m thinking of implementing pact tests on mobile platform both Android and iOS with the same provider. Because the pact files from both platform will look the same or similar, whenever pact files are published or updated, I want the provider to verify the pact files for the specific platform only, For example, If pact files are published from iOS, then the provider should only verify pact files from iOS only. I?m thinking of using different `tag` for both platform for example `master_android` or `master_ios` to differentiate which pact file belong to which platform and I can send the tag via the webhook to the provider. For the provider CI scenario, which will run all pact files, I would have to specify tags for both platform as well `master_android` and `master_ios` I?m not sure if `tag` is ideal for this scenario or not, as I understand they are use for segregate the environment like `master`, `feature_a` for example. Any suggestions on this topic? Thank you! :bow:

matthew.churcher

2022-03-30 14:55

Thanks, I did successfully complete the workshop. I left a couple of snags in github but overall the tutorial was very good.

hiqbal

2022-03-30 15:16

has joined #general

sstenhouse

2022-03-30 15:16

has joined #general

bmeyres

2022-03-30 17:37

has joined #general

alejandro.velez

2022-03-30 18:42

has joined #general

eddie

2022-03-30 19:23

On the _consumer_ side, will pact tell you about a missing test? Eg if you're already have a test for `GET /foo` returning a 200 OK, but the Open API spec on the provider side indicates that `GET /foo` can also return a 400 status code (and no corresponding test exists on the client side) will pact somehow notify you?

brendan.j.donegan

2022-03-30 19:31

~Not if you're using the traditional approach~ Sorry, misunderstood the question. You're asking about bi-directional contracts, right?

eddie

2022-03-30 19:35

I'm not sure what I'm asking about, I'm new to pact :nerd_face:

eddie

2022-03-30 19:37

If bi-directional contracts might help me, please let me know

brendan.j.donegan

2022-03-30 19:38

Bi-directional contracts would be where the provider uploads an OAS spec as it's side of the contract

brendan.j.donegan

2022-03-30 19:39

Traditionally the consumer defines the contract and the providers job is just to verify that it's met

eddie

2022-03-30 19:42

How does the consumer verify the providers contract? What if it doesn't use all endpoints of the provider?

brendan.j.donegan

2022-03-30 20:03

By creating its own version of the contract based on what it uses and then the broker verifies do these match

justin

2022-03-30 20:07

has joined #general

eddie

2022-03-30 23:36

I've had a bit of a read up on BDCT - Let's say the consumer only has a single test for `GET /foo` and in that test, the provider is assumed to respond with a `200` with the body 'x'. The consumer uploads the contract based on that single scenario. The provider uploads it's OAS which says that `GET /foo` can respond in two ways: ? With `200` and body 'x' ? With `400` and body 'y' *Will the the https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/bi-directional-contract-testing/compatibility-checks#contract-incompatibility-messages (run by PactFlow) alert us in this case?* What if the response bodies are compatible but only the status codes differ? As the development team maintaining the _consumer_, in this scenario we want to be told "Hey! You need to handle the case where the provider gives you a 400 back as well!". *NB*: This illustrates (what in my eyes is) a major shortcoming of the regular (CDCT) contract testing: ? As the team developing the consumer, you need to remember to look at the OAS for the provider and make sure you _exhaustively_ handle the status codes + respond body shapes it could return ? If the provider is updated to return new status codes / response bodies, that is a breaking change for the consumer. *Yet the consumer will have no way of knowing about it & the team developing the provider won't know that they are potentially breaking things for their consumers!* :warning: @brendan.j.donegan what are your thoughts on this?

eddie

2022-03-30 23:53

Have asked a related question https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/CSUFRDVKN/p1648684321409019.

leo.adriano1994

2022-03-31 00:00

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-03-31 01:14

Awesome, thanks!

bethskurrie

2022-03-31 03:40

Well thought out @patrice.krakow

bethskurrie

2022-03-31 03:43

@david.vancouvering sorry, I've only just seen this thread and it looks like Matt has answered a lot of you questions. What is still outstanding that I can help with?

bethskurrie

> But how do you know what provider version to use when running the verification. We clearly don't want to run verification for *all* provider versions. So which ones are we supposed to run verification for? if you use the new webhook, it chooses the versions for you.

david.vancouvering

The new webhook - do tell? I wasn't aware of a new webhook

bethskurrie

it verifies against the main branch and all currently deployed/released versions.

bethskurrie

https://docs.pact.io/blog/2021/10/11/contract-requiring-verification-published-webhook-event

bethskurrie

well "new" last year

bethskurrie

> Should we find out what version is active for each of those environments, check out that version, and run verification? yes, it does exactly that

bethskurrie

de-duplicated

david.vancouvering

Well, the challenge is not finding which pacts to verify against. The challenge is you have to actually build, start up and run different versions of the provider, one for each version that is deployed or released

bethskurrie

yup

bethskurrie

it kicks off a build for each one

david.vancouvering

Ah...

bethskurrie

with the git sha of each provider.

david.vancouvering

I have to run, my son is ready to watch TV with me, but I'll take a look thanks!

bethskurrie

:thumbsup::skin-tone-3:

bethskurrie

there are still some improvments to be made to that workflow, but it's a big incremement to what we had before.

hitesh.patadia

2022-03-31 04:27

has joined #general

matt.cockayne

2022-03-31 11:02

has joined #general

jimmy

2022-03-31 15:39

has joined #general

bret.mcclory538

2022-04-01 01:10

has joined #general

michael.d

2022-04-01 04:40

has joined #general

yash.deole

2022-04-01 07:07

has joined #general

alan.alie

2022-04-01 08:10

has joined #general

ricardo.cruz

2022-04-01 11:54

has joined #general

thomas.fisher

2022-04-01 12:21

Hi, someone at my org would like to join this Slack community - how can I invite them?

lauren.corderoy

2022-04-01 12:24

has joined #general

jiayao.xu

2022-04-01 12:24

has joined #general

thomas.fisher

2022-04-01 12:24

sorted :thumbsup:

shiva.velde0413

2022-04-01 14:44

has joined #general

shiva.velde0413

2022-04-01 14:47

:wave: Hi everyone!

shiva.velde0413

2022-04-01 14:52

do we have any blog/tutorial that teaches us on contract testing with PACT MQ?

shiva.velde0413

2022-04-01 14:52

please suggest me if any leads

brendan.j.donegan

2022-04-01 19:53

My 2 cents on this - it's really up the consumer to *tell* the provider what it cares about, regardless of CDCT or BDCT being used. So if the consumer has code that cares about a 400 being returned then it should have a test for that scenario

matt.fellows

2022-04-01 22:07

Search message pact in the docs

matt.fellows

Also see examples in howtolearn

Here are a number of useful hands-on labs that teach all of the key concepts: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops and https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/workshops

matt.fellows

We also have an AMA on it (see docs site for those)

matt.fellows

https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/

Send them to http://slack.pact.io

eddie

2022-04-01 22:36

Thanks Brendan. I'm not sure I agree however - while I get that contract testing isn't a replacement for out-of-band communications between implementing teams, assuming the possible 400 response is something the provider team have recently added to their API, the consumer team "don't know what they don't know" - they don't know there *is* a 400 status code that they should be interested in. What I'm getting at here is this is a case where we're *reliant* on that out of band communication happening.

npc1222

2022-04-04 04:37

has joined #general

npc1222

2022-04-04 04:39

Hi everyone, just a question is this possible to generate open api based on pact contract? If so, could someone share me a link to find how does it work?

matt.fellows

2022-04-04 04:40

Hi Allen, I believe there might be converters somewhere

matt.fellows

2022-04-04 04:40

what are you trying to do?

npc1222

2022-04-04 04:43

Yep. I try to use pact to generate open api and then generate types for client side such as TS? Does this make sense? Please let me know if this is too crazy idea

matt.fellows

2022-04-04 04:46

No this doesn?t make sense at all to me, sorry :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2022-04-04 04:47

The workflow would be: 1. Client generates pact file (which requires a working API client) 2. Convert Pact to an OAS 3. Generate API Client from OAS you can see how this is nonsensical

npc1222

2022-04-04 04:49

cos i know 3 is absolutely doable

npc1222

2022-04-04 04:51

but I try to avoid to manually create both OAS and pact testing file. I feel like somehow they?re kind of duplication. My understanding is that OAS is abstract and pact testing file is more like a concrete example of OAS.

matt.fellows

2022-04-04 04:51

yes, but if you already have a pact file, then you already have a working client. So why do 2 and 3 if you already have one?

npc1222

2022-04-04 04:54

Right. If you notice, API Client is manually typed as well without 2 and 3. But I hope I can get an auto-generated API Client.

matt.fellows

2022-04-04 04:56

So it?s up to you if you want to have a typed API client generated from an OAS

matt.fellows

2022-04-04 04:56

you might like to read https://pactflow.io/blog/schemas-are-not-contracts/ for the downsides of this approach, from a contract testing perspective

npc1222

2022-04-04 04:57

will do. Many thanks

npc1222

2022-04-04 05:02

Hi @matt.fellows, By looking at this, what do you mean by `pack + open api` ? just wondering where i can find more details?

npc1222

2022-04-04 05:06

I guess this is the one - https://pactflow.io/blog/introducing-bi-directional-contract-testing/. If so, this looks like the similar idea from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6x6XBDf9sQ

matt.fellows

2022-04-04 07:17

Yes, the core idea is identical. We wrap up that idea (and currently, even some of their tooling) into a unified workflow. so you can do it with Pact or future contract types (e.g. protobufs, graphql etc.)

arthur

2022-04-04 14:28

has joined #general

agastiya.mohammad

2022-04-05 01:19

has joined #general

paul.stapleton

2022-04-05 07:33

has joined #general

iurisoares1012

2022-04-05 09:53

has joined #general

gocool9996

2022-04-05 10:04

has joined #general

npc1222

2022-04-05 13:47

nice work

simrat.sidhu

2022-04-05 16:07

has joined #general

gabriel.brazao

2022-04-05 17:42

has joined #general

jhonataok01

2022-04-05 17:43

has joined #general

gabriel.brazao

2022-04-05 17:47

Hello everyone, my team is currently working on PoC to evaluate the usage of the PactFlow in our APIs. We have a lot of questions that the documentation itself its not very clear how to implement. How can we find some support for this tool?

yousafn

2022-04-05 17:53

Hey @gabriel.brazao, Is there anywhere in particular you have got stuck. We have several code demos in multiple languages - https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/examples and the Pactflow university where you can see the core principles in actions https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/tutorials Most of the language implementation repositories have their own examples as well. If you are struggling with a particular question, feel free to get your team-mates to sign up here and ask any questions and I am sure the community will be able to help. If there are particular areas, that we can improve the documentation, we would be open to feedback and change :thumbsup:

2022-04-05 17:54

gabriel.brazao

2022-04-05 17:58

@jhonataok01 @ricardo.cruz

andre.mariano

2022-04-05 19:10

has joined #general

alex.zuliqiaer

2022-04-05 20:31

has joined #general

lflores

2022-04-05 20:33

has joined #general

keoma4

2022-04-05 21:17

has joined #general

david.vancouvering

2022-04-05 21:30

Hey, all. One of the complaints I am hearing from teams looking at Pact is the amount of work it takes to both create and maintain all the interaction specifications that are included in writing the consumer tests, as well as the work to create and maintain the mocks used by the provider verification tests. We had one team who just didn't have the time to fix the contract tests due to failures when the contract changes, and instead just stopped running the contract tests. I'm curious, have others encountered this challenge? How have you addressed this? Thanks!

erick.belf

2022-04-05 21:46

has joined #general

erick.belf

2022-04-05 21:50

:wave: Hi everyone! I have a question about how pact would work with SDKs, I have a couple of routes that call different services, and I would like to mock somehow these services instead of calling the real server in order to make my provider pass the verification, is there a particular channel where I can use to ask this question or I can put it here so we can discuss it in depth?

matt.fellows

2022-04-05 22:12

Here is fine. Also, you might like to read https://pactflow.io/blog/should-i-write-contract-tests-for-client-sdks/

erick.belf

2022-04-05 22:13

Perfect! i will have a look at it, thanks!

matt.fellows

2022-04-05 22:47

Hello everyone :wave: Today, Beth, Ron and I have some exciting news to share with you. Pactflow has been acquired by https://smartbear.com/, a leading provider of software development and quality tools. We will join their API Developer Platform, helping to solve the complex challenges of testing microservices and API integrations that companies are facing as they accelerate cloud-native application development and digital initiatives. We care so much for OSS and are so pleased that SmartBear has a strong and https://smartbear.com/product/free/?as proven through the support and scale of https://cucumber.io/ and https://swagger.io/. Through our partnership, we will be able to take contract testing to new heights and help deliver key milestones in Pact?s OSS roadmap. We wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for your dedication and support. Pactflow is not just a SaaS product built by our immediate team but a community of individuals who?ve brought us to this point today. We?ve shared many milestones together and we look forward to sharing many more. Read more on our https://pactflow.io/blog/pactflow-joins-the-smartbear-family/.

aforeman

2022-04-05 22:50

So exciting! :bananadance:

abubics

2022-04-05 23:23

I tend to take an aggressive stance on that attitude, I rarely see the point in good faith . . . like, people are saying they're too busy to make sure their software works properly? From a more constructive perspective, I'd want to know where they get their confidence from :slightly_smiling_face: Are there other tests that cover things enough that they don't see the contracts as high-value? Or are there few tests, and things have been manually tested in a rush? Or something else? Also, where is the time pressure coming from? E.g. if the devs had more time would they be happy to write the tests, or is it just an excuse to avoid (perceived) boring/unproductive work?

abubics

2022-04-05 23:24

If the refactoring burden is genuinely huge, I also wonder if the balance of coverage is wrong. Conversely, if there are many many edge cases to cover, the tests are surely necessary, because people won't remember to manually test them all.

abubics

2022-04-05 23:25

Also interested in which team(s) didn't want to maintain stuff: consumer-side or provider-side (or the same team is doing both sides?)?

przemek.sech296

2022-04-06 03:37

Congrats on joining forces with SmartBear :clap:

michaele

2022-04-06 03:40

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2022-04-06 06:04

Andras makes good points (as always). We do hear that provider state maintenance is one of the biggest challenges, and it's one of the reasons we recently released a feature called bi-directional contract testing which does help mitigate the provider state issue https://pactflow.io/blog/introducing-bi-directional-contract-testing/

brendan.j.donegan

2022-04-06 07:25

Oh congrats! Any plan to share any info on how this will impact plans going forward?

matt.fellows

2022-04-06 07:39

We?ll definitely continue to be as open as we can about roadmaps etc.

matt.fellows

2022-04-06 07:39

At this stage, nothing has changed regarding vision and immediate priorities (as far as the Pactflow team goes, that is)

matt.fellows

2022-04-06 07:41

On the OSS roadmap, we?re still: 1. Working on the plugin framework (core is :white_check_mark: ) and releasing gRPC/Protobufs 2. Supporting branches/releases/environments in key languages 3. Getting v3 and the rust core into the key languages See the Pactflow focus/roadmap here: https://github.com/pactflow/roadmap

francislainy.campos

2022-04-06 08:08

That?s awesome news, Matt. Congratulations. :clap::slightly_smiling_face:

guillaume.camus

2022-04-06 12:47

has joined #general

guillaume.camus

2022-04-06 12:48

:wave: Welcome!

alejandro.pena

2022-04-06 13:24

Congratulations! That?s a huge and exciting step :slightly_smiling_face:

danielglazer123

2022-04-06 19:06

has joined #general

ashish.goyal

2022-04-06 23:14

has joined #general

dawoud.sheraz

2022-04-07 04:56

Congratulations. This initiative truly have come a long way, with many more achievements to be done on this new journey. Kudos to the team.

pennellbeth

2022-04-07 08:04

has joined #general

giuseppe.salvatore

2022-04-07 08:05

Hi guys... trying to join this: Webinar: Using Cypress and Postman for Contract Testing

giuseppe.salvatore

2022-04-07 08:06

Looks like it's a zoom meeting but it's not started yet, according to the invite you should have started 5 mins ago. (9:00AM GMT)

giuseppe.salvatore

2022-04-07 08:06

has anyone got any updates?

giuseppe.salvatore

2022-04-07 08:07

ok just managed to join... :tada::tada::tada::tada:

aforeman

2022-04-07 08:31

Hey @giuseppe.salvatore - please excuse the late start!

aforeman

2022-04-07 08:31

Glad to have you join us :slightly_smiling_face:

dominic.gara

2022-04-07 08:57

has joined #general

ivan.cheung

2022-04-07 08:58

has joined #general

omrieyal

2022-04-07 08:58

has joined #general

drakulavich

2022-04-07 08:58

has joined #general

drakulavich

2022-04-07 09:00

:wave: Hi everyone!

jonoar22

2022-04-07 09:06

has joined #general

josh.king

2022-04-07 09:06

has joined #general

giuseppe.salvatore

2022-04-07 09:27

No worries at all :+1:

pitas01_lope

2022-04-07 09:35

has joined #general

rarestomos

2022-04-07 09:40

has joined #general

shuba.paripoornam

2022-04-07 09:59

has joined #general

shivam.kumar

2022-04-07 11:00

has joined #general

will.robinson

2022-04-07 13:25

In our pactflow broker we are having an issue where we cannot scroll through anything - has anyone else experienced this?

dgupta2

2022-04-07 13:26

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-04-07 13:27

I can take a quick look now if you like?

matt.fellows

2022-04-07 13:28

Can you please try temporarily disabling your banner?

will.robinson

2022-04-07 13:28

Are you free to jump on a call for 5 mins?https://meet.google.com/vbr-yeqz-rtd

abraham.gonzalez93

2022-04-07 15:13

Hi, quick question here. I am currently using the pact-broker in my company but we are facing a problem. Each time that we are implementing a new API, we are including the verification test (python) before the pacts are uploaded so the provider doesn?t exist in the broker yet, so the ruby verifier is failing because it?s receiving a 404 from the broker, is there any argument in the verifier to skip the error when the provider does not exists?

yousafn

2022-04-07 17:14

Hey all, Would just love to give a MASSIVE shoutout to @david.vancouvering, who submitted an incredible 4 substantial PR's for our docs site bringing our guide to Pact Nirvana up to date. You can view it https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana We would appreciate any comments, feedback or even better submissions, after all it's your tool, we are just the custodians. Why not head over to our #documentation channel, where you can find out more about the contributions that made this happen, and some more for review Thank you so much @david.vancouvering :thank_you: :pactflow-platypus-slack: :pray::yellow_heart:

david.vancouvering

2022-04-07 17:49

Thanks. In my case it's maintaining the expectations defined in the consumer tests that is a huge burden. And as I have been thinking about this more, if you have a huge contract that is difficult to maintain, the underlying problem is actually that the API (and likely the underlying service) is poorly designed - a big surface area indicates a service that has poor cohesion and likely high coupling. I am now asking myself, how much time do I want to spend easing the burden of you having to work with such an API, when the right way to solve this problem is to refactor the API and/or the service.

david.vancouvering

2022-04-07 17:50

That said, it is a lot of boilerplate work to define your expected interactions in the consumer tests. I am working on a tool that can listen to live traffic, record the interactions, and then generate a starting set of expected interactions code. You can then go in and tweak the code, rather than having to write it all by hand. Does that sound useful/interesting?

david.vancouvering

2022-04-07 17:51

The bi-directional contracts are great for provider state. We need something for the consumer tests

david.vancouvering

2022-04-07 17:54

This code could also be used to publish an initial contract that is likely way too strict and brittle, and then over time could be made more reasonable as you address unnecessary failures in the contract (like an exact match failing that does not need to be an exact match)

david.vancouvering

2022-04-07 17:55

This could also bootstrap some stubs for you - you publish this as an initial contract, and now your UI tests and/or your verification tests could use these stubs when interacting with downstream dependencies.

david.vancouvering

2022-04-07 17:55

These are all just ideas, would love your thoughts

david.vancouvering

2022-04-07 17:56

@abubics I wasn't sure what you meant by this can you explain? What is "balance of coverage" in this context? > If the refactoring burden is genuinely huge, I also wonder if the balance of coverage is wrong.

matt.fellows

2022-04-07 21:17

:taco: for @david.vancouvering

david.vancouvering

2022-04-07 21:39

Yum, tacos

bethskurrie

2022-04-07 22:20

> And as I have been thinking about this more, if you have a huge contract that is difficult to maintain, the underlying problem is actually that the API (and likely the underlying service) is poorly designed - a big surface area indicates a service that has poor cohesion and likely high coupling. That is such a valid point. When tests are hard it's sending you a message that using it is likely also hard.

bethskurrie

2022-04-07 22:22

> This code could also be used to publish an initial contract that is likely way too strict and brittle, Yes, it's very easy to make overly specific pacts. I rant about this at great length in some of my "how to do the consumer side" materials. eg. https://docs.pact.io/consumer#only-make-assertions-about-things-that-will-affect-the-consumer-if-they-change https://docs.pact.io/consumer#choose-the-right-type-of-matching-for-the-situation and the video in https://docs.pact.io/consumer#watch-a-video-writing-good-consumer-tests

bethskurrie

2022-04-07 22:26

> I am working on a tool that can listen to live traffic, record the interactions, and then generate a starting set of expected interactions code. You can then go in and tweak the code, rather than having to write it all by hand. > > Does that sound useful/interesting? Yes - we've long talked about being able to generate pact tests from a set of interactions, but we've always had too many other things to do first. The key is that we want to generate test code, not the contract itself. I'm not 100% certain how much "wheat" will come out of such a generation, and how much "chaff" though. It's absolutely worth the experiment though, and would be such a big help introducing contract testing to large existing systems if it ended up working as we'd hope.

david.vancouvering

2022-04-07 22:48

Thanks, Beth. I am working on an experiment. I was doing it in Python using https://github.com/joshuasv/jinja2 as a templating language to create templates for various target languages. If you feel another language would be a better fit, let me know. I have just gotten started so no great loss if I go to another language (although I don't know Rust so that could take me some time to pick up). I am using WireMock as v1, but that is generally limited to environments where you can configure your client to send http to Wiremock. Setting up Wiremock to be an HTTPS person-in-the-middle is tricky. You generally need to use an actual HTTP/HTTPS proxy recorder. I know this could be of general use to the community, so if there is a process you like to use to make sure it gets visibility, input and maybe cross-contribution, please let me know how I might do that. On my side I need to see what eBay requires of me before I contribute work to open source.

pankajarora512

2022-04-07 22:50

has joined #general

aruncontacts

2022-04-07 22:54

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2022-04-07 23:01

Sounds great!

david.vancouvering

2022-04-07 23:01

:thumbsup:

david.vancouvering

2022-04-07 23:01

Python ok?

bethskurrie

2022-04-07 23:02

Yeah, I reckon.

david.vancouvering

2022-04-07 23:02

bethskurrie

2022-04-07 23:03

We don't have any formal process yet, but getting some shape around how to contribute pact related tools is something that is right in the job description for @yousafn.

david.vancouvering

2022-04-07 23:04

OK. I'll work on it in my internal repo for now, and will coordinate with @yousafn

bethskurrie

2022-04-07 23:04

I reckon, get a POC going, see how you find it, then if you think it's worth keeping on going, write up something and/or present to an audience who might like to be involved with contributing or testing, and then see where we go from there.

bethskurrie

2022-04-07 23:05

If we reckon it's a goer, we can work out a plan to make it an "official pact foundation" resource.

david.vancouvering

ok sounds good. BTW, the only place I've heard "I reckon" is from farmers in the American West and now, apparently, Auzzies :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

HA!

bethskurrie

it is very american isn't it.

david.vancouvering

Yes ma'am, I reckon it is

bethskurrie

I don't think anyone would think it out of place in australian slang though. we've picked up so much from the US.

bethskurrie

2022-04-07 23:07

except when I hear it in my head in a US accent, it's more like "ah reahcahn"

bethskurrie

2022-04-07 23:07

in australia it's more "oi reckn"

david.vancouvering

2022-04-07 23:08

Ah I see, I thought maybe it had a shared ancestor from English that went to both American and Australia. But I guess it could have just come from movies

david.vancouvering

2022-04-07 23:08

Nope, here it's also "reckn"

bethskurrie

2022-04-07 23:25

Australia has so much american content, we're very familiar with any lingo that makes it to a screen. Not so much the other way though! Apparently we can be quite hard to understand :laughing:

bethskurrie

2022-04-07 23:26

Yousaf is just being introduced to our Australian passion for abbreviating things and whacking an "o" on the end. eg. arvo (afternoon)

mira.kim

2022-04-07 23:59

has joined #general

abubics

2022-04-08 01:33

Not sure how relevant it is anymore, but re: > I wasn't sure what you meant by this can you explain? What is "balance of coverage" in this context? >> If the refactoring burden is genuinely huge, I also wonder if the balance of coverage is wrong. You've both kinda covered it with "contract that is likely way too strict and brittle" and "Yes, it's very easy to make overly specific pacts". Sometimes people push too much stuff into Pact (so some testing should move to other areas of the pyramid), or have too many specific interactions that could be generalised a bit.

david.vancouvering

2022-04-08 02:07

Got it thanks

alphonse.bendt

2022-04-08 11:44

has joined #general

wim.dupont

2022-04-08 11:49

has joined #general

wilsonmar

2022-04-08 13:41

has joined #general

henit.laxmicant

2022-04-08 14:19

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-04-08 15:29

How do everyone, I recently did my first ever podcast with our good friend and community champion @lewis.prescott079 , it's just been released and you can check it out https://www.pactman.co.uk/contract-testing-podcast :headphones: He has also been busy putting pen to paper, and has published a new https://www.pactman.co.uk/post/end-to-end-testing-in-microservices-with-api-contracts post :pencil: In other news, we have just published some videos and material on how you can use different testing tools such as Cypress, Postman and more can play nice with Pact. You can check out the details in this https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/CLS16AVEE/p1649421874037749 Enjoy happy deployments on a Friday, because you are all contract testing whizz's and have an awesome weekend!:the_horns:

mateustalles

2022-04-08 17:35

has joined #general

lewis.prescott079

2022-04-09 07:19

Thanks @yousafn

artur

2022-04-11 07:38

I'm working with pending pacts. I have two provider-versions one where the pact is pending and one where its not. But as soon the pact is verifies with one provider the running the tests on the other does allow it to stay "pending" Does the pending state not filter by provider-versions?

nathan.deamer

2022-04-11 09:17

Has anyone used CircleCI with can-i-deploy for short lived branched? As per: https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana/step_6#add-can-i-deploy-to-consumer-pr-pipeline I need to pass in the pact url for the contract that has changed (or I could use the consumerVersionSelector?)

bioflash1

2022-04-11 09:21

has joined #general

bioflash1

2022-04-11 09:57

Hello everyone! We currently have the problem that we have different providers test classes (for on one contract) located in different modules and therefore in different jvm's when running the tests. Therefore the provider sdk has no way of knowing when all interactions of the contract were validated and therefore never ends up publishing to the pact broker. Is there any existing solution to go about this?

matt.fellows

2022-04-11 10:32

I?d suggest asking this in #pact-jvm

bioflash1

2022-04-11 10:52

thx Matt, I repost it there :slightly_smiling_face:

stambolaolya

2022-04-11 13:20

has joined #general

tomknee1

2022-04-11 13:34

Hi there, Im just reading up on https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana/step_5 and am a little confused, where it says ``` Configure your consumer build to run the Pact tests and publish its pact to the Broker as part of its main build (consult the documentation for your chosen language). Consumer Pact tests typically run after the unit tests, and before deploying to a test environment.``` If I have unit tests and pact tests etc running on every PR build, on different feature or task branches (e.g. `feature/PACT-101-do-something-cool`), should I publish it to pact broker as part of this PR build, using commit sha and branch (e.g. HEAD), or do I only do it on PR approval, at which point the feature branch merges into `develop` branch? (we follow git flow consumer side)

matt.fellows

2022-04-11 13:35

every build

tomknee1

2022-04-11 13:35

ok thats what I currently do

tomknee1

2022-04-11 13:36

I guess the tag name in this sense will always be `HEAD` then along with the git sha

matt.fellows

2022-04-11 13:39

the tag would probably be `master` or `main`

matt.fellows

2022-04-11 13:39

HEAD is a ref, not a tag

tomknee1

2022-04-11 13:39

eh ok im confused again sorry, I thought I read we use branch and git sha instead of the legacy tagging?

tomknee1

so I run the pact tests and publish task every PR build, which runs on different feature branches

tomknee1

once PR is approved its merged into `develop` branch

tomknee1

which then triggers a build again on `develop` branch

matt.fellows

https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/examples/

ha yes well you said `tag` so I gave you the equivalent

matt.fellows

2022-04-11 13:41

Yes, you?re on the right track

matt.fellows

2022-04-11 13:41

the CI/CD workshop I think explains it better, but that?s just the way I digest content (howtolearn)

2022-04-11 13:41

Here are a number of useful hands-on labs that teach all of the key concepts: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops and https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/workshops

tomknee1

2022-04-11 13:42

thanks will have a look

nathan.deamer

2022-04-11 13:42

```curl -X POST 'https://circleci.com/api/v2/project/<vcs-slug>/<org>/<repo>/pipeline' \ -H 'circle-token: *******' -H 'Content-Type: application/json' --data-raw '{ "parameters": { "pact-consumer-name": "${pactbroker.consumerName}", "pact-consumer-version-number": "${pactbroker.consumerVersionNumber}", "pact-consumer-version-tags": "${pactbroker.consumerVersionTags}", "pact-consumer-version-branch": "${pactbroker.consumerVersionBranch}", "pact-url": "${pactbroker.pactUrl}" } }'```

souravmalhotra007

2022-04-11 15:56

has joined #general

akshay.nm92

2022-04-11 17:48

has joined #general

luxfactaest

2022-04-11 18:25

has joined #general

cameron.allan

2022-04-12 00:15

has joined #general

abubics

2022-04-12 00:29

Nice one @lewis.prescott079 :taco:

kendrickbong1996

2022-04-12 04:12

has joined #general

kendrickbong1996

2022-04-12 04:18

Hi all, its good to be here. I have just signed up for pactflow but i have not got the login credentials. I have received both the domain email and the welcome to pactflow email. But nothing on the credentials. Can i please get some assistance with that? Thanks! Please pm me so i can give you my domain details.

timothy.osm

2022-04-12 05:16

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-04-12 06:12

Have you signed up before Kendrick? If so, you?ll be able to use your existing user/password with your new account (users are global on the platform)

matt.fellows

2022-04-12 06:12

(FYI next time best to ask Pactflow specific questions in #pactflow)

kendrickbong1996

2022-04-12 06:13

Ok thanks Matt, but while youre here. No i have not signed up before.

matt.fellows

2022-04-12 06:14

Could you please check your spam?

kendrickbong1996

2022-04-12 06:14

I have tried resetting the password as well, but no email came through. No nothing in the spam folder either

matt.fellows

2022-04-12 06:15

I?ve just unlocked your user, could you please try a reset now?

kendrickbong1996

2022-04-12 06:18

Excellent. I'm in. Thanks again Matt. Looking forward to implementing this product.

matt.fellows

2022-04-12 06:20

Great, I?ll look in to see why you might not have received that email. It?s sent from AWS, so it?s strange the first one didn?t arrive but your password reset did (also AWS). :man-shrugging:

pact270

2022-04-12 08:53

has joined #general

oytun

2022-04-12 13:12

has joined #general

oytun

2022-04-12 13:28

Hi Everyone :wave: I have a question. I added all process (webhooks included). Contract creating, publishing, triggering webhooks and verifying (included provider pipeline and webhooks triggered) are running perfectly. But i couln't pass can-i-deploy stage. What am i missing? I'm using this command for can-i-deploy stage by the way. Can anyone help please? ```pact-broker can-i-deploy --pacticipant $APP_NAME --version $CI_COMMIT_SHORT_SHA --branch=$CI_COMMIT_BRANCH --to-environment $ENVIRONMENT --retry-while-unknown=12 --retry-interval=10 --verbose```

fabio.rodrigues

2022-04-12 13:33

what is the output of the command?

oytun

2022-04-12 13:46

On provider side: `There is no verified pact between the version of ShipmentAPI currently deployed to dev (75e21c4a) and version 33cf4ee4 of AddressAPI` On consumer side: `There is no verified pact between version f5e7fb28 of ShipmentAPI and the version of AddressAPI currently deployed to dev (no such version exists)`

matt.fellows

2022-04-12 13:48

So for that to pass: all providers deployed to `$ENVIRONMENT` must have verified the contract associated with `$APP_NAME` version `$CI_COMMIT_SHORT_SHA` and the provider must also have a matching branch `$CI_COMMIT_BRANCH`

yousafn

2022-04-12 13:49

Has your provider been deployed to dev, and recorded a deployment to signify? https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/recording_deployments_and_releases

matt.fellows

2022-04-12 13:50

My guess, is that your provider is not verifying the pact for version `f5e7fb28` of your consumer

matt.fellows

2022-04-12 13:51

It could be that your webhook is not verifying the correct pact

alessandrovermeulen

2022-04-12 14:00

has joined #general

alessandrovermeulen

2022-04-12 14:02

Hi all, we have a custom test harness that I would like to embed the pact verification in. We have our own custom http client already configured, so I would like to be able to use the verification on a slightly different level. What would be the best way to plug in the verification of pacts with responses? (On the JVM)

matt.fellows

2022-04-12 14:18

Best to ask in #pact-jvm mate!

oytun

2022-04-12 14:49

Interesting. I just disable can-i-deploy part once on the pipeline, after time i enable again and now passed all steps. Why we need to record env for new providers before can-i-deploy?

lucka

2022-04-12 15:25

has joined #general

damon_walker

2022-04-12 15:26

has joined #general

lucka

2022-04-12 16:30

Hi guys, we are currently POC'ing PACT for our organization and have a conceptual question. Let's say we have a consumer, Checkout API and a provider, availability API. I as a consumer know, that the availability API is calling another Shipping API synchronously in order to deliver a meaningful response. Now the consumer and provider have aligned verbally that, if the Shipping 3rd party dependency is facing timeout or downtime, we as a consumer still expect a valid response. Now we as a small team that is building the POC ask ourselves, is this a test case we should portray as a PACT or not. E.g. with JVM syntax, I could write: ```.given("product with stock availability") .given("transport API being down") .uponReceiving("A request on /product-availability endpoint") .willRespondWith() .status(200) .body(aValidResponseBodyUsingLikeEverywhere())``` One part of our group says this is a valid test case, because we've made our verbal contract "On outage of your Transport API dependency we still expect a valid response from you" explicit now. On the other hand the second part of our POC group says, this is an implementation detail and we should not even know, that the provider is using a "transport api" to do its job. Are there any best practices on such an example?

yousafn

2022-04-12 16:43

Interesting, my initial gut feel is that I would want to know that my consumer receives a valid response, when something goes wrong in the provider side (being agnostic of exactly what implementation detail) so you want a consumer product with stock, but your provider isn't healthy (because own x reasons). What should the consumer get when a downstream service is unavailable? A cached item? A valid response body? what is a valid response body? it could be that you expect an error, and your client handles that error. You might agree a timeout with your provider to say that if their downstream doesn't respond in 20 seconds, they return a response. We have done that at a previous client, as the api gateway window was 29 seconds and downstreams (multiple) could take much longer, or not respond. so after 25 seconds our provider would return a REFER response (it was a loan decision platform). Polling would then take place outside of that, to query the provider to retrieve a response returned from the downstream for their initial request. Sometimes this would result in the call having failed, due to a client issue (bad data in their submission) or a server side error, where-ever it was.

justin

2022-04-12 18:15

My opinion: If you don't expect the response in that case to be any different (no headers to indicate it's using cached data, body is the same) then it feels like an implementation detail you could test within the provider itself. But if your stated contract includes telling the consumer there's something going on and they may have to behave differently, it makes much more sense to have as a pact test so the consumer can validate the differences.

anusha_matti

2022-04-12 18:24

has joined #general

lucka

2022-04-12 18:27

In case the provider faces timeout to transport api, the provider is falling back to a simpler logic and responds us ?fallback: true? next to their regular same response body. We could validate that, and we could validate that we ?only? expect 200 OK to explicitly make clear to the provider that we have a contract (200 OK with same response than usual). Because in case one day they would break that contract and respond 5xx without speaking to their consumers first, at least for checkout this is then a big problem (effectively a downtime).

pact270

2022-04-12 18:36

Hi. Apologies if this should be in `pact-jvm`. I've had a PR accepted and merged into the `master` branch of the `pact-jvm` project. We're currently using the 4.1.x line of Pact libraries and really need the change from the PR. I was wondering how we can get the PR merged into the 4.1.x branch? Will this happen as part of a standard process, if so, then when, or should I raise another PR to merge it into 4.1.x?

matt.fellows

2022-04-12 21:13

If it?s easily added to the 4.1.x line I?m sure the maintainers would love a PR into that also. I believe there are some technical differences to accommodate different JVM/library?s for compatibility (this is my simplified understanding)

matt.fellows

2022-04-12 21:26

If the contract changes based on availability of downstream systems, I think it?s perfectly OK to capture that in the contract. The inclusion of the name of the downstream system/systems is something for discussion for the reasons highlighted (does this link an implementation details). Is it possible for that to be generalised such as `.given("a downstream system is unavailable")`

matt.fellows

2022-04-12 21:26

albert.pincevic

2022-04-12 21:48

has joined #general

uglyog

2022-04-12 23:02

If you can provide the details of the PR, we can either merge it to the branch, or you can create a new PR with the commits, but against the 4.1.x branch

matt.fellows

2022-04-12 23:26

because you?re asking the question ?can I deploy APP_NAME to environment ENVIRONMENT?. If the provider is not in ?ENVIRONMENT? then it is not safe to deploy APP_NAME to it

matt.fellows

2022-04-12 23:26

recording a deployment lets Pactflow know the provider is there, and so can-i-deploy will be aware of this and succeed

tomknee1

2022-04-13 10:37

Hey sorry have a couple more questions around this

tomknee1

2022-04-13 10:37

im just looking at this in regards to my consumer app's PR validation pipeline...

tomknee1

2022-04-13 10:38

but the docs seem to suggest using branches and record deployment/release instead of tags, so ive gone with that newer approach

tomknee1

2022-04-13 10:39

for my PR builds (before its merged into develop branch (staging)), do i need to apply a "tag" there, or do i need to "record a deployment" ? or do i do neither as its not really deployed to an environment until the PR is merged into develop/staging ?

marcello.rigan335

2022-04-13 12:07

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-04-13 12:30

What do people think about the idea of applying contract testing to externally standardised APIs such as OIDC? On the one hand, a standard is a standard and so in theory, there is no need for additional use cases to be documented - that?s the purpose of the standard. Additional scrutiny via contract testing could be an additional maintenance burden for little value. On the other, contract tests could still illuminate gaps in implementation and the usual value of contract test (consumer coverage, documentation of usage, prevent breaking changes etc.) _(context: we have a customer who is wanting to do it on an implementation of an OIDC system and is wondering about the benefits of such an endeavour)_

matt.fellows

2022-04-13 12:30

Is there a use case in here where certain APIs within OIDC aren?t actually called and knowing what is used might be helpful?

matt.fellows

2022-04-13 12:32

How could contract testing help with the customisable bits, such fields (e.g. in a JWT) or the discovery endpoint? For example, the supported https://swagger.io/docs/specification/authentication/openid-connect-discovery/

koel.misra

2022-04-13 13:31

has joined #general

johnmichael.bullen

2022-04-13 15:04

has joined #general

wng

2022-04-13 17:54

has joined #general

connor.mcneil

2022-04-13 19:45

has joined #general

henrry.salinas

2022-04-13 20:10

has joined #general

mike.key

2022-04-14 02:40

So?.is the concept here ultimately a ?do I have the right configuration? type test? When I think of OIDC?I think there are a bunch of libs that do this for me?most of them from IdP?s?.so what exactly are we testing here?

matt.fellows

2022-04-14 02:58

Yes, I'm trying to find _good_ reasons to do CDC here. I think config could be tested differently. The claims and grant types available is a bit blurry and could be argued is just config

mike.key

2022-04-14 03:00

Based on how I understand CDC?optional things are not part of the contract ya? And all non-standard claims are optional with OIDC/OAuth2/JWT

matt.fellows

2022-04-14 03:01

Well it depends. Usually optional things can be tested, just as a separate example (test)

matt.fellows

2022-04-14 03:02

If those non standard claims are important they should be tested, but is CDC the best way? I'm not so sure

mike.key

2022-04-14 03:07

I see what you mean?.IMO they should be tested as part of the service functionality?I can see the gray area?but to me thats dipping into functionality?but I could be convinced otherwise so I definitely get the question

matt.fellows

2022-04-14 03:38

I?m trying to convince myself, with the default position that CDC probably isn?t going to be super appropriate

matt.fellows

2022-04-14 03:38

(BDCT might be a better fit, though)

mike.key

2022-04-14 03:40

I think I agree with how you feel. I am interested in what others think though, I tend to stick to ?purist? when it comes to such things :slightly_smiling_face:

abubics

2022-04-14 04:33

If it's a way to checklist that you're implementing all the OIDC things properly, it could be useful. I don't know if it's better than any existing approaches.

danielflieger

2022-04-14 06:37

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-04-14 07:00

Yeah I'm feeling the same way folks. Thanks for the input!

pact270

2022-04-14 07:22

PR https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-jvm/pull/1534 raised. Once it's merged when will a new version of the 4.1.x libraries become available? Is that something I can help with?

matt.fellows

2022-04-14 07:23

Thabks for that! Only a maintainer can release. Just an FYI that it's a long weekend here in Australia so may not get looked at until mid next week

pact270

2022-04-14 07:24

No worries, long weekend here in the UK too :slightly_smiling_face:

tomknee1

2022-04-14 09:51

bit confused here :confused:

matt.fellows

2022-04-14 10:12

Keep using branches and releases. I know this doc is being actively worked on with some great input from community as we transition from tags. Avoid tags if you're on the newer approach. You don't record a deployment before a PR is merged, unless of course you do deploy before merge.

tomknee1

2022-04-14 10:13

awesome im on the right track then :slightly_smiling_face:

tomknee1

2022-04-14 10:13

thanks for confirming

matt.fellows

2022-04-14 10:13

:+1:

elyas.najafizada

2022-04-14 11:01

has joined #general

tasaki

2022-04-14 14:46

has joined #general

edouard.lopez

2022-04-15 12:19

Hello, do you have resources on Message Queue (RabbitMQ) to share?

matt.fellows

2022-04-15 12:49

The how pact works section talks about message pact, the feature you need

matt.fellows

2022-04-15 12:49

Howtolearn

2022-04-15 12:50

Here are a number of useful hands-on labs that teach all of the key concepts: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops and https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/workshops

matt.fellows

2022-04-15 12:50

:point_up:see if samples here. We have Kafka and AWS SNS which hopefully helps

jithinjacob2011

2022-04-18 02:43

has joined #general

bkapadia

2022-04-18 17:25

has joined #general

lewiscowles

2022-04-18 19:10

has joined #general

lucka

2022-04-19 15:11

Hello together, as we successfully made it to the point to reach "Platinum Pact Nirvana" last week (we have a webhook now that triggers the providers' cicd when the consumer changes a PACT), I am starting to learn a bit more about the "Pending Pacts" feature. In the beginning of reading the docs and watching the AMA video I was a bit confused of the feature. Because the objectives of Platinum and Pending Pacts seem to be mutually contradictory to me then, as Platinum is about "Prevent a consumer to merge his PR if his changed PACT is incompatible with the provider". The purpose of Pending Pacts I understood now is in my words: "Do not break the CICD of the provider, if a consumer changed a PACT that the provider is not supporting (yet)". So I was asking myself, "The problem that Pending Pacts solves shouldn't exist with Platinum? At no point in time there could be a PACT on the main branch the provider does not support, because its the job of the consumer to only merge his potentially uncompatible PACT changes to main as soon as the provider supports it.. So what am I not getting right about this? I am confused." :slightly_smiling_face: The more I read about it the more clearer it gets. Also, because I was seeing this "hint" in the Pending Pacts article: > ideally, this should have been done in a feature branch, but for the sake of this example, we'll assume best practice advice was not followed. > https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/pending_pacts So the way I understand it _now_ must be this: Pending Pacts was made for the rare cases in which consumers accidentally or forcefully merge/push their changed PACT even though the PR pipeline wouldn't let them, isn't it? So either bei Administrator's force-merge of a PR even though the PR's quality gate failed, or by directly pushing to the main branch to hotfix something, etc. If in these cases they would at the same time change a PACT that the provider is not supporting, they would fail the providers cicd. Did I get this right?

lucka

2022-04-19 15:24

Hey Matt, thanks for replying. I think that sounds reasonable and is actually a great idea.

florent

2022-04-19 16:02

has joined #general

david.vancouvering

2022-04-19 16:26

Hey. I am thinking maybe no - but can you get stubs out of a bidirectional contract published by the provider as an OpenAPI spec? Or does it have to be a Pact contract that drives stubs?

yousafn

2022-04-19 17:35

Hey, Not at the moment, it was queried recently in this conversation https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9VBGLUM9/p1649673717552369?thread_ts=1649413944.193749&cid=C9VBGLUM9 over in pact-js with a suggestion that swagger-codegen has a stub server that could be useful

david.vancouvering

2022-04-19 18:31

ok thanks!

testingterrasoft

2022-04-19 19:19

has joined #general

olivia.c

2022-04-19 23:27

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-04-20 06:33

Yes that's one scenario. It's also to support providers automatically verifying new consumer pacts (via WIP pacts) without breaking their build. Also, there are situations where the exact guidelines in nirvana aren't suitable, so having pending also simplifies those use cases

ysuei.ygui

2022-04-20 20:42

has joined #general

ysuei.ygui

2022-04-20 20:43

:wave: Hi everyone! I am new to pact

ysuei.ygui

2022-04-20 20:44

Was going thru the doc, and was wondering if we can use pact to test pagination?

abubics

2022-04-21 02:18

You sure could :slightly_smiling_face: using states like "several pages of results" with interactions like "fetching the first page", "fetching the last page", etc, is a common approach. I'd be careful of over-specifying the interactions, though, because they may all look the same, and only differ in query params.

ysuei.ygui

2022-04-21 02:21

ah .. thanks for the idea. Greatly appreciated it

yousafn

2022-04-21 08:17

:wave: Morning everyone, This oldie but goodie came back to my attention yesterday and it's made me think, what other programming language oddities are you aware of, that increase that cognitive load and complexity when you are developing. https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat

mike.geeves064

2022-04-21 08:31

Not directly, but it brings back similar memories of a MySQL -> PostgreSQL swapout, similar to when you add in typing and find half your code shouldn't actually work but coincidentally some blatantly broken logic and unexpected casting happens to resolve to the thing you need :joy:

2022-04-21 08:53

This message was deleted.

yousafn

2022-04-21 09:50

Hi Nuno. is this sentence correct? > For an asynchronous interaction I would consider a synchronous interaction when the provider sends a message that is syntactically incorrect (e.g. with missing mandatory fields) or with wrong data, causing the consumer to reject it.

nuno.frias

2022-04-21 09:51

Nope it is not. Sorry

nuno.frias

2022-04-21 09:51

Fixing it now

yousafn

2022-04-21 09:51

thanks buddy

nuno.frias

2022-04-21 09:52

Can't edit the message ... annoying

yousafn

2022-04-21 09:52

Neither can I, if you repost, I can delete the original :thumbsup:

nuno.frias

2022-04-21 09:54

Hello all I am struggling to think of an example of an ?unhappy path? for an asynchronous interaction. Let me clarify: On a synchronous interaction I would consider an unhappy path to be something like when the consumer sends a request to the provider and gets a 400 response back. The consumer test then asserts that the consumer handled the 400 response correctly (e.g. correct exception is thrown). For an asynchronous interaction I would consider an unhappy path to be something like when the provider sends a message that is syntactically incorrect (e.g. with missing mandatory fields) or with wrong data, causing the consumer to reject it. The problem is I can?t force the provider to send a message that is syntactically wrong (as the server code enforces the syntax), that leaves me with trying to send a message with wrong data. In this case should I build a scenario for each wrong data combination that can be sent (this is functional testing), or should I just pick one or two examples of wrong data and build tests for it?

nuno.frias

2022-04-21 09:54

Reposted

yousafn

2022-04-21 09:55

we might need to look at our slack settings for allow OP's to the edited. Thanks @nuno.frias

nuno.frias

2022-04-21 09:56

No problem. Apologies for that I should double check my questions on a public forum :disappointed:

yousafn

2022-04-21 09:57

dude, It's okay, I make mistakes all the time!

yousafn

2022-04-21 10:18

> I can?t force the provider to send a message that is syntactically wrong (as the server code enforces the syntax), that leaves me with trying to send a message with wrong data. Are you trying to cover a case on your consumer side, where it handles the errors returned from your provider, in the case of bad data? If you can't force your provider to send a message that in syntactically wrong because the code enforces it, would you expect that scenario to happen in production, and therefore worthy of testing? What is the particular use case here, is your client posting a message to a queue and expecting to do something at some point later with the provider response. Where is the providers response being posted too? There is always a little overlap and I wouldn't be concerned but you wouldn't want to cover all the edge cases. If the shape of the error message is always the same, then you can just test that one case. If in specific error cases, you do some different work in your client, based on a specific response, then I would want a contract to cover that.

yousafn

2022-04-21 10:20

My experience with async has been posting messages to SQS and various lambdas listening to them and performing actions (such as generating a file and saving it in a bucket, based on a ref or payload provided in the message). The only responses the client would get, would be that from SQS as to whether they had published the message correctly or not.

yousafn

2022-04-21 10:23

I would have lots of provider tests (not Pact tests) that ensure that my provider returns nice error messages, when things go bork. We would consider the difference between retryable errors and non-retryable errors. a valid client payload (to the queue) but garbage to the provider (non existent id for example) wouldn't be retried and chucked straight on a DLQ. If the db connection was down we would allow the SQS retry mechanism to kick in, and dump in on the DLQ after x redrives

nuno.frias

2022-04-21 10:32

> Are you trying to cover a case on your consumer side, where it handles the errors returned from your provider, in the case of bad data? Correct. In this particular case the provider communicates with the consumer via kafka. Essentially when an upstream event occurs the provider writes an event to a kafka topic, which the consumer reads, does additional processing and then responds to another consumer further downstream. This interaction is started by the provider. I take it from your answer that I should handle the majority of unhappy paths (messages with wrong data) on the component tests, and pick a few relevant cases for Pact -- even that makes the tests overlap a bit. That makes sense to me.

yousafn

2022-04-21 10:39

Have you ever seen this site? It is really good to quickly make diagrams to represent your domain, I find it quite useful as visual references are easier to relate to than text. https://www.websequencediagrams.com I?ll have a think on your particular problem, first thing that stands out is there are three parties here, one is acting as a pass through with transformation. Not sure if it?s different in Async land but I know that causes pain in provider verification with regular consumer driven contract testing and we have suggested a slightly different pattern. I?ll find the docs. https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/what_is_pact_good_for#why-pact-may-not-be-the-best-tool-for-testing-pass-through-apis-like-bffs This may or may not be applicable to your use case so take it with a pinch of salt

nuno.frias

2022-04-21 10:48

In my case it is not a pass through API the individual micro services do implement a fair bit of logic which controls whether they interact with the other services dowstream and the content of that interaction.

abubics

2022-04-21 10:53

A lot of async things end up being pairs of sync things: instead of getting an immediate response for final success (or failure), you get first an immediate response of acceptance, and then later a separate call back for final success (or failure). If it can truly be modelled in that way, then it's multiple interactions, simple :slightly_smiling_face:

abubics

2022-04-21 10:53

If not, then a diagram would help a lot. It's hard to visualise which bits you want to cover in just words.

abubics

2022-04-21 10:54

Generally, things like malformed messages (e.g. bad syntax) aren't part of the contract, they're at a more fundamental layer (e.g. web framework rejects malformed requests, even if you control the error response shape).

abubics

2022-04-21 10:56

But things that can be invalidated with domain logic (i.e. contract things), can't often be invalidated with only shape or syntax checks, without refactoring your transaction models. That's exactly what contract tests aim to solve, across network boundaries.

nuno.frias

2022-04-21 10:57

The whole system I am testing contains many microservices, typically any two pairs of services interact in the following manner: ? service A sends an HTTP request to service B ? service B responds with a 200 if the request is valid ? service B does additional processing and may send a request to a service C ? service B writes an event to a Kafka topic when it gets the response from service C ? service A reads the event from the topic

nuno.frias

2022-04-21 10:58

Indeed there are multiple interactions involved @abubics

nuno.frias

2022-04-21 11:00

My question was more generic, I wasn't targeting a particular interaction.

abubics

2022-04-21 11:01

sounds like you want ? A->B http ? B->C http ? B->A message

abubics

2022-04-21 11:01

and you might have multiple states and/or interactions for each, including unhappy paths if they're warranted :slightly_smiling_face:

nuno.frias

2022-04-21 11:02

my question was precisely whether or not I should cover the unhappy paths in Pact.

abubics

2022-04-21 11:02

it's valid to have cyclical relationships, but you have to be more careful with them, because they can be hard to change

abubics

2022-04-21 11:02

how much you want to cover unhappy paths is usually determined by how much confidence they'll give you

abubics

2022-04-21 11:03

> There is always a little overlap and I wouldn't be concerned but you wouldn't want to cover all the edge cases. If the shape of the error message is always the same, then you can just test that one case. > > If in specific error cases, you do some different work in your client, based on a specific response, then I would want a contract to cover that. That pretty much covers the general advice :ok_hand:

abubics

2022-04-21 11:04

But, for example, if you have a complex multi-step transaction model, and there are significantly different errors possible in different transitions, then you probably do want coverage of them.

abubics

2022-04-21 11:04

That coverage might be better placed in unit tests, especially if the error shapes don't change.

abubics

2022-04-21 11:06

Generally, I have centralised error handling at the gate where messages are marshalled through the data layer into domain-meaningful models, so I tend to only need one sad path in contracts, for each category of error. The branching for how the errors are handled can be done internally, outside of the contract.

abubics

2022-04-21 11:07

(I think I got there in the end, sorry for the other tangents :sweat_smile:)

nuno.frias

2022-04-21 11:07

That makes a lot of sense

nuno.frias

2022-04-21 11:08

Thank you very much.

abubics

2022-04-21 11:10

np ^_^ conveniently, I think the async bit might be a red herring

nuno.frias

2022-04-21 11:19

On the synchronous interactions the provider responses have pretty much the same format, the only thing that varies is the message, and in some rare cases the status code.

nuno.frias

2022-04-21 11:20

But on the async interactions there are is a larger number of variations that cause the consumer to reject the message

nuno.frias

2022-04-21 11:20

So I was debating whether I should handle the unhappy paths on the component tests alone.

nuno.frias

2022-04-21 11:26

But your response shed some light > I have centralised error handling at the gate where messages are marshalled through the data layer into domain-meaningful models, so I tend to only need one sad path in contracts, for each category of error. The branching for how the errors are handled can be done internally, outside of the contract. Essentially I only need a Pact test to exercise the bit of the client code that rejects the message and I can test the various error cases on the component tests / other unit tests.

abubics

2022-04-21 11:33

in that case, the state for the message consumer might be like "a transaction is in progress" or "a transaction is in <blah> state", but either way, the response is probably a pithy "ok", and the actual error handling happens inside the app, as you suggest :thumbsup:

matt.fellows

2022-04-21 13:00

Hi Nuno - you can actually edit posts, you just can?t edit it after 30 mins from posting.

matt.fellows

2022-04-21 13:01

This is a slack default we can change, but frankly, if you need to change your mind after 30 mins it?s probably best to just post an update on what you thought/wanted to say

giuseppe.torchia

2022-04-22 08:25

has joined #general

thadamski

2022-04-22 14:00

has joined #general

edouard.lopez

2022-04-22 14:50

Using *https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-stub-server* is there a request I can do to list the endpoints exposed or do I need to manually find them via the broker/contract files?

druiz

2022-04-22 15:02

has joined #general

tord.brokvist

2022-04-22 15:08

has joined #general

lucka

2022-04-22 15:28

Hi, I am wrapping my head around the Diamond Pact Nirvana step, in specific i am trying to set the "main" tag after my PR is merged to the main branch. But since a "merge" to the main branch creates a new commit I am having the problem, that I cannot call the broker to tag this version with "main", because the PACT version that got published to the broker is the head commit sha of the feature branch. There is technically with github actions no problem to simply add the tag to the correct version (git sha of the feature branch), but this is a bit dirty I think, as this git commit is not going to be the one that is deployed to prod, but the merge commit does. Has anyone had this problem too?

lucka

2022-04-22 15:34

What I could do of course is to run the PACT publish step again, then the version is overwritten, but I suppose this is adding a bit of instability to my cicd then, because it could fail and in this case nobody would recognize unless this failure doesn't stop the deploy pipeline. Maybe this is the solution of it? I just thought its advisable to not run the entire build + pact publish step "again". The way its currently solved in the screenshot is that the "main" tag was attached to eeda852, the PR's head commit. This diverges with the actual GIT main branch now and leads to confusion so I think it cannot stay like this.

lucka

2022-04-22 15:35

I'd appreciate to know how others managed to work this out

tord.brokvist

2022-04-22 15:43

Hello :slightly_smiling_face: I want to find some logical relation between the interface specification (OpenAPI) of the service provider and the consumer tests. To do this I need your support to #1 get a better idea about how strictly one should define the API of the service provider and #2 to what level of detail one should specify the service consumer test cases. #1 How strict should I define my inparameters in my OpenAPI for the service provider? Let's assume I go for a very strict approach meaning ? specifying what in-parmeter is optional/mandatory ? specifying all odd formatted in-parameters like customer ID [A-Z][A-Z][A-Z]\-\d\d\d (since it makes my provider logics simpler to implement) ? I might even add restrictions like optional in param C must always be provided if optional param B is provided #2 Your recommendation for level of detail for consumer tests are "Only make assertions about things that will affect the consumer if they change" In that chapter you exemplify to avoid the test case that verifies that "the customer ID is expected to be in the format `[A-Z][A-Z][A-Z]\-\d\d\d`" I hope this is meant for an out-parameter? By this I hope you understand the scope of my thoughts and I would really appreciate som your general thoughts on this theme.

gnanasekar69

2022-04-22 17:23

has joined #general

himanshu.1046

2022-04-24 18:25

has joined #general

lewiscowles

2022-04-24 23:11

:wave: I signed up for a personal free account in addition to my work account. password reset doesn't work.

matt.fellows

2022-04-25 00:11

Hi Lewis, can you please send a request to and we can reset it for you?

matt.fellows

2022-04-25 00:11

How long ago?

himanshu.1046

2022-04-25 04:23

Hello folks, I wanted to have provider setup for pact-python? any refrences to that and what default port it uses? wanted to understand and setup that?

matt.fellows

2022-04-25 04:40

Check out the examples in the git repo.

matt.fellows

2022-04-25 04:40

Also examples here: howtoexamples

2022-04-25 04:40

matt.fellows

2022-04-25 04:41

Also, best asking in #pact-python

pact270

2022-04-25 06:24

Thanks for getting this merged and released.

lewiscowles

2022-04-25 07:27

Saturay, but I'll send the email.

lewiscowles

2022-04-25 07:28

It was a case that I'd started typing and only pressed send yesterday evening upon realising I had not

chris196

2022-04-25 09:51

has joined #general

manu.vereecken

2022-04-25 11:06

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-04-25 11:15

Should still work. You can't reset a password if you hadn't logged in the first time tho.

matt.fellows

2022-04-25 11:15

We'll get it sorted

matt.fellows

2022-04-25 11:16

Just unlocked your user now. Can you please try resetting your password again now?

maltechristian.neuman

2022-04-25 11:52

has joined #general

lewiscowles

2022-04-25 13:39

Ah that must have been it. I will store this one in my password manager. I Think I signed up at work, but it looks like my work login overwrote it.

lewiscowles

2022-04-25 13:47

Stored and hopefully not an issue again. I am mostly going to use this to explore things we can do that are different to how we use at work, as I think it feels a bit of a mess. People are injecting ruby binaries and modifying controllers in their projects to integrate pactflow. It feels quite intrusive for what it's sending to the pactflow broker.

prashanth.ramadass

2022-04-25 14:04

has joined #general

wng

2022-04-25 14:33

Hi! We had a few questions regarding the new bi-directional contract feature of Pactflow (and I suppose Pact in general). 1. To our understanding, Pact is great for direct service to service contract enforcement, but what happens when you add an API gateway into the equation where a service needs to go through the gateway before reaching the microservice? Ideally the gateway would not contain much, if any business logic and mostly functions as a passthrough for api calls in our system. The https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/bi-directional-contract-testing/#use-cases says it simplifies things, but how is unclear. 2. The documentation https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/what_is_pact_good_for#why-pact-may-not-be-the-best-tool-for-testing-pass-through-apis-like-bffs recommends not using Pact for a BFF pattern. However, it's unclear if this documentation is meant to apply just to consumer driven contract testing or if it also applies to the bi-directional contracts as well. Could you clarify that as well? In a nutshell, this is the problem we're trying to understand in the following diagram. If using the bi-directional contract feature, where should Pact live (if at all)? ? (2) only? ? It's clear the microservice is the provider, but who is the consumer? Technically the client, but with the gateway proxying/transforming data potentially, does the consumer contract live here? ? (1) + (2)? ? Given the uncertainties of (2) alone, does it make sense the chain the contracts? Probably not, but wanted to validate this. ? (3) only? ? For contract testing purposes, act as if the gateway doesn't exist and just have the contract between the true consumer/provider? ? (4) We have something wrong with our contract testing approach entirely and if so, what should be the approach.

yousafn

2022-04-25 15:31

I was pondering the same question today, when chatting to a friend. re: point 2 - this https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/what_is_pact_good_for#why-pact-may-not-be-the-best-tool-for-testing-pass-through-apis-like-bffs about Pact _not_ for BFF/API Gateway patterns, relates to the traditional Pact consumer driven contract model, where the provider verification interacts directly with a provider codebase. I think a few people have been wondering about how the traditional CDCT (consumer driven) and BDCT (bi directional) contract testing approaches would work together. If the api gateway was purely non transformational, I would probably use BDCT between 1/2 and use a flavour of a non HTTP CDCT verification at point 3 > What you really need is a "non-HTTP" pact between your consumer and the downstream system. Check out this https://gist.github.com/bethesque/0ee446a9f93db4dd0697 for an example of how to use the Pact contract generation and matching code to test non-HTTP communications. I don't have good examples of that in use, bar the linked gist. I love where this train of thought is going, and I also :heart_eyes: the fact you made a diagram! I really want to showcase some ways Pact (both BDCT and CDCT) can work or not work with API gateways/BFF's and module federation

wng

2022-04-25 15:38

Thanks for quick response and yes, that helps clarify a lot of things! We figured we can't be the only ones using an API gateway, so more documentation for BDCT and CDCT with gateways in the future would be great!

yousafn

2022-04-25 15:40

Hope to hear more real world experiences and share them, so keen to hear what our community has to say :slightly_smiling_face: We used them extensively in a previous project, some as transformational, some pass through, all to access on prem systems, but never got round to properly covering them with Pact because we had far bigger testing challenges in the org

wng

2022-04-25 17:58

This is perhaps more of a Pactflow question then, but if we did (1) and (2) above, that would make the api gateway the consumer and provider (as it should be). Would a pact broker visual the network diagram for the full sequence between the client, gateway and microservice? Or would it just show as two separate contracts where it'll be client to gateway and then gateway to microservice? Or alternatively if we chose to just implement (2), how simple would it be to rename the "consumer" [api gateway]?

janarthanan.rajendras

2022-04-25 22:35

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-04-25 23:08

If the gateway was basically pass-through, I?d simply add a single contract (3). Sometimes the gateway adds or validates headers that don?t pass downstream. In this case, i?d still do the above, and test this in other ways (usually, this is such a core part of the API it will be caught in several other places if not fully tested via CT anyway). If the gateway starts to change the paths / routes, you could go either way. If the gateway did things like orchestrate/choreograph and stitch multiple APIs together, then you need to treat them as separate tests. BDCT can make some of these situations simpler, primarily because they can be tested in a black-box way unlike with Pact which requires you to write unit tests, which can often be quite cumbersome depending on the API gateway technology. For example, Axway/Apigee/Layer7 and the like are basically not unit testable, which makes Pact hard to use. But BDCT can side step some of these technical barriers because you have more ways to test it at arms length.

shreyas.gowda

2022-04-26 02:14

has joined #general

abubics

2022-04-26 02:42

Every build (i.e. every commit) should have passing tests (including contract tests) before deploying. There's an optimisation in the broker to pre-verify a new contract version if the content is the same as an existing contract, so you don't really have to worry about verification performance.

abubics

2022-04-26 02:43

You don't want to use the branch version, because there might be legitimate differences once it's merged.

marxjo

2022-04-26 07:09

has joined #general

andrew.fraser

2022-04-26 07:19

has joined #general

lei.shi

2022-04-26 07:46

has joined #general

akash.sharma5253

2022-04-26 11:50

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-04-26 13:26

Hey hey, Open question. are you involved in open source projects? would you like to be, but don?t know where to start? Feel free to join me in a :thread: , if you have a cool package/project, feel free to share. I?ve found so many awesome pact repos and packages sprouted over the years, and plan on collating a list to put on the website, but yeah just curious to hear what others are up to!

rafael.anachoreta

2022-04-26 15:43

I?m also really curious to hear your thoughts on this. I just went through @matt.fellows?s video on BDCT and was hoping to hear more about how to handle the case where a gateway stitches multiple APIs together. What we have done to solve this problem is split our CDCT into two: one between the consumer and the gateway and another between the gateway itself and the provider. This has worked but has been challenging to maintain (the setup is a lot more complex than I?m making it out to be). Is this something Pactflow supports already? And if not is it in your roadmap? How would you solve this challenge?

matt.fellows

2022-04-27 07:18

What technology is your gateway Rafael?

matt.fellows

2022-04-27 07:18

and how does it stitch it all together - configuration? Code? (something else?)

kannan.jai

2022-04-27 07:49

has joined #general

c.giannakopoulos

2022-04-27 10:47

has joined #general

sebastian.spiess

2022-04-27 11:43

has joined #general

rafael.anachoreta

2022-04-27 11:54

It is a NodeJS GraphGL Gateway built on top of Apollo that combines schemas from multiples services into a federated schema. Is that the information you were after, @matt.fellows?

matt.fellows

2022-04-27 11:55

Yes, thanks

matt.fellows

2022-04-27 13:06

OK, so I just did an export of the slack workspace public channel data, and it?s now up at http://docs.pact.io/slack

matt.fellows

2022-04-27 13:08

Checkout the #graphql channel and also this archive of a discussion about federation: https://docs.pact.io/slack/graphql.html#1599007978.023800

matt.fellows

2022-04-27 13:08

Keen on your thoughts

matt.fellows

2022-04-27 13:09

but, to be clear, whilst we would love to, we don?t have any concrete ideas/plans to make GraphQL better in this specific sense. Feedback and feature requests (http://pact.canny.io) would help of course

rafael.anachoreta

2022-04-27 13:11

Ha! I work for the same company, so we are talking about the same setup there :slightly_smiling_face: I couldn?t find this discussion as I was limited to the history slack provided, but thanks for sharing. I?ll go through the messages and get back to you in a bit

matt.fellows

2022-04-27 13:13

LOL

matt.fellows

2022-04-27 13:13

OK, well that?s funny. Hopefully we?ll be able to upgrade the workspace to Pro soon (SmartBear have indicated they might do this), so would mean I wouldn?t need to keep running the export to the site.

rafael.anachoreta

2022-04-27 13:29

What I can say is that the approach we are using works, but it is more time consuming than when you only have to worry about a single consumer <-> provider pair. It also can misbehave when we have multiple concurrent deployments happening at the same time, as it becomes tricky to set on an exact gateway version to verify against.

rafael.anachoreta

2022-04-27 13:33

I don?t exactly know how Pact could make this flow more seamless either :disappointed:

matt.fellows

2022-04-27 13:46

I think it could possibly be solved by BDCT: 1. Consumer - write contract tests (whether using Pact or not), potentially usinsg a GraphQL plugin when the plugin framework is available 2. Gateway - Apollo federation presents a unified graphql schema and uploads to Pactflow (again, would need GraphQL BDCT support - this should be doable though) 3. API Providers - I?d need to know a bit more about how federation works, but potentially Pact works OK here already, if they are HTTP clients?

oury.diallo

2022-04-27 13:46

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-04-27 13:46

:wave: We now having voting buttons in the footer of every page on our documentation site https://docs.pact.io/ If you find a page useful, or just plain confusing, please drop us a vote. We are keen to make the documentation on point, over time and this will hopefully give the open source maintainers visibility into where some of the common pain points are and give us a good base line for improvements, or even measuring if new pages are making the required impact. Also don't forget as the whole site is open source, you also have the option to `Edit this page` and you can help curate and shape our content, like a big beautiful contract testing wiki.

rafael.anachoreta

2022-04-27 14:00

Re #3, yes, they are HTTP clients in our case. How would the Gateway in this case be able to validate requests though? It would need the providers, right?

matt.fellows

2022-04-27 14:17

In BDCT we only look at the schemas. If the graphql schema is sound we can compare to the consumer contract and be confident they are compatible. This assumes of course there are good ways to test the graphql schema + federation setup

jean.paiva42

2022-04-27 18:58

has joined #general

christoffer.vig

2022-04-28 06:09

has joined #general

kannan.jai

2022-04-28 12:50

Hello, team. Afternoon. I have a quick question, to trigger Provider Verification as part of consumer pipeline, can we simply use Jenkins build job trigger instead of using Webhooks? Are there any drawbacks in this approach? Please advise. Thanks. Something like this - ```stage ('Provider Verification') { steps { build job: 'providerVerificationPipeline' }```

matt.fellows

2022-04-28 12:54

You can. The webhookless flow uses this pattern: https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana/step_6#alternative-webhookless-workflow

andrea.sangiorgio

2022-04-28 13:01

has joined #general

kannan.jai

2022-04-28 13:03

Thanks, will have a look.

jason.mcinerney

2022-04-28 19:14

has joined #general

psnyder

2022-04-28 19:22

has joined #general

dominique.cote

2022-04-29 01:17

has joined #general

laura.walsh

2022-04-29 13:40

has joined #general

david.vancouvering

2022-04-29 16:14

We'd love to move away from tags to branches and environments, but can't because we use the JVM libraries and Maven plugin, which don't support them. When can we expect that to get resolved? Feels like we're going further and further afield from the main road

ashish.goyal

2022-04-29 18:50

Hello Team- I recently started on BDCT. We have our API spec which internally refers to different schemas. I am working on resolving those references so that i can publish an API contract to pact broker. In your experience what tools have worked best for you.. From my end, i have tried using openapi_parser library written in python. It generates a Specification object after resolving all references from my yaml file, however i am not able to find how to convert this specification back to yaml/json so that it can be published to pact broker

mailtoadnan.ahmed

2022-04-30 08:56

has joined #general

prasanna.mallisetty

2022-04-30 12:11

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-04-30 19:42

Unless you have a specific business case to do some based on that 400 class of error, on the client side, why would they care?

yousafn

2022-04-30 19:45

Liking the discussion though and welcome to Pact! Always good to newcomers thoughts because you might see it in a completely different light

uglyog

2022-05-02 00:27

These are on our product roadmap. Some of us (at Pactflow) have been involved in the acquisition by Smartbear, so have not had much time to work on things like that. Going forward, Smartbear is going to be supporting all the Pact frameworks, so this work will be picked up again.

david.vancouvering

2022-05-02 02:31

Ok thanks

marcelo.jaeggi

2022-05-02 16:26

has joined #general

laura.walsh

2022-05-02 22:27

Hi there! My team set up Pact a few months ago but could use some clarity / guidance on our setup (which we have likely not configured quite right). My team's service is a lambda function that is the consumer of an SQS queue that is written to by a Ruby gem, which is called by another microservice. The Ruby gem is not just a passthrough service, as it takes some of the parameters of the provider's request and puts them into the body of the SQS message while it attaches some of the others as messageAttributes to the SQS message. We initially set up message Pact tests between the Ruby gem and our consumer, since it is the gem that creates and sends the payload that we need to confirm matches with our consumer microservice?s message handler code. We realized though that this does nothing to guarantee that the greater flow between our provider microservice and our consumer microservice (the flow which we really do want to safeguard in production using pact) is actually unbroken. Our team owns the consumer microservice and the client gem and we make sure that any changes that go live on the consumer microservice are immediately supported by an update to the Ruby gem to match. However, the provider microservice is in control of upgrading the Ruby gem to newer versions and if it is using an old version of the gem, the message put onto the queue by that old version of the client gem will fail to be processed by the new, live version of the consumer microservice. We are trying to reason about what makes the most sense for us given our architecture here. Is there a very different way we should be setting up our Pact integration to meet our contract testing goal of ensuring that the provider and consumer microservices (via the Ruby gem) are always in sync with each other in production? Thank you so much for your time!

eddie

2022-05-02 23:58

> Unless you have a specific business case to do some based on that 400 class of error Well that's *one* good reason, but another reason is that if there's a new shape of 400 response, there's a possibility that you were previously making requests that could be now invalid.

jaswanth.ooty

2022-05-03 00:26

has joined #general

james.weng

2022-05-03 05:13

has joined #general

jochen.kraushaar

2022-05-03 09:16

has joined #general

anurag.soni1984

2022-05-03 10:58

has joined #general

stephen.taylor

2022-05-03 14:26

has joined #general

conrad

2022-05-03 18:41

has joined #general

jithinjacob2011

2022-05-04 04:59

Are there any workshops/training available in the office for PactJs Training or is it available only for partners at the moment.

matt.fellows

2022-05-04 06:18

Hi Jithin, I assume this question is directed at Pactflow and not the general community given your comment re: partners?

jithinjacob2011

2022-05-04 06:19

Yes

matt.fellows

2022-05-04 06:19

We can certainly connect you with one of our local Partners - I think DiUS would be a good fit given where you?re based. If you could please drop a line to we could look to connect you via email. I?d like to get a bit more of an understanding of your needs and budget though. Want to DM me with details?

jithinjacob2011

2022-05-04 06:21

Yea sure. I will email the details.We are in a proof of concept phase. As this is something new I thought of taking a basic training

qamarlonalmeida

2022-05-05 05:24

has joined #general

ben.pilgrim

2022-05-05 10:19

has joined #general

lredpath

2022-05-05 11:21

has joined #general

alex834

2022-05-05 11:26

has joined #general

damianruizdev

2022-05-05 13:10

Hey guys, I'm trying to sign up for the Pact Broker but the button is remaining disabled after filling out all the fields?

yousafn

2022-05-05 14:11

Hi @damianruizdev, Does your pact broker already exist? https://avidxchange.pactflow.io/ if you try and enter a different name for the `Requested subdomain for your broker` and then switch it back to avidxchange, it should fire a request and show a message to say its already taken. It looks like there should be a form validation shown, when the form is first rendered and pre-filled with the company name, from the previous part of the flow

yousafn

2022-05-05 14:12

I think you will need to request an invite from the account owner, or reset your credentials, if you are the account owner. https://avidxchange.pactflow.io/

damianruizdev

2022-05-05 14:20

Yup, notification popped up after removing the subdomain and adding it back in. Thanks Yousaf!

nachogonzalez

2022-05-05 15:51

has joined #general

kannan.jai

2022-05-05 16:57

Hi Team, afternoon. I am getting an error while publishing a pact - [ERROR] PUT JSON request failed with status HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests Failed. Looking for any inputs to troubleshoot. Thanks.

yousafn

2022-05-05 17:30

Fab, and no problem buddy, will see if we can get that sorted to avoid confusion for further users, thanks for letting us know.

matt.fellows

2022-05-05 17:45

Is this to a self hosted pact broker or Pactflow?

matt.fellows

2022-05-05 17:46

The error seems obvious, are you sending too many requests?

matt.fellows

2022-05-05 17:48

Might be an on blur event so doesn't pick up default fields

mounaouar

2022-05-05 18:00

has joined #general

kannan.jai

2022-05-05 18:26

I am using Pactflow. I have a consumer which has 3 providers. I am able to generate pact and publish for one provider but while doing the same for the other two providers comes back with this message.

mounaouar

2022-05-05 19:01

Hello everyone, I have a question: Is there a way to allow new consumer contrats to be deployed using can-i-deploy even if there is no provider code to support it at the exact time of deployement? The reason I'm asking is that I want to prevent merge hell, i.e. consomer code waiting in separate branch waiting for the provider code to be developped.

kannan.jai

2022-05-05 19:11

Fixed it, seems like there were some old pacts / interactions in Pactflow which I had to delete.

kannan.jai

2022-05-05 19:11

Interesting but...

matt.fellows

2022-05-06 02:11

Are you on the free tier? Are you at your free tier limits of number of integrationts?

matt.fellows

2022-05-06 02:12

That could explain a 429 I think. On the free tier, you only get 5 integrations by default. So if you had extra pacts with different integration details (provider/consumer) that would try and create more integrations, and potentially exceed the limit

matt.fellows

2022-05-06 02:57

There is a ?dry run? option and options to ignore specific pacticipants in the result.

matt.fellows

2022-05-06 02:58

run `pact-broker help can-i-deploy` to see the available options

matt.fellows

2022-05-06 02:58

`can-i-deploy` is designed to prevent this situation, because it is inherently unsafe (how can you deploy a consumer if the provider is not there? Clearly, the consumer won?t work)

matt.fellows

2022-05-06 02:59

If you know this is the case in advance, the best thing to do is just _not_ call can-i-deploy. If *you* have the information in advance to know you want to skip can-i-deploy, just skip it

richard.jones254

2022-05-06 04:02

Has anyone hooked up the broker webhook to trigger verification in CircleCI? Am looking for clues please :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2022-05-06 04:02

Hey @richard.jones254!

bethskurrie

2022-05-06 04:02

Have you tried https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/webhooks/template_library#circleci---trigger-workflow-build

richard.jones254

OMG @bethskurrie thanks :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

it doesn't look like that example passes in properties though

richard.jones254

It?s a good starting point tho

bethskurrie

https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/terminology#pacticipant

if you work out how to do that, could you update the example?

joanna.schloss

2022-05-06 04:45

has joined #general

frank.kilcommins

2022-05-06 04:46

has joined #general

douglas.clark

2022-05-06 04:46

has joined #general

danielflieger

2022-05-06 06:30

Hey there! I was wondering if it is possible to use the ?pending pacts? feature & ?can I deploy? at the same time when using ?Platinum? or ?Diamand? in pact nirvana? As it seems that ?can I deploy? needs a successful verification on provider side first before it can be deployed. In my example I want to introduce a new ?State? on consumer side which has not be implemented on provider side. So I was wondering if I can deploy without having the new state in the provider. Thanks!

bethskurrie

2022-05-06 06:31

Have you done the CI/CD workshop? https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/ci-cd/workshop

bethskurrie

2022-05-06 06:32

if you want to add a new provider state, but keep the consumer deployable, you generally make the change on the branch of the consumer, then implement it in the provider, then merge in the consumer branch

danielflieger

2022-05-06 06:40

Thank you for the blazing fast feedback. I?ll gone a have look into the workshop. I may missed something in the concept then.

bethskurrie

2022-05-06 06:41

using pending will stop the provider breaking, and the provider will still be able to deploy against the existing consumer in prod, but you won't be able to deploy the consumer version with the new provider state until the provider implements it and deploys that version.

danielflieger

2022-05-06 06:50

Ok. But when the consumer with his new state is in a feature branch which has not been merged yet what?s the reason to have ?pending pacts? anyway then? As I understood the provider tries to verify itself against main/master. Where the new state does not exist at this point in time.

bethskurrie

2022-05-06 06:51

if you follow the process perfectly, then you don't need to enable pending pacts. but nobody every follows a process 100% of the time!

lucka

2022-05-06 06:51

Hi Beth, we implemented Platinum by example of the awesome CI/CD workshop. While we are trying it out on a daily basis, we more and more see that Platinum is going to tightly couple a consumer and his provider. Given Convey's law and having a working model with high concurrent development process on big company initiatives, this in practice usually means that a consumer may be faster in developing a new feature than a provider can actually implement it (assuming consumer and provider have aligned on a new API spec first). This would put the consumer in a position to ask the provider to implement his new/changed PACT for him to unblock his PR pipeline. For this reason we have the necessity to still be able to work independently. We solve this usually by utilizing feature toggles, so that the consumer can deploy his work already even to production, regardless of whether the provider implemented the feature already or not. This comes with the drawback of loosing security from a test perspective though. We too think, that the platinum step is actually worth having, but when we roll out or POC solution on company level I think this is going to be a problem, hence we are now starting with a first POC approach to not use Platinum but rely on pending-pacts first to unblock the consumer from merging his PR.

bethskurrie

2022-05-06 06:53

We have it in our backlog to work out better support for feature toggles https://pact.canny.io/feature-requests/p/add-better-support-for-workflows-that-are-managed-by-feature-toggles-rather-than

aaron.m.williams24

2022-05-06 07:50

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-05-06 08:09

That's a great link Beth. Here is an example I've used which has the props set https://github.com/YOU54F/template-jest-pact-typescript/blob/master/src/pact/webhooks/circle_ci_job_trigger.json Might help? Wonder if the 1.1 api is still available as I know they moved to a 2.0 api and things got deprecated ( I have a slack reporter that publishes to slack but broke recently )

joanna.janiec

2022-05-06 08:14

has joined #general

nicholas.simons

2022-05-06 11:02

has joined #general

matias.cardenas

2022-05-06 13:44

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-05-06 22:54

Hi @laura.walsh, so sorry this has missed my radar! This sounds like a really interesting use case. One of co-founders, @bethskurrie is a Ruby :female_mage:. Also top marks for the diagram and really well structured and laid out question. Shining example of how to ask a great question in a community setting :ok_hand: A great question, deserves a great reply, but it's _super_ late here, so I will wrap my head around this over the weekend and get back to you.

akash.srivastava.1911

2022-05-08 09:38

has joined #general

mounaouar

2022-05-08 15:27

Thank you Matt, that answers my question!

kannan.jai

2022-05-08 21:18

Ah OK, this is the plan I can see we are on - Plan:Starter Plan Users:unlimited seats Contracts:30

bernard

2022-05-09 10:57

:wave: feature question/request from one of our engineers: Could Pact generate TypeScript bindings automatically?

matt.fellows

2022-05-09 10:57

From a pact file or something else?

matt.fellows

2022-05-09 10:58

If you had a pact file presumably you could easily convert that to TS types

matt.fellows

2022-05-09 10:58

But if you have created a pact file you already have a client so I'm not sure how useful that would be?

yousafn

2022-05-09 11:07

I have seen a package attempting it the other way round https://github.com/HLTech/pact-gen-ts > This project aims to create a package that can generate pact files only from TypeScript definitions (without the necessity of writing separated tests with using https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js package). but haven't used this yet, so cannot comment on its usefulness. On Pact -> TS Bindings, how do you mean? We use TS interfaces for say a Product interface and we use those interfaces in the pact interaction builder, so we get intellisense typing.

yousafn

2022-05-09 11:09

> But if you have created a pact file you already have a client so I'm not sure how useful that would be? Yep the Pact file would come after the interaction with the client, so it's a bit of a weird trip, you need to build up your req/res in the pact interaction, and make it in your client code, so you should have an interface. You can generate types/clients from your providers spec (oas) with tools I've seen in the wild

gustavs.slutins

2022-05-09 11:51

has joined #general

yhiamdan

2022-05-09 13:51

has joined #general

thomas.cederholm

2022-05-09 14:48

has joined #general

rakesh.arrepu

2022-05-09 15:22

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-05-09 16:22

Good communities are places where people :heart: to be. I'm committed to making our Pact community, the go to place for all things contract-testing but also for people to get to know each, connect, meet, share experiences and become life-long friends. So I looking to the OSS space, and have been introduced to https://orbit.love/ What is Orbit and why am I investigating it? As a Developer Advocate / Community Shepherd, I know that we have a huge amount of GitHub repositories and hold a huge amount of weight on our shoulders, to ensure that people can use Pact day-in day-out to protect their deployments. It's a hard job to keep track of. I'd love track our GitHub repo usage, health, and cross-correlate with Slack, so we can reach the right people quicker, and ultimately save leaving you hanging. I'd also love to build some tooling myself, but why reinvent the wheel, there is already plenty of stuff to do in Pact land! So why Orbit? I'll let them explain in their own words https://orbit.love/blog/why-orbit-is-better-than-funnel-for-developer-relations The picture added, came from their open-source https://github.com/orbit-love/orbit-model Additionally, I am looking at taking our evergreen Slack which is stored here :point_right: https://docs.pact.io/slack and https://github.com/pact-foundation/docs.pact.io#slack-history and making it look a bit prettier. A little teaser here :point_right::skin-tone-2: https://pact-slack.vercel.app/ In order to facilitate this, I will need to ? Remove 2 Slack integrations ? 1 to allow Orbit to be added ? 1 to allow for Pact Slack Archiver to be added ? Add Orbit to each public channel :memo: - Both integrations will read publicly available data, but will NOT be provided permissions to read private channels or DM's. We respect open-ness of conversation, as it is in the spirit of both Pact's core mission, and open-source, but we equally respect the right to privacy. :chart_with_upwards_trend: - For visibility, we will publish the results in our regular community updates that will happening in the future, alongside what is happening in the Pact foundation and the wider-community.

yousafn

2022-05-09 16:43

Hey @laura.walsh, have you seen this post out of interest? https://pactflow.io/blog/should-i-write-contract-tests-for-client-sdks/ Matt pointed me to it when I asked about using SDK's. I think it seems correct that you have a pact between the client gem and consumer microservice. Do you have anything between your provider microservice and the client gem to tie the versions up? do you call can-i-deploy when deploying the provider microservice? you could call it asking if you could deploy between the gem and the consumer, providing the version of the pact relating to the gem, that is going to be used in the provider microservice build you wish to deploy

yousafn

2022-05-09 16:44

Would love to see a sample demo app, and this sounds like a super cool showcase, and I would be happy to help on it

mike.geeves064

2022-05-09 17:06

Orbit looks interesting, sounds like it makes sense from a quick skim through :slightly_smiling_face:

yousafn

2022-05-09 17:30

@mike.geeves064 :taco: testing the taco :slightly_smiling_face:

abhinavsharma333

2022-05-09 17:44

has joined #general

orbit

2022-05-09 17:49

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-05-09 21:18

Orbit does look great. I love their writing. I think the taco experiment was ?not that successful. I like the idea but it was never for something like this. If we needed to remove an integration to create some room, that would be :white_check_mark: with me.

mike.geeves064

2022-05-09 21:43

(think that was an unrelated "what's plugged into Pact/Slack, and does it still work" :slightly_smiling_face:)

yousafn

2022-05-09 21:45

We had simple poll, and polly, because two is better. It made me chuckle. Yo dawg, we herd you like pollin' Or keep polling, polling, polling. :musical_note: They are both gone now. :fire: We can have a round-table and work out what we want.

mike.geeves064

2022-05-09 21:46

wait what? you just removed one?

mike.geeves064

2022-05-09 21:46

both even

mike.geeves064

2022-05-09 21:46

without a poll to ask first? :joy:

yousafn

2022-05-09 21:47

51% of the people I didn't ask said yes

yousafn

2022-05-09 21:49

I don't think anyone will miss it for a few days. If anyone reading this needs a snap election, just holla and we shall bring one of them right back!

eric.barrow

2022-05-10 03:50

has joined #general

abubics

2022-05-10 05:50

I guess it might make more sense from a BDC perspective, but there are probably other tools for that already :thinking_face:

danielflieger

2022-05-10 06:58

Hey there! We are currently writing a POC for pact to test the tool in-house. We already have written a provider & consumer with jvm which support pact specification V4. Now we startet to write a consumer with pactJs which only support pact specification V2. So we were wondering if it could cause problems when consumer write pacts in different specification versions or is this something which handles the broker/pactflow by itself? Thanks.

matt.fellows

2022-05-10 07:00

Good question Daniel.

matt.fellows

2022-05-10 07:00

Basically, it?s the provider that?s the lowest common denominator

danielflieger

2022-05-10 07:04

Thank you for the fast feedback.

matt.fellows

2022-05-10 07:05

Sorry, didn?t finish (just joined a meeting :stuck_out_tongue: )

matt.fellows

2022-05-10 07:05

So, the spec version matters most to the _provider_

matt.fellows

2022-05-10 07:06

so if a consumer publishes a contract in V3 or V3 but the provider only supports up to V2, it won?t work

matt.fellows

2022-05-10 07:06

You can still specify the version to serialise in the consumer too. So if you are using Pact JVM which _can_ produce V4 pacts, you can still set the consumer tests to generate a V2 pact

danielflieger

2022-05-10 07:13

Are downwards compatible? So when the consumerA writes pacts in V4 & consumerB writes them in V2. Can the provider support both versions or should all parties use V2 then?

matt.fellows

2022-05-10 07:18

Yes, it can verify V4 and below in that example

matt.fellows

2022-05-10 07:19

so the consumers don?t need to be compatible with the same version

jyiyng2002

2022-05-10 08:24

newbie question: any QA / test enginner using pact. just wondering if this is tool for developer unit test or can be an good api test tool for QA as well.

rakesh.arrepu

2022-05-10 09:26

Could not able to view the link as below: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/getting-started/#configuring-your-api-token Is there any change in the link? If yes, can you share me the new link?

yousafn

2022-05-10 09:31

Many thousands of QA / test engineers are using Pact, I was one of them before I joined Pactflow. Pact on the consumer side is traditionally used in component integration tests, alongside a assertion library such as Jest, mocha, chai in JavaScript and others in different languages. It is used for testing HTTP and message based clients, however you would use your code under test to issue your calls to your provider, rather than use Pact directly to issue your api request. You can use generate Pact contract files from the consumer side with Pact directly in various languages, or with one of our tool adapters. Is there some particular scenarios and approaches you are considering? What tools do you currently use?

yousafn

2022-05-10 09:33

Hey dude https://docs.pactflow.io/#configuring-your-api-token You can get to it via the homepage http://docs.pactflow.io Where did you grab the link from?

matt.fellows

2022-05-10 09:34

Looks like we have a broken link, I'll look later

yousafn

2022-05-10 09:34

Also there is a search box in the top right which can help

rakesh.arrepu

2022-05-10 09:37

Thank you for response. I will check in search

oprisor.cata24

2022-05-10 09:42

has joined #general

jonathan.rice

2022-05-10 10:50

has joined #general

carolyn.biggar

2022-05-10 14:08

Language support - SoftwareAG WebMethods Hello, my team provides APIs internally and relies on pact to manage change. We have a new internal consumer, an ESB team using SoftwareAG WebMethods . It's a long shot (!), but has anyone implemented consumer side pact testing in SoftwareAG WebMethods?

yousafn

2022-05-10 14:23

Hi @carolyn.biggar, Would be interested to hear from others here as well. Could you provide any background context on what SoftwareAG WebMethods are? ? any links? ? Do they support any open specification such as openAPI? Could you provide some detail on your current Pact setup at all? Cool to hear you are already using it for protecting your internally provided API's (sounds like a perfect use case)

yousafn

2022-05-10 14:25

Ron has been busy working on the pact-plugin framework https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-plugins which might be interesting for different weird edge case languages https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-plugins#background > Further, being able to add custom contract testing behaviour for bespoke use cases would be helpful in situations where we can't justify the effort to build into the framework itself (custom protocols in banking such as AS2805 come to mind).

yousafn

2022-05-10 14:26

That being said, if something is popular enough, we might see to make first class support with a more idiomatic interface

vijayasaratha.v

2022-05-10 14:28

has joined #general

carolyn.biggar

2022-05-10 14:34

:grimacing: I actually know very little about SoftwareAG WebMethods, (this looks like their https://www.softwareag.com/en_corporate/platform/integration-apis.html). It's used by another team internal to our company who manage integrations, mostly between legacy applications. I know it's a propriety "integration framework" and they use a test engine called https://www.cloudgensys.com/products-and-services/cloudgen-products/cate/ , but afraid I don't know much beyond that (sorry, not helping myself here am I!). From the chat we've had it sounds like opportunities to use open source / third party libraries may be limited. They will be calling our graphql api over http, from an http client provided (?) by WebMethods My team's way of working currently relies on all our consumers having pact tests, so we're trying to find a way that this new consuming team could manage that within their existing skillset. My team is kotlin and our existing consumers are all jvm, js or swift , so it's a bit of a leap.

carolyn.biggar

2022-05-10 14:35

(Thanks, taking a look at the plugins links :eyes: )

yousafn

2022-05-10 14:40

no worries and it is ok, to not know, so don't ever be afraid to ask :muscle: > (sorry, not helping myself here am I! What you have provided is incredibly helpful > My team's way of working currently relies on all our consumers having pact tests, so we're trying to find a way that this new consuming team could manage that within their existing skillset. Nice, proper decent way of working that! > My team is kotlin and our existing consumers are all jvm, js or swift , so it's a bit of a leap. I am polyglotting all over the place at the minute, so a bit of a leap of faith is all good. We will be there for you :raised_hands:

yousafn

2022-05-10 14:42

On the pact-plugins, and being a Java head, you can check out our hot of the press latest dev preview of the pact-plugins https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/CEQBDD5U4/p1652055827960579

yousafn

2022-05-10 14:42

Gives you a practical idea of how the plugins might work, I am half way through the examples, keep getting distracted

dimundo

2022-05-10 15:20

hi! `pending pact` s again :slightly_smiling_face: from https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/pending_pacts > 1. Consumer publishes a new pact with tag `main` that has a new unsupported interaction in it. what if i want to amend existing interaction (like enrich message with 1 more field) ? c-i-d in this case says, that pact is failed. do I do/understand something wrong ? so in this case i need 2 interactions ? 1 for old message, 1 for enriched?

radhika.madala

2022-05-10 18:10

has joined #general

oscar.lopez

2022-05-10 20:39

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-05-10 21:59

That would be a new pact for pending purposes

matt.fellows

2022-05-10 22:01

We're a little way from plugins being GA, but depending on what your primary language is (webmethids is Java or something else?) It could be the obvious answer soon

johnathan.pestano

2022-05-11 00:43

has joined #general

frank.kilcommins

2022-05-11 08:32

:wave: Hi everyone! I'm Frank and I'm an API Tech Evangelist at SmartBear. Delighted to join the community here and learn! Hopefully I can contribute positively back over time :raised_hands:

matt.fellows

2022-05-11 08:36

Welcome!

bethskurrie

2022-05-11 08:54

Hi @frank.kilcommins!

milda.abromaviciute

2022-05-11 12:47

has joined #general

fabio.rodrigues

2022-05-11 13:03

Hey there

matiasleandronunez

2022-05-11 13:22

has joined #general

croudet

2022-05-11 14:07

has joined #general

alex.bonstrom

2022-05-11 16:19

has joined #general

cody.sims

2022-05-11 16:45

has joined #general

harii.ravii

2022-05-11 22:02

has joined #general

harii.ravii

2022-05-11 22:10

Hi everyone! I?m new to PACT. I would like to know does PACT will work on Database contracts?

matt.fellows

2022-05-11 23:19

If you mean SQL queries or something, then I think the answer is probably no

matt.fellows

2022-05-11 23:19

can you elaborate a bit more on what you want to achieve exactly?

josh.kilazoglou

2022-05-12 04:17

has joined #general

poojakunder1997

2022-05-12 07:25

has joined #general

pekka.kiviniemi

2022-05-12 10:46

has joined #general

sophie.bosse2

2022-05-12 12:45

has joined #general

dimitris.schizas

2022-05-12 16:04

has joined #general

j.shankarnath

2022-05-12 16:37

has joined #general

yesh.veera

2022-05-12 17:35

has joined #general

fabio.been

2022-05-12 18:04

has joined #general

aliboztemir

2022-05-12 19:47

has joined #general

jordan.nazemi

2022-05-12 20:25

Hi, I had a few general question that came up during a conversation regarding our future implementation of bi-directional Pact testing to our pipeline I was wondering if I could get some input on: ? *When doing the API testing of a Provider whats the best way to deal with it further downstream providers?* For example, we have a cart-service that calls a promo-service when finalizing an order. If were setting up a contract where cart-service is the provider being tested using a Dredd implementation (like the workshop on bi-directional) would we want to mock the promo-service using a hook while running the API test? Should it instead still interact with a live version of the promo-service? If we do mock them, how we best ensure the mocked responses are accurate to the actual promo-service? ? *When using bi-directional in a pipeline whats a common method of removing the test-data generated during the API testing step?* Would you use, say, an afterAll hook set up in Dredd to clear the test data that was generated or should we mock those external database calls? Apologies if these are somewhat simplistic. I have some theories already but the development team requested I reach out to you guys for input.

matt.fellows

2022-05-13 03:24

> *When doing the API testing of a Provider whats the best way to deal with it further downstream providers?* For example, we have a cart-service that calls a promo-service when finalizing an order. If were setting up a contract where cart-service is the provider being tested using a Dredd implementation (like the workshop on bi-directional) would we want to mock the promo-service using a hook while running the API test? Should it instead still interact with a live version of the promo-service? If we do mock them, how we best ensure the mocked responses are accurate to the actual promo-service? WRT the contract test itself, it doesn?t really matter with BDC. The goal here is to ensure your provider is compatible with its OAS. This being said, I?d tend to want to run this is a unit-test like environment, and stub the downstream dependencies.

matt.fellows

2022-05-13 03:25

> *When using bi-directional in a pipeline whats a common method of removing the test-data generated during the API testing step?* Would you use, say, an afterAll hook set up in Dredd to clear the test data that was generated or should we mock those external database calls? I think there might be an assumption here is that you run this against a live environment. You can do this, but the answer is ?whatever you normally would do for a functional test of this environment?. I would, again, usually tend to want to do this in a controlled unit test-like environment, where this isn?t a problem

dimundo

2022-05-13 04:54

but question was more - if i as a consumer altering existing interaction - should it became pending or failing ?

matt.fellows

2022-05-13 05:28

It?s a new pact version, in that it has new requirements in it. It will be pending as far as the provider is concerned (subject to the usual pending calculations)

matt.fellows

2022-05-13 05:29

if the provider can?t support it (pending enabled or otherwise) the consumer?s `can-i-deploy` will still fail

dimundo

2022-05-13 05:37

> has a new unsupported interaction in it. then this doesn?t counts as new :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2022-05-13 05:38

what do you mean, sorry?

dimundo

2022-05-13 05:44

```hi! pending pact s again from docs Consumer publishes a new pact with tag main that has a new unsupported interaction in it.``` some wording could be updated in docs

dimundo

2022-05-13 05:46

as it could be read as `only new interactions could be pending`

matt.fellows

2022-05-13 05:49

No, the pending status is at the _pact_ level, not the _interaction_ level.

matt.fellows

2022-05-13 05:50

If the contents of the pact changes at all, it is a new _pact_ (version) and if pending is enabled on the provider side, will be treating as a pending pact

dimundo

2022-05-13 05:50

thats clear :slightly_smiling_face:

luis.garcia

2022-05-13 09:06

has joined #general

nuno.frias

2022-05-13 09:34

Hello. We have two teams, one working on the consumer another on the provider. The provider team is finished with the provider and would like to verify the Pact, however the consumer is not yet in a state where the Pact test can be run to generate the Pact -- the consumer API is not generating the request. What is the best way to generate the Pact? (The only way I can think of is to mock the consumer request) Thank you

yousafn

2022-05-13 09:42

You _could_ replace the consumer request and make one directly (but this gives very limited confidence in your client code), however I am not sure what you are trying to achieve in terms of confidence. Are you looking to validate your provider meets its defined specification (not the consumers Pact contract). Or are you looking to test out the Provider verification pipeline? How incomplete is your consumer code? Do you have at least the API client part of it, that will call the provider service (which would be mocked in the consumer Pact test)

yousafn

2022-05-13 09:44

Personally I would invest the initial effort in attempting to get the Pact contract generated in the correct manner in your unit testing code, rather than working on anything else superfluous, but that depends on. your aims :slightly_smiling_face:

nuno.frias

2022-05-13 10:26

I am indeed trying to verify the provider meets the specification -- when the consumer is ready it will meed the same specification. I was trying to see if there was some manner in which I could generate a Pact without having to mock the consumer request -- but my suspicion was that there wasn't one. I agree with your suggestion to invest time to complete the consumer API, rather than mock the consumer, I'll forward it down to the consumer team.

yousafn

2022-05-13 10:54

Hey man, so here is a way you could generate a pact from a client, that is just a library for making requests. Here I use super test as the client. I should make not of this in my docs that this would be replaced by your client code under test https://github.com/YOU54F/template-jest-pact-typescript/blob/master/src/pact/client/json.pacttest.ts

nuno.frias

2022-05-13 12:45

Thank you. We are using Java, but I understand the approach. I am going to present it to the consumer team so they can decide whether to create a pact based on a mock request, or just build the client API.

bernard

2022-05-13 13:50

:wave: Hi I'm gathering company information for a vendor comparison at the company I work at. It would be a great help if I could get answers to the following points: ? *Company mission:* ? *Base:* Global (HQ PLACE, COUNTRY) ? *Capabilities:* ? *Customers / Awards / Scale (global)*

matt.fellows

2022-05-13 14:00

This is a general Pact channel, are you asking about Pactflow?

matt.fellows

2022-05-13 14:03

Could you please drop us a line at with some details about your role, company and the info above and I'll get somebody to respond?

andreas.wiig

2022-05-13 14:18

has joined #general

ocalderin14

2022-05-13 15:20

has joined #general

b.1.alpha

2022-05-13 15:32

https://github.com/pactflow/example-provider-springboot seems to be failing

yousafn

2022-05-13 15:36

Hey do you want to raise an issue on the repo with some information please? https://github.com/pactflow/example-provider-springboot/issues I've just kicked off a build now :point_right: https://github.com/pactflow/example-provider-springboot/actions/runs/2320407061

b.1.alpha

2022-05-13 15:44

done

b.1.alpha

2022-05-13 15:46

PS: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9UN99H24/p1652381420990669 pact-jvm post yesterday

yousafn

2022-05-13 16:05

replied, has your colleague updated his token correctly

ocalderin14

2022-05-13 16:29

Hi team, was the type timestamp removed from PactDslJsonArray?

ocalderin14

2022-05-13 16:30

I'm trying to use this type with pact-jvm and I can't find it

jyoti.yennam

2022-05-13 17:28

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-05-13 18:12

Let's face it, Contract testing is hard. The Pact foundation has led the field in trying to help ease the world of integration testing hell built on the contributions of many. Community content is rife, blogs, workshops, tutorials, videos. If you are out there, I want to celebrate what you are doing. Let me know!

yousafn

2022-05-13 18:26

?Need inspiration? :thinking_face:? ?See some community videos and articles listed here :point_right::skin-tone-4:https://docs.pact.io/blogs_videos_and_articles :bulb:?

b.1.alpha

2022-05-13 18:58

Okay day 2 we swapped to personal pactflow repos, doing work independantly, using node instead of the example-provider-springboot and then we ran into another problem with my colleague where windows is broken https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/237

b.1.alpha

2022-05-13 19:01

We had him do the registry edit fix but that didnt work. So Monday what should we do. Examples dont work for Win11

b.1.alpha

2022-05-13 19:03

These are suppose to be my pact champions, so its an impressionable time, some extra support would be appreciated.

rberger

2022-05-13 21:06

has joined #general

uglyog

2022-05-14 08:00

use datetime instead

jsb0545

2022-05-15 18:55

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-05-16 01:20

The simplest quick fix is to move the project closer to the root drive (e.g. `c:/` )

matt.fellows

2022-05-16 01:21

Alternatively, the V3 package has dropped the Ruby core (the source of the issue) but is currently in beta: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/#pact-js-v3. The interface is stable enough, so you should be OK to use it. The last remaining feature is supporting message pact, which is not too far away.

leon.luu2

2022-05-16 06:43

has joined #general

samikshaphulzele

2022-05-16 09:53

has joined #general

thomas.cederholm

2022-05-16 19:16

I have one consumer, and one provider and between these I have two different APIs (it is a mono-repo that builds two different versions of an application, but for the sake of trying to keep it simple, lets just say there are two separate APIs, and both are to be tested before the "split" occurs). I have an IT (integration test) in which I want to test these; and I started out on the consumer side, having two `@Pact` methods, and two `@PactTestFor` methods. Each such method sends its own request with its json payload. Both tests have equal provider, and equal consumer identifier. I tried to separate them by using different strings for the "given" statement in each test. That seemed to work, until the provider test ran. So, I tried two different tests on the Provider to, one where I filter out the "first given", and another where I filter the "second given", but the tests fail since not all interactions get recorded.

shiva.idc

2022-05-17 00:33

has joined #general

rholshausen

2022-05-17 00:37

The best way would be to change two different consumer IDs, maybe put a suffix depending on the API

thomas.cederholm

2022-05-17 05:16

Thank you, I will try that!

thomas.cederholm

2022-05-17 06:00

@rholshausen Do I need to think about something on the provider side of this? It would receive pacts for both consumers, right..?

rholshausen

2022-05-17 06:09

Yes, that is fine. Both will be verified

thomas.cederholm

2022-05-17 06:10

What if I have two tests in provider.. do I need a filter of some kind?

thomas.cederholm

2022-05-17 06:10

or.. do I need two providers then as well?

thomas.cederholm

2022-05-17 06:11

Maybe that is just the easiest way.. I thought it would be nice to have a smaller "matrix" but maybe that is not that important

rholshausen

2022-05-17 06:19

No, the provider test can test both pact files

rholshausen

2022-05-17 06:19

You only need one provider test

thomas.cederholm

2022-05-17 06:19

Thank you!

ocalderin14

2022-05-17 09:08

Hi @uglyog, should I use datetime with any other parameter? because it is not working for me

thomas.cederholm

2022-05-17 09:21

@rholshausen I still cant get my head around this... I now have: Consumer: "consumer1" -> "provider1" (one junit test for api 1) "consumer1" -> "provider2" (one junit test for api 2) Provider: provider1 junit test that should test consumer1 (api1), breaks because: ```Did not find a test class method annotated with @State("api2") for Interaction "[name for api2 interaction]" with Consumer "consumer1"``` provider2 junit test that should test consumer1 (api2), breaks because: ```Did not find a test class method annotated with @State("api1") for Interaction "[name for api1 interaction]" with Consumer "consumer1"```

thomas.cederholm

2022-05-17 09:21

Do I need tags or something to filter more?

thomas.cederholm

2022-05-17 09:22

I cannot have one single provider, since the provider uses either api1 OR api2 when it is running.

thomas.cederholm

2022-05-17 09:22

and the Pact test starts the application, starts testcontainers etc, and we try to process the request from Pact to verify it works.

ocalderin14

2022-05-17 09:23

this is what I'm doing ```.body(PactDslJsonArray.arrayMinLike(1) .stringType("transactionHash") .stringType("originWallet") .stringType("destinationWallet") .decimalType("amount", 1.0) .datetime("creationDate") .stringType("method") .stringType("status") .decimalType("fee") ).toPact();```

ocalderin14

2022-05-17 09:24

my consumer tests are passing but the when I'm running my provider tests I'm receiving this error

ocalderin14

2022-05-17 09:24

1.1) body: $.0.creationDate Expected 1652738400000 to match a datetime of 'yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss': Unable to parse the date: 1652738400000

ben.pilgrim

2022-05-17 10:07

Do you need to annotate pacts with tags as well as branches to be able to use pendingPacts?

matt.fellows

2022-05-17 10:20

No, you can use tags OR branches (or both)

ben.pilgrim

2022-05-17 10:22

So I can set the providerTags parameter in the Java jUnit 5 verification to the branch name? (Happy to post this in #pact-jvm if that?s more appropriate)

matt.fellows

2022-05-17 10:24

hmm best asked in pact jvm

matt.fellows

2022-05-17 10:24

I don?t know if JVM supports branches yet off the top of my head

matt.fellows

2022-05-17 10:24

(I can take a look later)

ben.pilgrim

2022-05-17 11:26

Looks like the support is mixed

matt.fellows

2022-05-17 11:29

OK, so the main Java API does not yet support branches, but you can do it with JSON in the relevant system property: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-jvm/pull/1471

matt.fellows

2022-05-17 11:29

(basically, that bypasses the usual validation and just passes JSON straight to the broker)

joseph.joyce

2022-05-17 12:15

has joined #general

vasanth.s

2022-05-17 13:36

has joined #general

sri.kasturi

2022-05-17 14:21

has joined #general

lewiscowles

2022-05-17 20:31

Is anyone from the internal team around to talk about https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9WTB2JDV/p1652787536711159 it looks like the issue this attempts to resolve has been present for some time.

harii.ravii

2022-05-17 21:40

Sorry for the late reply. I got it ..basically looking for SQL..

carlosh.carmo2

2022-05-17 22:43

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-05-18 00:50

I don?t fully understand what you want to test with contract testing here? But I?d suggest contract testing is not going to be the best tool for the job here.

gchursov

2022-05-18 09:43

has joined #general

berk.safranbolulu

2022-05-18 10:18

has joined #general

bernard

2022-05-18 11:11

Thanks @matt.fellows I've sent a few emails.

david.uzumaki

2022-05-18 11:34

I only just realised that `--pacticipant` is spelt as ?pact? and not `participant` in the cli tool nice pun haha

larshoogma

2022-05-18 11:34

has joined #general

anja.gruss

2022-05-18 12:02

anyone encounter "Error parsing json" when uploading the OAS to the broker? happens both for yml and json file, the file is created by springdoc-openapi and generates a 3.0.1 openapi version file which seems valid to my ide

matt.fellows

2022-05-18 12:11

Answering here https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9UN99H24/p1652875438635069

matt.fellows

2022-05-18 12:12

@bethskurrie did this years ago, and has never heard the end of it :rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:

malvika0810

2022-05-18 12:17

has joined #general

nishant.shah

2022-05-18 13:38

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2022-05-18 21:52

karl

2022-05-19 08:59

Hey guys, I have a question. In contract testing, is is possible to use Consumer-Driven-Contract-Testing to test towards a 3rd party API which one does not control (for example a Google Service API)? If so, how would one go about doing this?

yousafn

2022-05-19 09:34

Hey, You can, but it is not advised https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/what_is_pact_good_for#what-is-it-not-good-for You run the verifier as standalone https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/cli#provider-verifier We introduced Bi-Directional as a way of providing static schema based testing and eliminate some of the verification pains, for situations users were using traditional CDCT, or wished to, for a workflow that wasn't quite suited. With BDCT, the key difference is that a Provider uploads its own provider contract advertising its full capability which is statically compared to the expectations in the consumer contract - the consumer contract is never replayed against the provider code base. This creates a much https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/bi-directional-contract-testing#comparison-to-pact and decoupled workflow. See the https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/bi-directional-contract-testing#trade-offs for more. With CDCT, you need to write and maintain a separate set of (Pact) tests that are responsible for ensuring systems are compatible. The tests on the consumer side produce a consumer contract containing the example scenarios which must be supported for the consumer to work, which are then replayed against an _actual running provider_ in a record and replay style interaction. If the Provider responds correctly, the contract is valid. https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/provider_states are used to setup the test conditions for assertions on the Provider side, see here for the https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/testing-scope#scope-of-a-provider-pact-test

karl

2022-05-19 09:55

Thanks!

matt.fellows

2022-05-19 10:05

Yeah. I think we did an AMA on this a while ago too (or at least it was a question).

matt.fellows

2022-05-19 10:05

Search AMA in the http://docs.pact.io website for that

vorashil.farzaliyev

2022-05-19 10:59

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-05-19 11:07

Whilst not a Pact specific feature, we do have a workflow similar to described in Pactflow: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/bi-directional-contract-testing. Upload OAS as a provider contract (ideally verified to be valid, but in the case of a 3rd party you?ll just have to trust they have tested their API), generate a consumer contract and Pactflow will ensure they stay compatible.

vorashil.farzaliyev

2022-05-19 11:09

Hi all. Apologies, if it?s not the right channel, but I have been trying to publish our contracts to PactFlow. The following command works and publishes the contracts from my local machine but it fails with the following error from the CI. Can you please suggest what could be the issue? Command: ```docker run --rm \ -w "${PWD}" \ -v "${PWD}:${PWD}" \ -e PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL \ pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest \ broker publish "${PWD}/build/pacts" \ --consumer-app-version "$PACT_VERSION" \ --branch "$GIT_BRANCH" \ --broker-base-url "$PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL" \ --broker-token "$PACTFLOW_TOKEN" \``` Error on CI: ```Specified pact file '/godata/pipelines/currency-conversion-library/currency-conversion-library/build/pacts' does not exist. This sometimes indicates one of the arguments has been specified with the wrong name and has been incorrectly identified as a file path.``` I can provide more logs if needed. Currently I have checked everything I could think of, including whether the environmental variables are set or the pacts folder has a json file in it. The only difference between my local machine and GoCD pipeline is the docker version. (My machine runs v20, while GoCD runs v19). Can you please suggest what else I can try to check here? Or is there any other way of publishing pacts from CI/CD other than this docker image

yousafn

2022-05-19 11:34

Is there pacts in the folder you are targeting on the machine before mounting in the imagine? Can you output or see build artefacts, or can you ssh into your building machine and run the command and inspect the container. I think you would need to remove the rm command to avoid killing the container to inspect and pull any files with docker cp

bernard

2022-05-19 13:04

:clap: :clap: :clap: Congratulations on the sale to SmartBear :clap: :clap: :clap:

jlcrazzy

2022-05-19 13:38

has joined #general

galveznairon

2022-05-19 13:40

has joined #general

vorashil.farzaliyev

2022-05-19 13:51

Yes, there are pacts in the targeted folder. Not sure if the attached volumes takes them too. There is no reason for the volume to ignore that file as it works just fine locally. Unfortunately, I cannot ssh into the machine running these as it?s a disposable agent in CI/CD. Think each agent runs in a container, and this problem might be caused by running docker command in docker container

vorashil.farzaliyev

2022-05-19 13:51

But there is not other option I can think of, other than installing the pact cli on each build, which is not ideal I think

yousafn

2022-05-19 14:21

The CLI is available standalone or you can publish manually via an API call https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/client_cli which may help, if you are in Dockerception (DockerInDocker)

vorashil.farzaliyev

2022-05-19 14:27

I couldn?t find docs for publishing manually via API. Is it supposed to be on this page?

yousafn

2022-05-19 14:32

https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/publishing_and_retrieving_pacts#publishing I just searched publishing pacts, this is the first result. The exact bit you'd be looking for is referenced in this section https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/publishing_and_retrieving_pacts#publish-using-http-requests We've always advocated for use of the cli tools directly over the apis, but there is duplication, repitition and omissions across the docs that we are looking to address to make a cohesive experience. However in defence of the documentation, the search functionality is pretty good and is quicker than waiting for a slack reply. All feedback welcome :)

vorashil.farzaliyev

2022-05-19 14:36

Yeah, apologies. I have been frustrated by this last couple days, so probably my first instinct should have been google search. :slightly_smiling_face: Which eventually led me to https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/blob/master/lib/pact_broker/doc/views/index/publish-contracts.markdown anyways, but was hoping maybe you have some better sources available. Thanks again for the support

yousafn

2022-05-19 14:55

Sorry, I meant a search in the top right of https://docs.pact.io https://docs.pact.ioas we pull in all the readmes from the repos and display them on the site so it's one of the best ways to search across the docs. Google is a bit of a Wild West sometimes. Can appreciate the frustrations, so no need to apologise my friend

yousafn

2022-05-19 14:57

I can point you to examples in code of calling the api directly via bash, albeit not for that endpoint but it may help. This is for a provider contract publish https://github.com/pactflow/example-bi-directional-provider-restassured/blob/master/scripts/publish.sh

harii.ravii

2022-05-19 20:05

Matt, Ignore my previous question. I went through pact documentation and got pact is only used for contracts. I have one more question..I want to publish the contract to the pact broker and my contract has timestamp data. Please let me know is it possible to change the time stamp data when the producer consumes the pact contract from the broker.

sunny.cheung

2022-05-19 20:43

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-05-20 00:36

the answer is ?it depends?. In some languages you can

matt.fellows

2022-05-20 00:36

e.g. https://pactflow.io/blog/dealing-with-relative-dates-in-contract-tests/

matt.fellows

2022-05-20 00:37

There are also things called ?request filters? that can let you modify the request body too

harii.ravii

2022-05-20 01:21

Thanks Matt. This helps

matt.fellows

2022-05-20 04:23

So i?m very inclined to trust the error. One thing you can do, is add `--verbose` to the command to see if it gives you any additional insights

matt.fellows

2022-05-20 04:23

If you can please print out (prior to running the docker command) the value of `${PWD}` so we see what the mapping is

matt.fellows

2022-05-20 04:24

I?d also like to see an `ls -la` on `/godata/pipelines/currency-conversion-library/currency-conversion-library/build/pacts`

matt.fellows

2022-05-20 04:25

in my experience, these types of errors tend to be small pipeline problems that?n aren?t visible - e.g. maybe the pact test itself is failing and is not producing the file or something else is cleaning up between steps.

chantalnitz

2022-05-20 07:22

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2022-05-20 07:47

Thanks @bernard! The last 3 years have been intense but rewarding, and we're looking forward to what's going to happen over the next few.

robert

2022-05-20 08:47

has joined #general

kannan.jai

2022-05-20 09:04

Hello Team, question - Consider I have a pact interaction between ConsumerA version is 3.24.0 and tagged DEV and ProviderA version 1.9.0 and tagged DEV (this is the pact from the deployed code to DEV env). Now, there is a PR which is created against ConsumerA which runs consumer contract tests and publishes pact - tagged with the branch name as lets say PR-2 and version as commit ID, the same PR job will also trigger provider verification for ProviderA against this pact (passing the consumer tag as PR-2). Everything goes well and the code gets merged, now we have two pact interaction as shown below. Now I want to deploy this merged code (ConsumerA) to DEV, so I run "$ pact-broker can-i-deploy --pacticipant ConsumerA --version gitcommit --to DEV" to check which would pass and the code is deployed to DEV. Question: How would I now update the last verified pact interaction to reflect the version of the actual service (which would be lets say 3.25.0)?

baris.kucuk.atilim

2022-05-20 09:47

has joined #general

rajnavakoti

2022-05-20 12:42

has joined #general

jbecker

2022-05-20 17:17

Hey! General pact question (I think). I wrote this little consumer contract test and it seems to be working, and when I go to verify it in the provider it still seems to work, but when I intentionally "break" the provider and have it return `has_bugs: True` the pact still verifies successfully. I'm not sure exactly what I did wrong, but I'm assuming there's a way to have a contract depend on _specific_ values for some contract tests, yes?

jbecker

2022-05-20 17:31

So I circled `body=Like(expected)` here because I wasn't sure if that was my fix or not. That's what I'm experimenting with now. If that's all it was, I'll feel silly, but I'll probably still leave this post for posterity.

jbecker

2022-05-20 18:13

Yeah, looks like that did the trick :thumbsup:

berk.safranbolulu

2022-05-20 20:26

Hello, I?m little bit confused about *Lexical Scope vs Lexical Environment in JavaScript.* In this following code: ```function doSomething() { var age = 7; // Some more code }``` What are the lexical scope and lexical environment of `age` variable? Are they same? As far as I know, Lexical Scope is the place that is defined any variable, function, or expression. What?s the difference from Lexical Environment? With this Lexical Scope knowledge, we are able to know which scope can access to age variable, and age variable can access which scope as well. Am I right? What do you think?

mlund

2022-05-20 21:04

has joined #general

pavi.dealwis

2022-05-21 03:28

has joined #general

tjones

2022-05-21 04:32

Yes, `Like` means "like this type". So, it will accept any boolean.

tjones

2022-05-21 04:33

This question is off topic for this slack space, which is for questions about pact.

tjones

2022-05-21 04:34

For the answer to your question, this blog post looks like a reasonable summary (I didn't read it closely)

tjones

2022-05-21 04:34

https://blog.bitsrc.io/a-beginners-guide-to-closures-in-javascript-97d372284dda

berk.safranbolulu

2022-05-21 08:44

Thank you @tjones :thumbsup:

endika2

2022-05-21 10:52

has joined #general

6eo2ge

2022-05-22 13:17

has joined #general

eugene.baranovsky

2022-05-22 23:25

has joined #general

rarora

2022-05-23 03:03

Hi Team I need to configure webhook on provider in gitlab. Gitlab supports data only in form of form variables. How can I configure webhook to send form data? I tried following ```curl --location --request POST 'https://pact-broker.rcue102.viatorsystems.com/webhooks/consumer/event-service' \ --header 'Content-Type: application/json' \ --data-raw '{ "consumer": { "name": "event-service" }, "provider": { "name": "product-service" }, "request": { "method": "POST", "url": "https://gitlab.dev.tripadvisor.com/api/v4/projects/{id}/trigger/pipeline", "headers": { "Accept": "multipart/form-data" }, "body": { "token": "TOKEN", "ref": "develop", "PIPELINE_LIBRARIES": "contract_verification,no_common", "PACT_CONSUMER_TAG": "${pactbroker.consumerVersionTags}" } }, "events": [ { "name": "contract_content_changed" } ] } '```

rarora

2022-05-23 03:03

curl i need to call is: ```curl --request POST \ --form token=TOKEN \ --form ref=develop \ --form "variables[PIPELINE_LIBRARIES]=contract_verification,no_common" \ "https://gitlab.dev.tripadvisor.com/api/v4/projects/${PROJECT_ID}/trigger/pipeline"```

harris

2022-05-23 03:04

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-05-23 03:07

Multipart values presumably would go in the body as key/value pairs

matt.fellows

2022-05-23 03:07

i.e. it?s not JSON

rarora

2022-05-23 03:08

yes so above curl should be correct?

rarora

2022-05-23 03:08

but gitlab is not receiving form data

matt.fellows

2022-05-23 03:11

from the curl or the webhook?

rarora

2022-05-23 03:12

from the webhook

matt.fellows

2022-05-23 03:12

right

matt.fellows

2022-05-23 03:12

the webhook is posting JSON, not form values

matt.fellows

2022-05-23 03:13

I can?t say for sure if it will work, but try https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1653275230131369?thread_ts=1653274980.279189&cid=C5F4KFKR8

rarora

2022-05-23 03:14

do you have any example how i can pass key value pairs?

rarora

2022-05-23 03:15

i thought i sent key value pair in body

rarora

2022-05-23 03:16

can you format this request, how you think it might work ```"request": { "method": "POST", "url": "https://gitlab.dev.tripadvisor.com/api/v4/projects/{id}/trigger/pipeline", "headers": { "Accept": "multipart/form-data" }, "body": { "token": "TOKEN", "ref": "develop", "PIPELINE_LIBRARIES": "contract_verification,no_common", "PACT_CONSUMER_TAG": "${pactbroker.consumerVersionTags}" } },```

matt.fellows

2022-05-23 03:17

that?s json

matt.fellows

2022-05-23 03:17

body: ?key=value&key2=val2??

matt.fellows

2022-05-23 03:17

I?ll leave it with you to experiment from there.

rarora

2022-05-23 03:18

i tried it as above thinking it might work as query param

rarora

2022-05-23 03:18

it did not work either

rarora

2022-05-23 03:18

let me paste curl i tried

rarora

2022-05-23 03:19

```curl --location --request POST 'https://pact-broker.rcue102.viatorsystems.com/webhooks/consumer/event-service' \ --header 'Content-Type: application/json' \ --data-raw '{ "consumer": { "name": "event-service" }, "provider": { "name": "product-service" }, "request": { "method": "POST", "url": "https://gitlab.dev.tripadvisor.com/api/v4/projects/p1/trigger/pipeline?token=TOKEN&ref=develop&PACT_CONSUMER_TAG=${pactbroker.consumerVersionTags}&PIPELINE_LIBRARIES=contract_verification,no_common", "headers": { "Accept": "multipart/form-data" } }, "events": [ { "name": "contract_content_changed" } ] } '```

rarora

2022-05-23 03:22

is the above request similar to what you thought?

matt.fellows

2022-05-23 03:23

no, the key value pairs need to be on the `body`

matt.fellows

2022-05-23 03:23

it might be worth you googling how multipart forms are sent over HTTP. I think it will help you construct the webhook

rarora

2022-05-23 03:23

checking

rarora

2022-05-23 03:24

i did check before asking, most of them are suggesting curl, or sending as data but will try to check more

matt.fellows

2022-05-23 03:26

sure but curl is a specific tool, the broker doesn?t use curl to send these requests

abhiattipra

2022-05-23 06:04

has joined #general

max.bruns

2022-05-23 07:13

has joined #general

hello560

2022-05-23 12:23

has joined #general

hello560

2022-05-23 12:36

Hello, just starting to mess about with contract testing, and I have an issue where a consumer has published a contract tagged with a feature branch name. When I try to verify said contract from the provider (no webhook flow set up yet), I can't seem get any verification of said feature branch to take place. I've tried using `--include-wip-pacts-since` with a date well into the past but nothing. Am I totally misunderstanding how this is supposed to work?

yousafn

2022-05-23 12:45

:wave: Could you please provide ? which client language and version ? which tags/branches/command are you using to publish ? which provider language and version ? which filters are you using to pull down ? which pact file specification version

yousafn

2022-05-23 12:46

Some code examples for `consumerVersionSelectors` on the provider side https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/consumer_version_selectors#verifying-the-latest-development-test-and-master-pacts

yousafn

2022-05-23 12:48

Note tags have been superseded by branches https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/tags rational https://docs.pact.io/blog/2021/07/04/why-we-are-getting-rid-of-tags

hello560

2022-05-23 12:58

I'll do my best to provide the information you asked for, I've put in some placeholders. Client language: PHP, version: 7.1.1 Branch being published: `dev-3808` Command being used to publish contract: `docker run --rm pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest publish ./pact --consumer-app-version 11.16.116-80952e64 --branch dev-3808 --broker-base-url <broker base URL here>` (the above runs fine, shows up in the UI with the correct values) Provider language: Go, although I'm using `pact-provider-verifier` , version http://1.36.at at the moment Verification command: `pact-provider-verifier --broker-base-url=<broker base url here> --provider-base-url=http://localhost:8000 --provider=<provider name here> --enable-pending --include-wip-pacts-since=2022-05-01 --provider-app-version=1.1.6 --provider-version-branch=master --consumer-version-selector='{"tag":"master","latest":true}'` Pact file specification version: 2 (the above only verifies `master` for its consumer while I would've hoped it'd verify the `dev-3808` branch mentioned earlier)

yousafn

2022-05-23 13:07

I think you want to use branch in your `consumerVersionSelector` for co-ordinated development `--consumer-version-selector='{ "branch": "<branch>", "fallbackBranch": "master" }'` I don?t _think_ you can use `tag` or `latest`, as you aren?t _tagging_ in your consumer, you are using `branches` which is excellent :angel: > `tag`: the tag name(s) of the consumer versions to get the pacts for. _This field is still supported but it is recommended to use the `branch` in preference now._ > > `latest`: true. Used in conjuction with the `tag` property. If a `tag` is specified, and `latest` is `true`, then the latest pact for each of the consumers with that tag will be returned. If a `tag` is specified and the latest flag is _not_ set to `true`, _all_ the pacts with the specified tag will be returned. (This might seem a bit weird, but it?s done this way to match the syntax used for the matrix query params. See https://docs.pact.io/selectors). I may be totally wrong tho, so happy to be corrected :slightly_smiling_face:

hello560

2022-05-23 13:11

> `--consumer-version-selector='{ "branch": "<branch>", "fallbackBranch": "master" }'` I thought the point of WIP pacts was to not have to manually specify what consumer feature branches to verify. Am I incorrect in thinking that?

hello560

2022-05-23 13:13

Just to be clear: I'm trying to verify a feature branch contract from the provider _master_. Which might very well be the wrong way of going about things, I'm still very new to all this.

yousafn

2022-05-23 13:24

I?m not 100% clear on pending pact vs work in progress pacts, especially with the move from tags -> branches at the moment, so I will do some reading, get some clarity and get back to you. just for my own clarity, have you got a verified pact between your consumer and provider on the master branches, and these are deployed to an environment? you now are introducing a change on a consumer branch, which you are trying to verify against the providers master build. Which version of the broker are you using? Pactflow or OSS 2.60.0+ Thanks for the questions though, you are in the right place and welcome to the contract testing journey

hello560

2022-05-23 13:25

> just for clarity, have you got a verified pact between your consumer and provider on the master branches, and these are deployed to an environment? Yes > you now are introducing a change on a consumer branch, which you are trying to verify against the providers master build. Correct > Which version of the broker are you using? Pactflow or OSS 2.60.0+ Pactflow

hello560

2022-05-23 13:30

The help is appreciated, by the way :slightly_smiling_face: Contract testing seems like a potential cure for a lot of problems I've had over the years.

jbecker

2022-05-23 14:05

Anyone have any suggestions for dynamically running pact provider verifications whenever can-i-deploy says that they don't yet exist?

yousafn

2022-05-23 14:10

So I?ve just tested this out, Using this on the consumer side (publishing with branch) ? https://github.com/pactflow/example-consumer/blob/3fb6acb42274a29e0f17d3913cf567aa37a73b1d/Makefile#L40 ? Updating to use `--branch` ? `@"${PACT_CLI}" publish ${PWD}/pacts --consumer-app-version ${GIT_COMMIT} --branch ${GIT_BRANCH}` leads to not finding anything on the provider side, when specifying `tag` not `branch`. ? https://github.com/pactflow/example-provider/blob/master/src/product/product.pact.test.js#L34 ? `consumerVersionSelectors: [{ tag: 'master', latest: true }, { deployed: true } ]` If both the consumer and provider use `tag` everything matches up, or if they both use `branch` they match up. If I then publish a failing consumer pact on a branch, it won?t be validated until I enable the https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/wip_pacts ``` enablePending: true, includeWipPactsSince: "2022-05-01",``` https://github.com/pactflow/example-provider/blob/master/src/product/product.pact.test.js#L36-L37

hello560

2022-05-23 14:19

So, after enabling `includeWipPactsSince`, that feature branch contract gets verified for you? How odd, I can't see anything you've suggested that is different to what I've done, and yet, it does not work for me :disappointed:

yousafn

2022-05-23 14:20

I can see you are publishing with `--branch` but verifying with `tag`

yousafn

2022-05-23 14:21

*Before* publish contract: `docker run --rm pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest publish ./pact --consumer-app-version 11.16.116-80952e64 --branch dev-3808 --broker-base-url <broker base URL here>` Verification command: `pact-provider-verifier --broker-base-url=<broker base url here> --provider-base-url=http://localhost:8000 --provider=<provider name here> --enable-pending --include-wip-pacts-since=2022-05-01 --provider-app-version=1.1.6 --provider-version-branch=master --consumer-version-selector='{"tag":"master","latest":true}'` *After* using only `branch` publish contract: `docker run --rm pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest publish ./pact --consumer-app-version 11.16.116-80952e64 --branch dev-3808 --broker-base-url <broker base URL here>` Verification command: `pact-provider-verifier --broker-base-url=<broker base url here> --provider-base-url=http://localhost:8000 --provider=<provider name here> --enable-pending --include-wip-pacts-since=2022-05-01 --provider-app-version=1.1.6 --provider-version-branch=master --consumer-version-selector='{"branch":"master","latest":true}'` using only `tag` publish contract: `docker run --rm pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest publish ./pact --consumer-app-version 11.16.116-80952e64 --tag dev-3808 --broker-base-url <broker base URL here>` Verification command: `pact-provider-verifier --broker-base-url=<broker base url here> --provider-base-url=http://localhost:8000 --provider=<provider name here> --enable-pending --include-wip-pacts-since=2022-05-01 --provider-app-version=1.1.6 --provider-version-branch=master --consumer-version-selector='{"tag":"master","latest":true}'`

hello560

2022-05-23 14:25

I tried it with `branch` in both places just now, too, there is no difference for me. > DEBUG: The pact at <pact url here> is being verified because the pact content belongs to the consumer version matching the following criterion: > * latest version from branch 'master' (<latest version in master here>) Is the only output regarding branches I get for that consumer.

hello560

2022-05-23 14:27

But since it works for you I imagine I've messed something up, unfortunately I have no clue what that'd be.

christoph.oswald

2022-05-23 14:27

Hi, I am having a conceptional question. I am trying to setup a contract between two services. A (consumer) and B(provider). To secure the communication a header is injected by a running side-container, so A actually does not know about this security header. Service B however needs this header to verify the user etc, and it is always checked before handling the requests. Where would I place setting up this header? As part of the consumer-contract? Even though the application A does not really know about it or on the provider side? At the moment I would implement a state "user exists" or "user is authenticated" in the consumer pact and try to setup this header somehow in the provider. Is this the way to go?

yousafn

2022-05-23 14:33

:thinking_face: hmm yeah not entirely sure there buddy. I?ve just taken the two canonical examples https://github.com/pactflow/example-consumer https://github.com/pactflow/example-provider (this is JS but we do have a Go version https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/examples/golang/provider/) This is the output after switching on the WIP feature, otherwise it wouldn?t find the branch. If you could create a sample GH repo, we could take a look at some point, or if you want to start with those two repos and have a go, you can just fork them, set your env vars and run `make fake_ci` to easily run it from your machine and cross compare. ```{ "_embedded": { "pacts": [ { "shortDescription": "latest from branch master", "verificationProperties": { "pending": false, "notices": [ { "when": "before_verification", "text": "The pact at https://saf.pactflow.io/pacts/provider/pactflow-example-provider/consumer/pactflow-example-consumer/pact-version/4a6c2017e4f913c5b18ee0b526eae842567bf489 is being verified because the pact content belongs to the consumer version matching the following criterion:\n * latest version from branch 'master' (ac94418+1653314421)" }, { "when": "before_verification", "text": "This pact has previously been successfully verified by a version of pactflow-example-provider with tag 'master'. If this verification fails, it will fail the build. Read more at https://docs.pact.io/go/pending" } ] }, "_links": { "self": { "href": "https://saf.pactflow.io/pacts/provider/pactflow-example-provider/consumer/pactflow-example-consumer/pact-version/4a6c2017e4f913c5b18ee0b526eae842567bf489/metadata/c1tdW2JdPW1hc3RlciZzW11bbF09dHJ1ZSZzW11bY3ZdPTM5JnA9ZmFsc2U", "name": "Pact between pactflow-example-consumer (ac94418+1653314421) and pactflow-example-provider" } } }, { "shortDescription": "latest from branch wip_pact", "verificationProperties": { "pending": true, "wip": true, "notices": [ { "when": "before_verification", "text": "The pact at https://saf.pactflow.io/pacts/provider/pactflow-example-provider/consumer/pactflow-example-consumer/pact-version/b4d89ebc01885acfd726f527182ca47f8abc712c/metadata/d2lwPXRydWU is being verified because it is a 'work in progress' pact (ie. it is the pact for the latest version of pactflow-example-consumer from branch 'wip_pact' and is still in pending state). Read more at https://docs.pact.io/go/wip" }, { "when": "before_verification", "text": "This pact is in pending state for this version of pactflow-example-provider because a successful verification result for a version of pactflow-example-provider with tag 'master' has not yet been published. If this verification fails, it will not cause the overall build to fail. Read more at https://docs.pact.io/go/pending" }, { "when": "after_verification:success_true_published_false", "text": "This pact is still in pending state for any version of pactflow-example-provider with tag 'master' as the successful verification results with this tag have not yet been published." }, { "when": "after_verification:success_false_published_false", "text": "This pact is still in pending state for any version of pactflow-example-provider with tag 'master' as a successful verification result with this tag has not yet been published" }, { "when": "after_verification:success_true_published_true", "text": "This pact is no longer in pending state for any version of pactflow-example-provider with tag 'master', as a successful verification result with this tag has been published. If a verification for a version of pactflow-example-provider with this tag fails in the future, it will fail the build. Read more at https://docs.pact.io/go/pending" }, { "when": "after_verification:success_false_published_true", "text": "This pact is still in pending state for any version of pactflow-example-provider with tag 'master' as a successful verification result with this tag has not yet been published" } ] }, "_links": { "self": { "href": "https://saf.pactflow.io/pacts/provider/pactflow-example-provider/consumer/pactflow-example-consumer/pact-version/b4d89ebc01885acfd726f527182ca47f8abc712c/metadata/dz10cnVl", "name": "Pact between pactflow-example-consumer (520ecb6+1653314859) and pactflow-example-provider" } } } ] }, "_links": { "self": { "href": "https://saf.pactflow.io/pacts/provider/pactflow-example-provider/for-verification", "title": "Pacts to be verified" } } }```

venky.hodigere

2022-05-23 14:54

has joined #general

prerit.jain

2022-05-23 16:27

has joined #general

evan

2022-05-23 16:48

has joined #general

manuel.porto

2022-05-23 17:56

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-05-23 23:04

If the consumer doesn?t know about it, it doesn?t belong in the consumer side

matt.fellows

2022-05-23 23:04

it sounds like a provider implementation detail, so should be part of the provider verification

matt.fellows

2022-05-23 23:05

Presumably, the side container must get some context from the consumer. Provider states could potential be part of the solution

bethskurrie

2022-05-24 00:03

What is the difference between WIP and pending? https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/wip_pacts#what-is-the-difference-betweeen-wip-and-pending

bethskurrie

2022-05-24 00:04

You can simulate workflows using this so you don't have to actually write and verify the pacts. it's much quicker https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/blob/master/ISSUES.md

bethskurrie

2022-05-24 00:05

I thought I'd made the branches and tags play together nicely for WIP and pending, but it's possible that I've missed something.

bethskurrie

2022-05-24 00:05

definitely use branches if you have the option.

bethskurrie

2022-05-24 00:10

I've made a script that you can play around with here https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/blob/master/script/data/wip.rb

bethskurrie

2022-05-24 06:26

@jbecker the new webhook is designed to do exactly that

bethskurrie

2022-05-24 06:26

https://docs.pact.io/blog/2021/10/11/contract-requiring-verification-published-webhook-event

bethskurrie

2022-05-24 06:27

If you can't use webhooks, then there is an alternative "webhookless flow" documented here https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana/step_6#alternative-webhookless-workflow

bethskurrie

2022-05-24 06:31

There is a `verification-required` command in the CLI that is designed for this. I need to remove the feature toggle on it, but you can use it now https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker-client/blob/master/lib/pact_broker/client/cli/matrix_commands.rb#L42

abhishek.lamba

2022-05-24 09:25

has joined #general

stefan.friese

2022-05-24 09:32

has joined #general

bharath.shetty

2022-05-24 09:33

has joined #general

jbecker

2022-05-24 13:13

Sorry, I'm still pretty new to pact and I don't know anything about these webhooks. ~Is there an introductory explanation to them somewhere? It sound like this is a feature on the pact broker?~ NVM, just found https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/webhooks#introduction :slightly_smiling_face:

jbecker

2022-05-24 13:14

Also in your article on this new webhook event, you write: > The triggered provider build must then check out the specified version of the provider codebase, [...] but I was thinking it might make sense to use a docker image for each provider service, but based on this, it sounds like that may not be supported?

rivanitskiy

2022-05-24 14:23

has joined #general

jbecker

2022-05-24 15:54

Does anyone know if there is a way using the https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/tree/master/rust/pact_verifier_cli to wait or retry on the state change endpoints until the provider service is done starting up? I have tried setting an explicit `--request-timeout` value, but it's still failing, so I think the way my server must work is that while it's still setting up, it's returning 500s instead of hanging

marti92

2022-05-24 21:40

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2022-05-24 22:21

You can do whatever you like in the build, as long as you can get the right version of the provider code in the docker image.

bethskurrie

2022-05-24 22:22

if you're building on the fly, you can checkout the code then build it. if you're pulling from a docker repository, make sure your pre-built image is tagged with the git sha.

yousafn

2022-05-24 23:13

This :point_up: is excellent Beth :clap:

rholshausen

2022-05-24 23:27

No, there is nothing like that. Raise an issue for it at the Github repo https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference

yasarenver

2022-05-25 05:22

has joined #general

brian.quinn

2022-05-25 08:53

has joined #general

akke.luukkonen

2022-05-25 10:40

Great idea in general!

jarekrzdbk

2022-05-25 12:45

has joined #general

jbecker

2022-05-25 13:31

Okay, I went ahead and created a github issue describing what I was trying to do and the work-around I ended up having to do: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/issues/197

jbecker

2022-05-25 13:31

Thanks for the attention! :slightly_smiling_face:

shaun.mendham

2022-05-25 16:32

has joined #general

plourded

2022-05-25 19:43

has joined #general

plourded

2022-05-25 19:53

Hello everyone! I have a service that is a consumer and a provider for a least two of others of my services. I was able to make deployment on my develop environment while writing the contracts, but now that everything is working on that environment, I?m not able to deploy to my production environment since can-i-deploy would not let me, :disappointed: computer say no. Am I doing something very wrong? I search everywhere to find a answer to this question but didn?t got luck :(

matt.fellows

2022-05-26 01:42

Hi Dominic. To help answer that question, we?ll at least need to see the output of the command so we can understand the can-i-deploy output

matt.fellows

2022-05-26 01:42

are you saying there is a cyclical dependency (i.e. there are two contracts A -> B and B -> A)?

emirhan.emmez

2022-05-26 06:31

has joined #general

plourded

2022-05-26 14:06

yes!

plourded

2022-05-26 14:08

Trying to deploy on Service A (provisioning-service) : ```Computer says no �_(?)_/� CONSUMER | C.VERSION | PROVIDER | P.VERSION | SUCCESS? | RESULT# ---------------------|-----------|-----------------|-----------|----------|-------- provisioning-service | 1.0.126 | devices-gateway | ??? | ??? | ``` Trying to deploy service B (devices-gateway): ```Computer says no �_(?)_/� CONSUMER | C.VERSION | PROVIDER | P.VERSION | SUCCESS? | RESULT# ----------------|-----------|----------------------|-----------|----------|-------- devices-gateway | 1.0.90 | provisioning-service | ??? | ??? | There is no verified pact between version 1.0.90 of devices-gateway and the version of provisioning-service currently deployed to staging (no such version exists)```

plourded

2022-05-26 14:15

temporary, to allow me to deploy on my new environment (staging), I set the can-i-deploy to dry-run in my pipeline and manually made the deployment after that...

yasir27uk

2022-05-26 17:56

has joined #general

lcs2019022

2022-05-27 05:27

has joined #general

lcs2019022

2022-05-27 05:33

Hi everyone, I am setting up this repository https://github.com/pactflow/example-consumer locally on my machine. I have created the PACT_BROKER_TOKEN and PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL, DOCKER, and MAKE but while running the command make fake_ci this error is showing up. Can anyone help me with this issue? 'CI' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file. make: *** [fake_ci] Error 1

tjones

2022-05-27 05:38

This sounds like a windows error. What shell are you running? I don't know if this is the problem, but does it work if you try from `bash`?

tjones

2022-05-27 05:39

It looks like `SHELL=/bin/bash` (or similar) might be helpful https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Choosing-the-Shell.html

lcs2019022

2022-05-27 06:00

Yes solved, thanks!

tjones

2022-05-27 06:14

@matt.fellows I think you can put the `SHELL=/bin/bash` line in the makefile, solving this for everyone, maybe

lcs2019022

2022-05-27 06:56

I am running the command, and another error is showing up is of Docker. I am new to Docker. Can you help on this. \n========== STAGE: publish pacts ==========\n docker: Error response from daemon: invalid mode: /Pact/example-consumer. See 'docker run --help'. make[1]: *** [publish_pacts] Error 125

tjones

2022-05-27 07:41

Looks like another problem with windows https://stackoverflow.com/questions/50540721/docker-toolbox-error-response-from-daemon-invalid-mode-root-docker

tjones

2022-05-27 07:42

Try changing: ```PACT_CLI="docker run --rm -v ${PWD}:${PWD} -e PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL -e PACT_BROKER_TOKEN pactfoundation/pact-cli"``` to ```PACT_CLI="docker run --rm -v "/$(PWD):$(PWD)" -e PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL -e PACT_BROKER_TOKEN pactfoundation/pact-cli"``` ...maybe. I don't have a windows machine to test on

tjones

2022-05-27 07:46

oh, actually, does your path have spaces in it? It might be enough to just quote those variables

kannan.jai

2022-05-27 07:50

Hello, have anyone tried passing the port number for the mock server as a command line argument when running consumer tests? Tried it but failing, may be I am missing something. Any thoughts? Thanks. ```@PactTestFor(providerName = "test-provider", port = "${pact.server.port}")```

tjones

2022-05-27 07:57

What error are you getting? IT looks like this question would be best asked in #pact-jvm

kannan.jai

2022-05-27 07:57

We would be setting the same port in one of our config yml file hence we would like to either set it via command line or read and pass it to our yml config similar to using @AutoConfigureWiremockPort which exposes the port via ${wiremock.server.port}

kannan.jai

2022-05-27 07:58

It is Java error, java.lang.NumberFormatException: For input string: "${pact.server.port}". I

matt.fellows

2022-05-27 08:02

The examples aren?t very windows friendly are they.

matt.fellows

2022-05-27 08:03

Glad running it with bash helped though.

matt.fellows

2022-05-27 08:06

Where are you running these docker commands - from which shell environment? I think it needs to be run in something like git shell?

matt.fellows

2022-05-27 08:06

I?m going to see if we can get a windows build running next week, so at least we have a working example to show Windows users

wieslaw.bondyra

2022-05-27 08:09

has joined #general

lcs2019022

2022-05-27 09:57

@matt.fellows running in git shell only

lcs2019022

2022-05-27 09:59

But same error is coming from local and it is not pushing the contract to pactflow. It's working fine from github build workflow.

matt.fellows

2022-05-27 10:00

Thanks. By any chance are there spaces in the project path?

lcs2019022

2022-05-27 10:09

lcs2019022

2022-05-27 10:09

```PACT_CLI="docker run --rm -v "/$(PWD):$(PWD)" -e PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL -e PACT_BROKER_TOKEN pactfoundation/pact-cli"``` Tried this as well

lcs2019022

2022-05-27 10:11

But the same error is coming

matt.fellows

2022-05-27 10:41

So the `${PWD}:${PWD}` part of that command says ?mount the current directory into the container, at the same path?. See if you can replace the `PWD` with the correct folder path for the source (i.e. your machine) and target (the container).

hello560

2022-05-27 11:01

Hiya, sorry for taking so long getting back to you. Somehow my issues disappeared the day after I initially wrote here, and frustratingly, I have no idea why. Started seeing expected behavior with WIP pacts being considered and all that.

plourded

2022-05-27 13:08

@matt.fellows We have an event driven architecture where service are highly decoupled, I?m not sure I should use contract for events in my case? or I?m doing something wrong?

rafaelcebulla

2022-05-27 15:20

has joined #general

orbit.mjs

2022-05-27 17:45

has joined #general

msparks

2022-05-27 19:56

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-05-28 00:56

No I don?t think that should matter

matt.fellows

2022-05-28 10:30

The can-i-deploy tool supports bi-directional dependencies between applications, however, as you are introducing pact into an existing relationship where there are already versions deployed, you will need to disable can-i-deploy to get the first pair of contracts out into production. Make sure both sides are actually passing before you do this. Or, you can choose one direction to start with (deleting the pacts for the other direction if you have already published them), get that deployed, then add in the pacts for the other direction. Thereafter, you will need to ensure you only ever make changes in one direction of the relationship at a time, otherwise can-i-deploy will very correctly stop you from deploying. If you have changes in both directions that each depend on the other, you will be in the situation where you must deploy both applications at the same time, at which stage you would probably be better off if both services were part of a single application. Bi-directional dependencies tend to cause a lot of issues in both testing and deployments!

plourded

2022-05-29 00:43

Thanks a lot for your response!

matt.fellows

2022-05-29 01:04

You're welcome!

ebanster

2022-05-29 11:22

Hi @matt.fellows@matt.fellows@matt.fellows@Matt (http://pactflow.io / pact-js / pact-go)@Matt (http://pactflow.io / pact-js / pact-go) and team, Ive asked this via twitter but is it viable to use contract testing if our app has heaps of integration with third-party services like zendesk, salesforce, etc. If yes, whats the best way to do it? For context, we don?t have automated integration and api tests yet.

matt.fellows

2022-05-29 22:28

Hi!

matt.fellows

2022-05-29 22:36

For 3rd party tests, because they won?t be able verify your contracts, Pact style tests will only add a little value (see our AMA on the subject: https://docs.pact.io/help/amas#join-an-upcoming-ask-me-anything-ama-session) For 3rd party tests, there are a couple of options; 1. If they are untrusted, you could use record/replay style tests, but this gets hard because you need to be able to handle state. Essentially, you?d be building an approval based workflow, where tests are run on a regular basis and any failed tests need to be manually reviewed/approved. This will require more upkeep, but might be helpful in situations where the 3rd party is unreliable 2. You could use a static style check, where you compare your consumer usage to a defined spec given from the provider. This type of testing assumes the 3rd party is likely to be competent (as would be the case with Zendesk). You might find that https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/bi-directional-contract-testing/ could work for you, in this case (note it?s not an OSS feature)

ebanster

2022-05-29 23:11

Thanks matt for the detailed explanation. I will explore it further and check out the links you have provideex

nuno.frias

2022-05-30 14:13

Hello all I am having trouble understanding the benefits of handling provider asynchronous tests as unit tests instead of treating them as component level tests like the the synchronous provider tests. Let me elaborate: For the provider sync tests I am currently spinning up a docker container with the provider service and I set the provider state by writing records to a database and by simulating HTTP interactions and Kafka interactions with other downstream services. For provider async tests I can just as easily set the state by writing records to the database and simulate downstream interactions with the other services. And when it comes to verifying the message all I need to do is pull the message from the topic (I am using Kafka) and pass it on to Pact. I already have tooling in place to spin up the provider as a docker container for the synchronous tests so it is straight forward to use it for the asynchronous tests ? and in my case the same provider has both asynchronous and synchronous interactions sometimes with the same consumer.

falvarez

2022-05-30 14:17

has joined #general

tjones

2022-05-30 14:32

I think the primary benefit is that you don't have to spin up the provider in a container with all of its machinery. If this is not a cost for you, your way sounds fine

nuno.frias

2022-05-30 14:33

Thank you :raised_hands:

tjones

2022-05-30 14:34

There's a side point here, though - it sounds like you might be writing directly to your database during setup - I don't think this is a good idea, as it ties your database implementation into your tests

tjones

2022-05-30 14:34

I personally usually mock that whole layer with something that fulfils the same interface

nuno.frias

Do you do that even for asynchronous tests ?

tjones

like, say my database access comes through a class with the signature `getUser(id)`, which returns a `User` or throws `NotFound`, then I would mock that class

tjones

yes

tjones

The reason writing to the DB as part of the test setup can be painful is - what if you change your DB format?

tjones

then you have to update the test

tjones

2022-05-30 14:36

but the test isn't about that format

tjones

2022-05-30 14:36

knowing the format is incidental

tjones

2022-05-30 14:36

this is one of the reasons that a unit test setup can be superior - you might (quite reasonably) say "well, I want to test with my real database"

tjones

2022-05-30 14:37

so, we could initialise an empty database, and then in the unit test setup we could call the `saveUser(someUser)` method on the DB access class (for example)

tjones

2022-05-30 14:38

I like the rule that a test will fail if - and only if - the interface or the behaviour change

tjones

2022-05-30 14:38

I don't think the data in the database is part of the interface

tjones

2022-05-30 14:39

Your test will still work if it knows the database structure, I'm just flagging that I think it will be harder to maintain

nuno.frias

2022-05-30 14:47

The database structure is not likely to change (in fact it is more likely the interface will change at this stage of development). I though the purpose of spinning up the entire provider as part of the provider verification was to ensure you are actually verifying a real provider message (or response in case of sync).

tjones

2022-05-30 22:17

Yes, that's right. The idea is that it's always the real code - but a consumer test can do that without spinning up the whole thing. However, the current implementation of message pacts doesn't include the sending and receiving of messages, which is why spinning up the whole thing isn't the norm. You could, but you may need to build a small test runner to fire the messages

ruslan.ponomarev

2022-05-31 06:28

has joined #general

danielflieger

2022-05-31 07:13

Hey there! I having a question regarding the interesting new contract testing called Bi-directional contract testing. In the given examples the provider verifies the api spec using e.g. rest assured or postman. Is it right that when the provider autogenerates the api spec from code than the provider can just publish the api spec to pactflow without any further?SELF-VERIFICATION TEST RESULT??

alexander.maiburg

2022-05-31 07:31

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-05-31 08:59

Hello! For clarity, this is a #pactflow specific feature (so in the future we should keep the conversation there)

matt.fellows

2022-05-31 09:00

But yes, in that case for the purposes of contract testing, you need not do any additional validation. You should obviously still have other functional tests etc.

aherbst

2022-05-31 17:31

has joined #general

jbecker

2022-05-31 18:23

Hey! Can anyone tell me if there is a way using the pact-broker CLI to retrieve information about providers and consumers given a pacticipant?

jbecker

2022-05-31 19:39

Another question: I'm using the v3 pact_verifier_cli (the one written in Rust) and it wants me to specify a https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/consumer_version_selectors, but I'm trying to get this to work with my `contract_requiring_verification_published` webhook, which will trigger on our feature branch build (so before it has been merged/tagged or deployed to any environment) so I just want to point at a specific consumer version when I run the verification. Is there a way to do that with the consumer version selector? Or is there some other way I'm not seeing?

jbecker

2022-05-31 19:41

I don't want to simply rely on "latest" because we may have 2 developers who each publish feature branches at the same time, so one of them might never be considered the latest

jbecker

2022-05-31 19:45

Do I maybe just want to pass the `${pactbroker.pactUrl}` to my webhook and just use the `--file` option to point directly to it?

matt.fellows

2022-05-31 22:25

It might not be the file option, there should be one to specify a URL to the exact pact that's not the broker base URL

matt.fellows

2022-05-31 22:27

What information do you need? If not the CLI the API will have it. Issue a request to `/`and then follow the HAL relations to the different resources

vipul.pachauri

2022-06-01 08:02

has joined #general

komal.sharma1

2022-06-01 08:02

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-06-01 09:26

:point_right: Use Pactflow?s BDCT feature, OAS or SwaggerHub? Would love to chat with you! :swagger: :pactflow: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/CLS16AVEE/p1654075535026179

nuno.frias

2022-06-01 10:15

As part of the provider test I fetch the messages from the kafka topic and send them to Pact.

chris169

2022-06-01 11:53

has joined #general

jbecker

2022-06-01 14:18

Oh, you are right, I see that now. Thank you

jbecker

2022-06-01 14:22

I was going to try and use the pact broker to get the providers associated with a given pacticipant, and the provider versions of those providers which are associated with a given environment, so I could programmatically kick off those verifications. I thought it might be easier to do that than to figure out how to set up a `contract_requiring_verification_published` webhook, at least for my first pass on the solution, but after messing with it for a bit, I figured the webhook wouldn't be that hard to set up so I'm just going to end up going with that after all.

jbecker

2022-06-01 14:22

Good tip about the HAL API though, I'll keep that in mind if I need to query the pact broker in the future

jbecker

2022-06-01 19:01

does anyone know if there is an issue with the pact-broker cli's `create-or-update-webhook` "data" option? I'm trying to create a webhook for our jenkins job which verifies contracts and I'm getting a very confusing response from the cli. I am using it like: ```pact-broker create-or-update-webhook \ "http://$JENKINS_BASE_URL/job/Pact%20Verify%20Provider/buildWithParameters" \ --uuid="$PROVIDER_VERIFICATION_WEBHOOK_UUID" \ --request=POST \ --broker-base-url="$PACT_BROKER_URL" \ --data="project=\${pactbroker.providerName}" \ --data="version=\${pactbroker.providerVersionNumber}" \ --data="pactfile_url=\${pactbroker.pactUrl}" \ --user="$USERNAME:$PASSWORD" \ --description='Automatically trigger pact verification on contract change.' \ --contract-requiring-verification-published``` but the response I'm getting is: ```ERROR: "pact-broker create_or_update_webhook" was called with arguments ["http://jenkins-base-url.com/job/Pact%20Verify%20Provider/buildWithParameters", "version=${pactbroker.providerVersionNumber}", "pactfile_url=${pactbroker.pactUrl}"] Usage: "pact-broker create-or-update-webhook URL --uuid=UUID -X, --request=METHOD -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL"``` as though after the URL the only options it sees are the data options and it's skipping everything else

m.shi

2022-06-01 19:07

has joined #general

jbecker

2022-06-01 19:39

So, some more info, I tried following the instructions in the description for the `pact-broker create-or-update-webhook` command, where it suggested I write a curl command and then change it from `curl` to `pact-broker create-or-update-webhook` and I did, this worked to kick off my jenkins job: ```curl \ "http://$JENKINS_BASE_URL/job/Pact%20Verify%20Provider/buildWithParameters" \ -X POST \ -u "$USERNAME:$PASSWORD" \ -d project=\${pactbroker.providerName} \ -d version=\${pactbroker.providerVersionNumber} \ -d pactfile_url=\${pactbroker.pactUrl}``` but when I change it to this: ```pact-broker create-or-update-webhook \ "http://$JENKINS_BASE_URL/job/Pact%20Verify%20Provider/buildWithParameters" \ -X POST \ -u "$USERNAME:$PASSWORD" \ -d project=\${pactbroker.providerName} \ -d version=\${pactbroker.providerVersionNumber} \ -d pactfile_url=\${pactbroker.pactUrl} \ --contract-requiring-verification-published \ --broker-base-url "$PACT_BROKER_URL" \ --description 'Automatically trigger pact verification on contract change.' \ --uuid "$PROVIDER_VERIFICATION_WEBHOOK_UUID" ``` I get the exact same error: ```ERROR: "pact-broker create_or_update_webhook" was called with arguments ["http://jenkins-base-url/job/Pact%20Verify%20Provider/buildWithParameters", "version=${pactbroker.providerVersionNumber}", "pactfile_url=${pactbroker.pactUrl}"] Usage: "pact-broker create-or-update-webhook URL --uuid=UUID -X, --request=METHOD -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL"``` Very perplexing :confused:

matt.fellows

2022-06-01 22:00

I don?t think `-d` is a repeated flag for the `create-or-update-webhook` command

asa.anudeep4

2022-06-02 04:33

has joined #general

diede

2022-06-02 10:01

has joined #general

akke.luukkonen

2022-06-02 12:42

Not sure if this is Rust specific, but curious if someone else has seen the following warning when using the `pact_verifier_cli`: `[WARN] Received a ServerHelloDone handshake message while expecting [CertificateRequest]` I'm currently switching from using the Ruby CLI verifier to the Rust one in our CI pipelines by using the https://hub.docker.com/r/pactfoundation/pact-ref-verifierDocker image. However, something currently triggers that warning to appear at the start of each verification. From my understanding it's caused by https://github.com/rustls/rustls/issues/1012 introduced in 0.20.3 of Rustls, which was fixed in 0.20.5. However, the latest Docker image for pact_verifier_cli is of 0.9.10 which is still using 0.20.4 (https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/blob/55c65b36a1eda2e83294f63b5ecbe18e655f6cc8/rust/Cargo.lock#L2144 from time of release), while it seems that the master branch of the https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference is using 0.20.6 of Rustls. Curious if anyone else has noticed the same thing since I didn't find anything in the workspace via searching messages. I noticed also that the Cargo.toml for the verifier was already bumped to 0.9.11 in this https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/commit/e1f4d4d957e973b2f974f37f394f51ba3d2e0bc5 during April, but apparently no release itself was made or is it still being tested (this 0.9.11 release is still using the 0.20.4 version of rustls, so it probably won't fix this issue even if released).

akke.luukkonen

2022-06-02 12:44

Not a big thing in general. I can say to people to ignore the warning for the time being as well. But I was just trying to figure out if it's something on my end that I could try to fix.

jbecker

2022-06-02 13:01

Okay, that's a good tip. It is for curl, so I assumed it would translate

mateusz.zaborowski

2022-06-02 17:54

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-06-02 22:51

How?d you go?

rholshausen

2022-06-02 23:23

Let me check, there may be a missing update to the docker images

jbecker

2022-06-03 12:42

Still prototyping my whole pipeline, so I just created the webhook via a curl post and side-stepped this issue for now (my original intention was to create it via the cli app using the create-or-update-webhook command in source control so if anyone edits it there and checks it in, it automatically updates in the pact-broker, but that's a stretch-goal now)

jbecker

2022-06-03 12:42

Thanks for following up though! :slightly_smiling_face:

rchord23

2022-06-05 19:30

has joined #general

divya.parameswaran

2022-06-05 20:16

has joined #general

alexey.shchukin

2022-06-06 11:46

has joined #general

tomknee1

2022-06-06 18:38

Hello, hoping someone can help me with `record-deployment` and `record-release` please... When I `record-deployment` into an environment, should the `--version` be the same git commit sha for each environment I deploy to? Reason I ask is because I had a command like this ```docker run pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest pact-broker record-release --pacticipant DojoPayConsumerApp \ --version $BITRISE_GIT_COMMIT \ --environment production \ --broker-base-url $PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL \ --broker-username $PACT_BROKER_BASIC_AUTH_USERNAME \ --broker-password $PACT_BROKER_BASIC_AUTH_PASSWORD``` in CI for deployments and releases, where the `$BITRISE_GIT_COMMIT` version would be different for each deployment. On the `record-release` I was getting failures as it could not find the version it was looking up, would love some clarification on this please, thanks :slightly_smiling_face:

jbecker

2022-06-06 19:03

I'm also a bit of a pact newbie, but I think you should be re-using the same version for every environment. When you cut a release of your service in git (whether you use tags or release branches), there should be one commit sha representing the release-tagged commit or the latest commit on the release branch. In either case, that is the commit sha you want to use as your version in pact because that value won't change as you deploy your service to different environments.

jbecker

2022-06-06 19:05

Maybe you can clarify why your `$BITRISE_GIT_COMMIT` was different for each environment? Because that seems non-typical.

tomknee1

2022-06-06 19:11

Thanks, this is what I?m thinking I need to switch to and where I made a mistake. `$BITRISE_GIT_COMMIT` was different for each environment probably based on our git flow and how Bitrise works. That env var is provided by Bitrise and auto grabs the commit sha. When I make a PR, that will be one commit sha, when the job is triggered to merge that into develop branch, that?s another commit sha etc etc. I?m guessing what I need to do is make sha consistent across all record deployments and releases, but would love some confirmation, if maybe @matt.fellows knows please?

jbecker

2022-06-06 19:16

Oh, your commit sha is always going to be different between your PR branch and your develop branch, because when you merge, the merge commit itself will be your latest commit, and that will have a different sha. What I did in this situation was to simply (on the consumer side) re-generate and publish the contract after merging, and (on the provider side) re-run the verification after merging so that the latest commit sha is included and verified in the pact broker

tomknee1

2022-06-06 19:17

right but then on that pr merge i do one `record-deployment` then later down the line might do other `record-deployments` to other environments, should the sha be the same for all those `record-deployments`?

jbecker

2022-06-06 19:19

I'd guess that when you call `record-deployment` you should always use the actual commit sha that you deployed, or else the `can-i-deploy` feature won't really work as intended.

jbecker

2022-06-06 19:20

So if they're actually different, then they all need to be uploaded to the pact broker and verified. And if they're not actually different, find out why bitrise seems to think they are. :man-shrugging:

tomknee1

2022-06-06 19:20

hm, so the main issue I have is by the time I get to `record-release` its trying to use a git sha version it cannot find, e.g. another different sha

tomknee1

2022-06-06 19:21

all my deployments have different shas / versions

jbecker

2022-06-06 19:21

Right, the error you're getting looks like the pact broker has never seen that sha before

jbecker

2022-06-06 19:21

So you just need to make sure it has seen that sha before you call `record-deployment`

tomknee1

correct, so im wondering does it need to be the latest version / sha from a specific tag/environment for `record-release`?

tomknee1

i guess via curl or something?

jbecker

if your pacticipant is a consumer, make sure you upload its contract file with that sha as a version number before you call `record-release`

tomknee1

yep i do :+1:

tomknee1

2022-06-06 19:23

ah sorry i do for deployments

tomknee1

2022-06-06 19:23

release process is a bit weird/different

jbecker

2022-06-06 19:23

and if your pacticipant is a provider, make sure you verify it with that same sha

tomknee1

2022-06-06 19:24

Im on consumer side, I?m thinking for `record-release` I probably need to grab the sha/version for the latest consumer version with the `preproduction` tag/environment (which is the last environment before `production`

jbecker

2022-06-06 19:24

so to address your question specifically: > does it need to be the latest version / sha from a specific tag/environment I'd say no, it doesn't need to be the latest, but it sounds like it _does_ need to be a version that the pact broker has seen before

jbecker

2022-06-06 19:25

No, I don't think you want to do that

jbecker

2022-06-06 19:25

Like I was saying before, I think it's important to make sure that you are using the actual git sha of the commit you're deploying

jbecker

2022-06-06 19:26

don't make try to calculate or make assumptions about your git sha, just use the actual one your deploy tool is providing you, or else `can-i-deploy` may not work correctly

tomknee1

2022-06-06 19:27

hm i get what ur saying, i will dig into whats going on some more and come back on this issue, thanks

jbecker

2022-06-06 19:29

Maybe the real pact folk can give you more ideas too. As I said, I'm just a newbie myself. But I think they are all on European time, so you probably won't hear back from them for a bit. Hopefully I could help get you unblocked in the meantime :slightly_smiling_face:

tomknee1

2022-06-06 19:41

im uk based, think they are on australian time

jbecker

2022-06-06 19:41

Ah, that sounds right

tomknee1

2022-06-06 19:46

alright ive spotted the issue. in our job that records the release (`trigger_master`) we dont run any unit tests etc thus the `pactPublish` never happens so it cant find it :upside_down_face:

tomknee1

2022-06-06 19:46

thanks for your help and talking it through

afang

2022-06-06 22:17

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-06-06 23:03

:taco: for @jbecker - thanks for your help!

pratish.mp

2022-06-07 00:58

has joined #general

tjones

2022-06-07 01:00

How mature is the protobuf support? I can't seem to find much documentation on it - but the top results searching http://docs.pact.io are in changelogs, so maybe the functionality is there?

rholshausen

2022-06-07 01:03

Still beta. Follow in the #protobufs channel

tjones

2022-06-07 01:04

Thank you!

tjones

2022-06-07 03:29

@tomknee1 This is one of the reasons it's a good idea to have completely repeatable version numbers for a given commit - that way it doesn't matter if the contract isn't published as part of your release, because the pre-release pipelines have already done it

tomknee1

2022-06-07 08:58

@tjones thanks, i guess this was partly a question i had, do i run pact tests and `pactPublish` in my release pipeline and the just auto grab the commit sha for that? Or do i instead grab the commit sha from my pre-release pipeline and use that when recording a release in my release pipeline?

tjones

2022-06-07 08:58

Why are they different?

tjones

2022-06-07 09:01

Also, a subtlety that I didn't realise at first- the pact *file* is what is verified- so if you publish a new ?version?, but the same contract (which has previously been verified), then it will immediately be verified

tjones

This means that if your pre-release and release pipelines have different versions, you can still use the workflow you describe

tomknee1

they are different because they are different jobs `trigger_master_pr` and `trigger_master`

tjones

Also, this whole situation was the motivation behind this:

tjones

https://github.com/absolute-version/absolute-version-js

tjones

2022-06-07 09:03

(Why is the job affecting your version number? :thinking_face: )

tjones

2022-06-07 09:04

If you have repeatable builds, then all you need is the version control system to decide what version you have

tomknee1

2022-06-07 09:04

(i use commit sha, it auto grabbed from bitrise ci, so it changes for each job i think)

tjones

2022-06-07 09:04

Commit sha will be the same unless your jobs are committing stuff

tomknee1

2022-06-07 10:09

so we use git flow rather than trunk based dev on consumer side, so when we trigger a pr merge into a release branch or something, the sha changes

jbecker

2022-06-07 13:25

Yeah, that bit makes sense, the merge commit itself is a commit and will have a new sha, so I think you just need to be uploading the contract or running the verification *more often*. In my pipeline, since we're doing trunk-based development, we upload the new contract file for *both* the PR branch *and* the master branch. In your case since you're doing gitflow, you'll want to upload a new contract file even more often than that. Essentially any branch that will have unique commits on it, including: ? Your feature branches ? Your develop branch (because of the merge commits) ? Your release branches (probably, though in theory you might not, since creating a branch doesn't create a new commit sha, in practice you will generally need to merge bug fixes into your release branch, and as mentioned above, merge commits create a unique sha) ? Your master branch (again because of merge commits, but it would also probably be useful to tag these pacts with the master version numbers) ? Your hotfix branches (like feature branches, you probably want to verify contracts before you allow merges, but since it's a hotfix, you may want to build in a way to override for emergencies)

tomknee1

2022-06-07 16:32

thanks, we actually do seem to use unique commits this often, except for this specific case where we merge into master after a release is published

tomknee1

2022-06-07 16:33

that helps too on provider side though as they use trunk based dev so will need to help with that once i have all this consumer side correct :slightly_smiling_face:

rarora

2022-06-08 00:01

Hi Team, Our team at tripadvisor landed into unique issue: 1. Feature branch published pact(not new, existing pacts) 2. It triggered webhook and ran provider verification build. 3. Due to some intermittent issue(that I am checking), build failed. 4. Verification result was copied to all other consumer feature branches and canIDeploy check for all consumer feature branches started failing. 5. There was panic situation all around as all builds are failing and nobody changed pact. How it was resolved: I published new feature branch which triggered webhook and got consumer test verified. What i want to ask is : 1. What should be best way to resolve such situation? 2. When is webhook triggered, since its not new pact 3. Was the above behaviour expected or Does pact pipeline setup needs improvement?

dasarih

2022-06-08 00:20

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-06-08 00:24

First up, here are some tips for debugging webhooks: https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/webhooks/debugging_webhooks. If using Pactflow, we have screens to see the webhook executions also

tjones

2022-06-08 00:24

The verification result for a feature published pact shouldn't be applied to all consumers, so I think something is not set up right

rarora

2022-06-08 00:25

> The verification result for a feature published pact shouldn?t be applied to all consumers, so I think something is not set up right even if contract is same?

rarora

2022-06-08 00:25

I verified when contract is different, it is not applied

matt.fellows

2022-06-08 00:26

The verification result is tied to the *provider version.* Because multiple provider versions can verify a contract

matt.fellows

2022-06-08 00:26

so my guess, is that your can-i-deploy setup is incorrect e.g. you?re using `latest` rather than a tag or deployed environment

matt.fellows

2022-06-08 00:26

what does your can-i-deploy command look like?

rarora

2022-06-08 00:29

its gradle task where i setup these variables: ```project.ext.pacticipantVersion = "${project.rootProject.ext.COMMIT_HASH}" project.ext.pacticipant = "${project.parent.name}" project.ext.toTag = "production"``` so essentially it is, feature branch checks it has production tag for provider(This tag is added by webhook build which runs provider contract test on develop version of provider)

matt.fellows

2022-06-08 00:29

so If I understood, you?re adding the tag `production` on the develop version of the provider during verification?

rarora

2022-06-08 00:30

yes, as for our case develop branch go to production

matt.fellows

2022-06-08 00:30

so then you?re getting the expected failure. Now all consumers can?t deploy to `production` because you just told it that the provider doesn?t satisfy the contract

matt.fellows

2022-06-08 00:30

but in any case, you really shouldn?t add the tag `production` until the provider _is_ in production

matt.fellows

2022-06-08 00:31

unless there is a very short window from when code lands in `develop` and is deployed to `production`

matt.fellows

2022-06-08 00:31

The CI/CD guide explains this: https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana as well as the CI/CD workshop (see below howtolearn)

2022-06-08 00:31

Here are a number of useful hands-on labs that teach all of the key concepts: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops and https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/workshops

rarora

2022-06-08 00:32

> so then you?re getting the expected failure. Now all consumers can?t deploy to `production` because you just told it that the provider doesn?t satisfy the contract yes, I understand that. Since it happened due to intermittent issue(not actual error), What should be best way to resolve it? rerun?

matt.fellows

2022-06-08 00:32

yes, i?d just re-run the provider build

rarora

2022-06-08 00:32

> unless there is a very short window from when code lands in `develop` and is deployed to `production` yes its 1-1.5 hour for us. We are working on ways to improve it

matt.fellows

2022-06-08 00:33

So that?s definitely a reason to structure your tags differently to avoid this situation.

rarora

2022-06-08 00:33

> yes, i?d just re-run the provider build With above you mean webhook build that can add production tag?

matt.fellows

webhooks don?t add tags, builds add tags

matt.fellows

I would re-run whatever build is failing that?s causing the issues. Ideally, find out why it failed and make it more resilient also

rarora

yup i mean webhook triggered build(we have different setup for both, these build just run provider contract test)

matt.fellows

nice, that?s what they should do :slightly_smiling_face:

rarora

2022-06-08 00:35

> I would re-run whatever build is failing that?s causing the issues. Ideally, find out why it failed and make it more resilient also yes, I kind of did that.

matt.fellows

2022-06-08 00:35

but your tagging is iffy, i?d recommend not tagging dev builds `production` because that will prevent consumers deployinsg to prod if your dev builds of provider fail, even though production is not affected

rarora

2022-06-08 00:42

For our provider pipeline, whatever is merged to develop goes to production(There is separate pipeline that runs after merge to develop which takes ~1 hour). We want things to fail if develop build is failing. Provider ci-cd pipeline verifies against release-version of consumer. Develop is kind of master for us

rarora

2022-06-08 00:43

Currently we dont have way to tag after depolying to production, so we tag it after merge

rarora

2022-06-08 00:44

My issue/concern was in form: All feature branch checks for production tag from latest provider verification. Should we have additional variable for this?

benjamhawk

2022-06-08 02:37

has joined #general

tjones

2022-06-08 08:04

> Currently we dont have way to tag after depolying to production, What do you do if your deploy fails? Then your tags will be inaccurate, and you may have problems

tjones

2022-06-08 08:05

Usually you would do the `record-deployment` step at the end of your deploy script - is this not possible?

marcello.rigan335

2022-06-08 08:14

Hey, i have an android and an iOS consumer that have the same provider and use the same Endpoint with literally no differences in response or request. The Provider Test would be identical besides the consumer annotation change. Is there a way where i can avoid that much code duplication and can have multiple consumers in 1 Test?

tomknee1

2022-06-08 08:47

Hello again, myself (consumer side) and someone I'm working with on the provider side were wondering about the gold stage of reaching pact nirvana. If provider verification is run on every PR branch, how does it work in later stages when we start using `can-i-deploy` because doesn't that then also need an environment associated with it? but we don't record a deployment until its merged into main (provider side use trunk based dev), thanks or i guess we can see if its safe to deploy a feature branch / PR into a deployed environment (eg merge into main)?

matt.fellows

2022-06-08 10:27

is it ever possible that they might call different endpoints or at different moments in time consume different parts of the API?

matt.fellows

2022-06-08 10:28

Do you already have good unit test coverage of your API clients in these apps?

matt.fellows

2022-06-08 10:28

If the answers to these questions (and others like it) are ?no?, then I suppose you could.

matt.fellows

2022-06-08 10:28

But if you think of Pact first as a unit testing framework for your API client, it might seem a little silly to skip that part

sclaros

2022-06-08 13:07

has joined #general

daniel.tjondro

2022-06-08 15:25

has joined #general

slacksync

2022-06-08 17:21

has joined #general

sandro

2022-06-08 18:26

has joined #general

hazem

2022-06-08 23:14

has joined #general

2022-06-09 13:59

This message was deleted.

jbecker

2022-06-09 14:19

Looks like there is a channel for #pactflow specific questions. You might want to cross-post there, you might get more responses.

yousafn

2022-06-09 14:23

Yo, as @jbecker as stated, #pactflow is the best channel for pactflow specific features. however the best way to publish provider contracts currently is with our CLI tools! Here are some hot of the press instructions Using docker https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker-client#docker ```docker run --rm -v /${PWD}:/${PWD} -w ${PWD} -e PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL -e PACT_BROKER_TOKEN pactfoundation/pact-cli:0.50.0.28 pactflow publish-provider-contract \ oas/swagger.yml \ --provider "pactflow-example-bi-directional-provider-postman" \ --provider-app-version 3a0994c \ --branch test-pactflow-command \ --content-type application/yaml \ --verification-exit-code=0 \ --verification-results newman/newman-run-report-2022-06-09-14-18-33-406-0.json \ --verification-results-content-type text/plain\ --verifier postman``` if using pact-ruby-standalone https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker-client#standalone-executable and follow this https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9WTB2JDV/p1654783459462829?thread_ts=1654778378.898589&cid=C9WTB2JDV for cross-platform install ```./pact/bin/pactflow publish-provider-contract \ oas/swagger.yml \ --provider "pactflow-example-bi-directional-provider-postman" \ --provider-app-version 3a0994c \ --branch test-pactflow-command \ --content-type application/yaml \ --verification-exit-code=0 \ --verification-results newman/newman-run-report-2022-06-09-14-03-30-715-0.json \ --verification-results-content-type text/plain\ --verifier postman``` if using pact-broker_client https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker-client#ruby ```pactflow publish-provider-contract \ oas/swagger.yml \ --provider "pactflow-example-bi-directional-provider-postman" \ --provider-app-version 3a0994c \ --branch test-pactflow-command \ --content-type application/yaml \ --verification-exit-code=0 \ --verification-results newman/newman-run-report-2022-06-09-14-03-30-715-0.json \ --verification-results-content-type text/plain\ --verifier postman``` Happy to take a look at the issue with your js example, probably later today

leonardo.lanni

2022-06-09 14:51

has joined #general

jcamilovasquezm

2022-06-10 02:47

has joined #general

markrkell

2022-06-10 08:13

has joined #general

eva-maria.schaller

2022-06-10 08:24

has joined #general

edouard.lopez

2022-06-10 10:34

We have a consumer that added new contracts with consulting its provider, and that broke their pipeline. I know that communication is paramount with Pact and you encourage CDCT, but how do you tackle the case where the provider is already verifying contracts from other consumers? Does the provider need to handle all the states declared by its consumers? Is there a way to tell the consumer is experimenting?

matt.fellows

2022-06-10 10:34

Yes, Pending pacts (and also branches / tags)

matt.fellows

2022-06-10 10:35

I'd highly recommend reading the co/cd setup guide (howtolearn)

2022-06-10 10:35

Here are a number of useful hands-on labs that teach all of the key concepts: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops and https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/workshops

jbecker

2022-06-10 12:39

If it helps, I can tell you that the way I've been handling it is that the consumer feature branch which creates the contract must verify the contract before it can be merged into the master branch of that consumer, and the provider feature branches only have to verify against the master branch of its consumer. This way you can't merge a new contract if you haven't proven it works at least once already, and the provider will only be trying to verify pacts that have been proven to work at least once already.

edouard.lopez

2022-06-10 14:01

Thanks, I believe that what we need to do next! When you say: > consumer feature branch which creates the contract *must verify the contract* before it can be merged into the master branch of that consumer I tend to only use "_verifiaction"_ to talk about the provider to avoid confusion, so I reckon you mean consumer test pass and generate the pact file, right?

jbecker

2022-06-10 14:07

No, actually! I mean that as part of the consumer's feature branch pipeline which must pass before it can be merged to master, it remotely triggers a provider verification job (using the https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/webhooks#the-contract-requiring-verification-published-event webhook) and then runs the can-i-deploy script to ask of the current version of the consumer is compatible with the master version of the provider.

jbecker

2022-06-10 14:08

This means that _both_ the consumer _and_ the provider have to agree on a change to the contract before it can be merged to master

yousafn

2022-06-10 14:34

Happy Friday Everyone :ralph-wave: Pact Foundation's Slack Emoji Game is officially on :fire-8-bit: courtesy of your Devo :avocato: with :nine: :zero: :zero: ??% :moar: a. it contains language specific :rust: / :java: / :nodejs: / :gopher: b. _it's a silly thing, but_ i. what randoms can you find? :think_bread: ii. what's your favourite emoji? :bobbytables: iii. can we break :slack: on a :friday-2361: by having the most reacted :thread: to ever? :elmo_shrug:

michel.kaporin

2022-06-10 14:43

has joined #general

pooja.sharma4099

2022-06-11 08:39

has joined #general

srinivas.vaddi

2022-06-11 16:31

has joined #general

igor.sharfman

2022-06-12 11:25

has joined #general

chituru.chinwah

2022-06-13 08:48

has joined #general

cchinwah1

2022-06-13 09:45

has joined #general

edouard.lopez

2022-06-13 13:16

Do you have an example of config to share?

jbecker

2022-06-13 13:20

I suppose I can share some of our pipeline

jbecker

2022-06-13 13:21

We use Jenkins, so this is all written in Jenkinsfile groovy

edouard.lopez

2022-06-13 13:23

Jenkinsfile will bring back some memory :older_man: But you do target master branch using your pipeline? I thought it was a pact config

jbecker

2022-06-13 13:26

Skipping right to the pact-related stuff, the first relevant stage runs the unit tests: ``` stage("RUN UNIT TESTS") { steps { script { sh "$POETRY run pytest tests --cov=${job.sourceName}" IS_PACT_CONSUMER = library.exists('./tests/*.json') IS_PACT_PROVIDER = library.exists('./tests/pact_provider') } } }``` We have a library method which is just calling a shell script to check for the existence of a file or directory and convert it to a boolean. Since the `Pact` fixture in pytest automatically produces a pact json file for each provider this service consumes when it's done, we can check if this is a consumer if it has any pact files, and we're using a convention that if this service is a provider, it has its provider state setup logic in `./tests/pact_provider` so we can check for the existence of that directory to see if this is a provider (it can also be both or neither, since this is a general-use pipeline script)

jbecker

2022-06-13 13:29

``` stage("UPLOAD PACT FILE") { when { expression { return IS_PACT_CONSUMER } } steps { script { sh "docker run --network host -v \$(pwd)/tests:/tests " + "pactfoundation/pact-cli broker publish " + "/tests/ " + "--broker-base-url=\"${PACT_BROKER_URL}\" " + "--consumer-app-version=\"${job.abbrevCommitHash}\" " } } }``` Next, if the current project is a consumer, it uploads the pact file using the pact CLI (it's running it through the published docker container so we don't have to worry about installing it on our jenkins agents). We're creating our pact contract files into the `tests` directory, so we pass that directory into this script and it is smart enough to find all the pact json files. It uploads them to our broker (at `PACT_BROKER_URL`) and tags the contracts with the consumer version provided by `job.abbrevCommitHash`.

jbecker

2022-06-13 13:33

The next thing that happens is actually not part of the Jenkinsfile, but rather is a webhook in our pact broker which triggers automatically when it detects a new pact contract which requires verification: ```{ "uuid": "a0beeef6-b69e-421a-8033-d9212c274426", "description": "Automatically trigger pact verification on contract change.", "enabled": true, "request": { "method": "POST", "url": "http://<jenkins-url>.com/job/Pact%20Verify%20Provider/buildWithParameters", "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json" }, "body": { "project": "${pactbroker.providerName}", "version": "${pactbroker.providerVersionNumber}", "pactfile_url": "${pactbroker.pactUrl}" }, "username": "**********", "password": "**********" }, "events": [{ "name": "contract_requiring_verification_published" }], "createdAt": "2022-06-01T20:32:58+00:00" }``` This webhook is configured to call another jenkins job, passing it the name of the provider that needs to be verified, the version of that provider that needs to be verified (the git commit hash) and the URL of the pactfile that it needs to verify.

jbecker

2022-06-13 13:37

The jenkins job that it calls checks out the matching project and git hash, starts the service, and then runs the pact verification via the v3 CLI docker image: ``` stage("VERIFY") { steps { script { cmd = "docker run " + "--network host pactfoundation/pact-ref-verifier " + "--broker-url \"${PACT_BROKER_URL}\" " + "--provider-name \"${project}\" " + "--provider-version ${version} " + "--publish " + "--hostname \"localhost\" " + "--port \"$PROVIDER_PORT\" " + "--state-change-url \"http://localhost:$PROVIDER_PORT/_pact/provider_states\" " if (pactfile_url != "false") { cmd += "--url \"${pactfile_url}\" " } else { cmd += "--consumer-version-selectors \"{ 'environment': '${environment}' }\" " } sh cmd } } }``` (the "else" clause in there is because this job can alternatively be supplied with an environment name instead of a pact url, and it will verify the provider against all pacts tagged with that environment)

jbecker

2022-06-13 13:40

Looking back at the project jenkinsfile, the next thing that it does is check if the current project is a pact provider, and if it is, it triggers that same verification jenkins job, but with the environment "master" instead of a pact file url: ``` stage ("VERIFY CONTRACTS") { when { expression { return IS_PACT_PROVIDER } } steps{ script { echo 'Verify pacts where self is provider...' build job: "Pact Verify Provider", parameters: [ string(name: 'project', value: job.projectName), string(name: 'version', value: job.abbrevCommitHash), string(name: 'environment', value: 'master') ], wait: true } } }``` We are treating "master" like an environment since we are on a trunk-based development model and simply want to verify all new changes against the head of master before we allow them to merge.

jbecker

2022-06-13 13:42

Next, as long as the current project is a pact provider or a pact consumer (or both) it will run the can-i-deploy script against the master "environment", blocking the rest of the build if the contracts were not verified: ``` stage("CHECK PACT VERIFICATIONS") { when { expression { return IS_PACT_PROVIDER || IS_PACT_CONSUMER } } steps { script { sh "docker run --network host pactfoundation/pact-cli broker " + "can-i-deploy " + "--broker-base-url=\"${PACT_BROKER_URL}\" " + "--retry-while-unknown=30 " + "--retry-interval=10 " + "--pacticipant=\"${job.projectName}\" " + "--version=\"${job.abbrevCommitHash}\" " + "--to-environment=master " } } }```

jbecker

2022-06-13 13:44

And then finally, assuming this was all successful, we check if the current branch is master, and if it is, we tag it in the pact broker as such (along with also tagging it with the sem ver tag, for easy readability in the pact broker matrix): ``` stage("TAG PACT BROKER") { when { branch 'master' expression { return IS_PACT_PROVIDER || IS_PACT_CONSUMER } } steps { script { sh "docker run --network host pactfoundation/pact-cli broker " + "create-version-tag " + "--broker-base-url=\"${PACT_BROKER_URL}\" " + "--pacticipant=\"${job.projectName}\" " + "--version=\"${job.abbrevCommitHash}\" " + "--tag=\"${job.publishedVersion}\" " sh "docker run --network host pactfoundation/pact-cli broker " + "record-deployment " + "--broker-base-url=\"${PACT_BROKER_URL}\" " + "--pacticipant=\"${job.projectName}\" " + "--version=\"${job.abbrevCommitHash}\" " + "--environment=\"master\" " } } }```

jbecker

2022-06-13 13:44

Does that help clear things up a bit?

julian.alvarezv

2022-06-13 17:10

has joined #general

madu.alikor

2022-06-13 21:09

Anyone got an example of using Pact with Typescript/Javascript aws SAM lambda SQS consumer?

tjones

2022-06-13 23:57

I think there are examples in the pact-js repo for SQS

akke.luukkonen

2022-06-14 14:01

I wasn't able yet to replicate this issue to actually report it with repro steps, but just for my sanity I'd already like to confirm that something like this probably shouldn't happen (first image). The verification result is marked as failed even though all the interactions (just one here) have succeeded, which seems quite odd to me. However, in the same run where that verification result was published, there was one other *unrelated* contract that did fail (on purpose). I'm guessing the failure from this contract propagated somehow to this other contract, but I'm not yet sure how since I was unable to reproduce this with some pseudo-pacticipants. A follow-up question here actually is that when you run the `pact_verifier_cli` (Rust) using `--url`, should it also select additional contracts using the default consumer version selection rules? In the second picture the first contract was the one passed with `--url` but I didn't expect the verifications to run with what I'm guessing is the rule `latest: true` (or whatever is the default?) in addition to it.

akke.luukkonen

2022-06-14 14:03

I noticed this because `can-i-deploy` started reporting failures for the contract in the first image, even though I was quite sure all of the interactions should succeed.

akke.luukkonen

2022-06-14 14:04

I'll try to continue reproducing this situation with some pseudo-contracts tomorrow if I have time from team ceremonies, but I'm curious if this situation should at all be possible so that you have a failed verification with all interactions being successful :thinking_face:

akke.luukkonen

2022-06-14 14:13

For reference, the full command for the verification was ```docker run -e PACT_BROKER_TOKEN pactfoundation/pact-ref-verifier:0.9.11 --provider-name An...-Backend --provider-version 3746... --hostname ... --port 443 --transport https --state-change-url ... --enable-pending --publish --broker-url https://xxx.pactflow.io --url https://xxx.pactflow.io/pacts/provider/An...-Backend/consumer/An...-UI/version/ba5d... --request-timeout 60000```

malukenho.dev

2022-06-14 14:33

has joined #general

vikki.read

2022-06-14 18:58

has joined #general

omer.khalil

2022-06-14 19:33

has joined #general

rxiao

2022-06-15 04:29

has joined #general

matt.fellows

There _should_ be notices, explaining why certain pacts were collected and verified

matt.fellows

if the pacts are different, I?d expect the verifications for each pact to be separately submitted. This could be a bug

matt.fellows

@uglyog any thoughts?

matt.fellows

https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/publishing_and_retrieving_pacts

We?ll ideally need a way to repro this to fix it, if it is of course

akke.luukkonen

2022-06-15 06:11

> There _should_ be notices, explaining why certain pacts were collected and verified At least to my eyes if you run without specifying any `--consumer-version-selectors` manually, by default it doesn't report why it chose the ones it did. When giving `--url` the one specified by it always gets run first, but by default I assume it selects the rest with `latest: true` for all related consumers without any other mentions. If you do give the `--consumer-version-selectors` argument, then indeed it reports nicely why it chose the specific ones. (I already changed in my pipeline to run it with `--consumer-version-selectors "[ { \"mainBranch\": true }, { \"deployed\": true } ]"` to be safe). > I?d expect the verifications for each pact to be separately submitted Yeah, I was expecting that there might be some weird condition where this might get violated based on what I saw. > We?ll ideally need a way to repro this to fix it, if it is of course I attempted to do a quick repro with some pseudo-pacticipants but I was unable to get it to work at least so far. I'll try to continue later if I have time.

matt.fellows

2022-06-15 06:13

Could you please try with verbose? That should should show us what options went across

akke.luukkonen

2022-06-15 06:15

The original situation is not available anymore since there have been additional contracts published after it. So I'll have to try to get the repro version up first.

matt.fellows

2022-06-15 06:19

Ok cool, thank you

james.demaine373

2022-06-15 10:22

has joined #general

dmoll

2022-06-15 21:10

has joined #general

rholshausen

2022-06-16 04:27

This is going to be hard to replicate. Ideally, you shouldn't use the `--url` option if you are using the `--broker-url` one. You should select all the pacts via the consumer version selectors.

kurt3402

2022-06-16 04:29

has joined #general

kyo.tang

2022-06-16 06:03

has joined #general

dawoud.sheraz

2022-06-16 09:38

Hello. Is pact a good option for generating Data contracts for a yet-to-be-developed API? For context, the contract will be used both by the consumers to develop the pipeline for using the API and by the provider to have clear understanding of the work at hand.

prasadsolanki

2022-06-16 10:58

has joined #general

mairtin.conneely

2022-06-16 12:02

has joined #general

laura.kennedy

2022-06-16 14:32

has joined #general

mike.geeves064

2022-06-16 22:08

In case you didn't come across it, there's one in a separate repo: https://github.com/pactflow/example-consumer-js-sns on the Pactflow side

abubics

2022-06-17 01:07

Not sure if "data contracts" is a specific thing I haven't heard of, but . . . Pact is consumer-driven, so it's usually a great fit if you don't yet know what the API should do :ok_hand:

gaurav.bajpai

2022-06-17 03:41

has joined #general

gaurav.bajpai

2022-06-17 03:52

Hi Guys, I need some general guidance to implement pact test in my project, i have a bunch of micro services written using spring boot in a product, currently there are unit tests and a lot of E2E tests responsible for testing all functionality, I am trying to use pact and possibly reduce the amount of E2E tests after that. I am confused over the scope of provider side verification tests, whether I should just mock everything beyond controller layer and send a mock response back to verify consumer pact (this approach wouldn't help me in reducing E2E tests) Or run the provider service and mock the outgoing calls and database calls so that all the provider side code gets tested as part of pact verification process (This approach has a bunch of challenges to mock all outgoing interaction points).

abubics

2022-06-17 04:20

howdy :slightly_smiling_face: you've basically described the two general provider verification approaches :ok_hand:

abubics

2022-06-17 04:20

I would stub a little further in, past the controller layer

salmanjamali

2022-06-17 06:49

has joined #general

jbecker

2022-06-17 12:35

The approach my team is taking is to mock-out all microservices that the provider service depends on in order to test it in isolation, but we are also spinning up a test instance of its database (via a simple docker container) rather than actually mocking it out, since our microservices generally own their own databases

alansimonalie

2022-06-17 12:57

has joined #general

ben.a.hubbard

2022-06-17 13:47

has joined #general

mike.geeves064

2022-06-18 11:04

[oh no, sorry I just spotted you said SQS not SNS!]

tjones

2022-06-18 11:16

The pattern is the same though, so an SNS example should be a good starting point

mike.geeves064

2022-06-18 11:28

nod

lafriakh.rachid

2022-06-18 14:24

has joined #general

lafriakh.rachid

2022-06-18 14:30

Hello Everyone, I'm trying to implement Pact for my lambda and my use case is as follows: I have a lambda with an SQS setup so I have one Consumer which is my lambda and I have multiple Providers (Producers) who can put data into the SQS and then to my consumer (lambda). When I try to implement this scenario I can't find a way to have a setup with one Consumer and multiple providers. Is this scenario possible to implement in Pact?

mike.geeves064

2022-06-18 17:24

I haven't done with SQS specifically (I'm using EventBridge), but it's working ok for me having multiple providers - just create a separate MessageConsumer for each Provider you're expecting a message from

mike.geeves064

2022-06-18 17:25

In my case, the type of message and structure is different for each provider so it makes sense to identify them separately anyway (vs these providers all create identical messages)

lafriakh.rachid

2022-06-18 18:12

But having multiple consumers would be a bit strange. Because you actually have one consumer for all your providers. Of course, having multiple consumers would make it possible but I think it's having some drawbacks. Ex: In Pacflow you will not be able to see the big picture in the graphs because we are creating Provider-Consumer for each state we want to verify.

matt.fellows

2022-06-19 20:56

I think Mike is talking about the test class - you need to create a pact for each provider. Logically you can have one consumer and multiple providers

matt.fellows

2022-06-19 20:56

What language are you using?

matt.fellows

2022-06-19 20:58

matt.fellows

2022-06-19 20:59

Ultimately you just need to consider what tool/approach gets you the coverage you need

mike.geeves064

2022-06-19 21:14

Yep, apologies for that not being very clear. In my example, I have a consumer "ig-watcher" which listens for events from multiple providers [e.g. here "ig-analysis" and "ig-tracker"], so there's then a test file for each, where each declares the pact between consumer and provider, e.g. *test_pact_analysis_consumer.py* ```CONSUMER_NAME = "ig-watcher" PROVIDER_NAME = "ig-analysis" @pytest.fixture(scope="session") def pact(consumer_version): pact = MessageConsumer(CONSUMER_NAME, tag_with_git_branch=True, version=consumer_version).has_pact_with( Provider(PROVIDER_NAME), pact_dir=PACT_DIR, publish_to_broker=True, broker_base_url=PACT_BROKER_URL, broker_username=PACT_BROKER_USERNAME, broker_password=PACT_BROKER_PASSWORD, ) yield pact ...followed by pact tests using pact, between provider ig-analysis -> consumer ig-watcher``` then the same but for the other providers involved *test_pact_tracker_consumer.py* ```CONSUMER_NAME = "ig-watcher" PROVIDER_NAME = "ig-tracker" @pytest.fixture(scope="session") def pact(consumer_version): pact = MessageConsumer(CONSUMER_NAME, tag_with_git_branch=True, version=consumer_version).has_pact_with( Provider(PROVIDER_NAME), pact_dir=PACT_DIR, publish_to_broker=True, broker_base_url=PACT_BROKER_URL, broker_username=PACT_BROKER_USERNAME, broker_password=PACT_BROKER_PASSWORD, ) yield pact ...followed by pact tests using pact, between provider ig-tracker -> consumer ig-watcher``` When the "pact" object [can't think of the correct terminology right now] finishes/finalises/closes etc it will submit the appropriate pact for that pair. ...then another "pact" will do the same for the other pairs. My graph in the broker does look quite horrible since multiple consumers can receive and consume the same message [bridge vs queue] but that's another problem :sweat_smile:

courtney.lum

2022-06-20 04:02

has joined #general

brocheleau

2022-06-20 08:42

@gaurav.bajpai We just went through this process and found the mocking to become so extensive (for a larger GraphQL API) that we pivoted to using SQLite in our pipeline with some seeding scripts to replace the DB mocks (similar to @jbecker above). Its now been 4 months and I think the overall developer experience has improved.

markrkell

2022-06-20 09:00

Hello :wave: Sorry if this has already been asked. I've just got a question around verifying contracts by provider that were published by branches on the consumer so get tagged with the branch name. We have found that we're having to update our provider verification code (consumerVersionTags) each time to reference the branch where the contract that was published from. I've read https://docs.pact.io/provider/recommended_configuration page in the pact documentation and it suggests using the using the git branch name in ConsumerVersionSelectors and ensure the git branch for both the provider and the consumer are the same when the contract gets published and verified. We have tried this and it appears to work but means we'd need to remember to do this every time going forward. This https://docs.pact.io/provider/recommended_configuration also mentions _dynamically determining the tags of the feature branch_ which sounds like a much better option. Has anyone done this and got some examples or other suggestions?

matt.fellows

2022-06-20 09:26

The CI/CD workshop (howtolearn) shows how to address this

2022-06-20 09:26

Here are a number of useful hands-on labs that teach all of the key concepts: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops and https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/workshops

matt.fellows

2022-06-20 09:26

:point_up:

markrkell

2022-06-20 09:37

Thanks for the links Matt but is there anything more specific that covers verifying contracts on branches?

lafriakh.rachid

2022-06-20 09:39

Hi Matt, Hi Mike Thank you for your response. @matt.fellows I'm using JS in the consumer and Kotlin in the provider. @mike.geeves064 Thank you mike for your examples. Now I understand it better. Thank you guys

woojos

2022-06-20 09:58

has joined #general

abdou.ahzab

2022-06-20 10:08

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-06-20 10:57

are you using ?tags? or ?branches? and ?releases??

matt.fellows

2022-06-20 11:02

There are two main ways: 1. webhooks - whenever a consumer publishes a new pact (from any branch) you can trigger a build to verify it: https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana/step_5#d-configure-pact-to-be-verified-when-provider-changes 2. pending pacts - https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/pending_pacts

markrkell

2022-06-20 12:14

We have been using tags but have recently read about branches, we're already using the webhook to trigger the verification but unless we change the consumer tag on the provider to point to the branch it never verifies the contract published from branch

markrkell

2022-06-20 12:14

Thanks I'll have a read of pending pacts

dstekanov.tech

2022-06-20 15:28

has joined #general

rohit.thadhani

2022-06-21 04:39

has joined #general

jvieira

2022-06-21 22:28

has joined #general

harris

2022-06-22 00:09

Hello, quick question about monolith contract testing pipeline strategies: so we have monolith app (provider) with multiple consumers, what is the best strategy for blocking release(we do continues delivery) from provider? monolith(provider) got lots of responsibilities and all of subsystems are dependent on monolith, so when 1 consumer contract fail, should we block entire monolith release? until fix the contract? I know it is sounds same as monolith / micro services release issues, but I am looking for some similar real example for specifically contract testing, thanks

abubics

2022-06-22 01:26

I mean, if it's going to break stuff, you should probably block the entire release, right? Otherwise you're deploying breakages.

abubics

2022-06-22 01:26

Strategies to mitigate that somewhat extreme stance might include feature flags, versioned APIs, etc

abubics

2022-06-22 01:28

The perspective should probably be that Pact (or any kind of testing) is just highlighting existing problems that weren't being caught before. Dealing with those problems isn't the job of the testing tools, it's more based around culture, practices, discipline, communication, etc :innocent:

harris

2022-06-22 03:05

I agree 100% Boris, yeap we are about to expand the contract testing, but little concerned that if we make soft fail(current one) the contract step, no one really care about lol ok I will throw some rocks to the organisation :slightly_smiling_face: thanks

abubics

2022-06-22 05:55

Good luck! I hope you can get traction with a simple reasoning approach :pray:

nuno.frias

2022-06-22 12:14

Hello, I am a bit confused by this apparent issue that i am encountering. Tbh I am not sure if it is an actual issue or if I am not doing things correctly. Anyway here is what is happening: I have a consumer that interacts with a provider using both HTTP and Kafka. I have two consumer tests for each, each creating its own pact file. I am publishing the Pact files to http://pactflow.io using the Pact cli tool (`pact-broker publish`), but when I go to the http://pactflow.io UI I can only see the HTTP interaction. However when I retrieve the latest pact for the provider I get a JSON file that contains both interactions and messages -- I used curl to retrieve the JSON. I also built a provider test but only for the HTTP interaction (using `HTTPVerifier`), what I am also seeing is that when I run the provider test it is attempting to verify the Kafka message. Has anyone experienced a similar situation?

nuno.frias

2022-06-22 12:47

This is the relevant bit of the response I get when I retrieve the latest pact for the provider. ```curl -i -H "Authorization: Bearer $BEARER_TOKEN" https://<my-company>.http://pactflow.io/pacts/provider/<my-provider>/consumer/<my-consumer>/version/<my-version>```

nuno.frias

2022-06-22 12:57

Just a clarification the provider test is both verifying the HTTP interaction and the Message interaction. The message Message interaction obviously fails.

matt.fellows

2022-06-22 12:57

You need to have different names for providers of different types. That's resolved in the latest spec but I think you're using Go and we haven't added v4 support yet (it's quite new)

nuno.frias

2022-06-22 12:59

Indeed I am using Go. Thank you

nuno.frias

2022-06-22 12:59

That makes sense.

nuno.frias

2022-06-22 13:00

Any idea when v4 will be supported in GO?

matt.fellows

2022-06-22 13:02

Over the next few months it will gradually roll out, likely on a beta branch initially and then merged into mainline

qingyuliu

2022-06-22 15:23

Hi team, I have a question about message level contract testing. In message level test, will the provider write the message into an existing kafka topic? Or just create the object to match the consumer defined Pact?

marcus.james

2022-06-22 15:28

has joined #general

jonas.pena

2022-06-22 15:50

has joined #general

abudi.hijazi.01

2022-06-22 16:44

has joined #general

nuno.frias

2022-06-22 17:16

Thank you :+1:

vaddisrinivas170497

2022-06-22 18:57

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2022-06-23 01:17

Sorrynotsorry for posting a job in the general channel, but please excuse us this once - I think you?ll agree it?s a pretty special moment for the Pactflow team. Did I mention we?re excited?

bethskurrie

2022-06-23 01:17

It will just create the object.

bethskurrie

2022-06-23 01:18

The queue technology is ignored. It means you need to decouple your business logic from your message sending logic, but this is generally a good practice anyway.

adam.anderson

2022-06-23 03:46

has joined #general

yegorisa

2022-06-23 03:47

has joined #general

swapnil.jagdale

2022-06-23 05:19

has joined #general

mark.mcmurray

2022-06-23 08:33

has joined #general

jacek.maciag

2022-06-23 09:15

has joined #general

vaddisrinivas170497

2022-06-23 16:18

hi lil new here, I have created a pact using the junit5 library. How can I publish it to local pact broker? is there a way to do that without using the cli?

matt.fellows

2022-06-23 22:27

why can?t you use the CLI?

matt.fellows

2022-06-23 22:27

madhulika.mitra

2022-06-24 09:26

Hi - Pact Gurus :slightly_smiling_face: Is there a limit of interactions(tests) in pactflow. I tried with 1247 interactions and the test timed out .

sandor.arpa

2022-06-24 09:30

has joined #general

sandor.arpa

2022-06-24 09:31

:wave: Hi everyone!

sandor.arpa

2022-06-24 09:33

Could you, please point me to the right channel? I've got an issue with NumberTypeMatcher where the matcher does not recognise a negative number as Integer :thinking_face: Details in :thread:

sandor.arpa

2022-06-24 09:36

The generated pact looks like this: ```$.event_details.net_amount=MatchingRuleGroup(rules=[NumberTypeMatcher(numberType=INTEGER)]``` The error I get: ```BodyMismatch(expected=-8000, actual=-8000, mismatch=Expected -8000 (JsonPrimitive) to be an integer``` I'm on version 3

sandor.arpa

2022-06-24 09:36

Any help would be highly appreciated

sandor.arpa

2022-06-24 09:36

(Yes, tried to search the documentation first)

matt.fellows

2022-06-24 09:54

That's a lot of interactions! If the test is timing out it's not Pactflow. Pactflow is just the storage or the contract, the execution happens locally. What test framework are you using?

madhulika.mitra

2022-06-24 09:54

I am trying to do a bidirectional test...so all execution is on pactflow I thought :confused:

matt.fellows

2022-06-24 09:55

Aha! Ok then yes this does you're right

matt.fellows

2022-06-24 09:57

Please send a support ticket to with the details of what's failing so we can investigate. Ideally please share the contract you've uploaded on both sides

matt.fellows

2022-06-24 09:59

Can you please share the actual contract file and also the actual response from the provider?

matt.fellows

2022-06-24 09:59

One hypothesis is that it's a stringified number

matt.fellows

2022-06-24 10:00

I think you're using #pact-jvm ? Might have luck in that channel

sandor.arpa

2022-06-24 10:01

Ok, thank you! I'll try my luck in pact-jvm

mwilso29

2022-06-24 11:19

has joined #general

renaud.meurisse

2022-06-24 12:47

has joined #general

rk8085858

2022-06-26 08:12

has joined #general

alex.savage

2022-06-27 08:26

has joined #general

simon.selvadurai

2022-06-27 08:28

has joined #general

yasir.khan

2022-06-27 11:21

has joined #general

willem.basson

2022-06-27 11:25

has joined #general

edward.francis

2022-06-27 11:32

has joined #general

laura.cabantous

2022-06-27 11:35

has joined #general

ruslan.charuh

2022-06-27 12:18

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-06-27 12:29

Happy Monday everybody :ralph-wave: and welcome to our new joiners

ruslan.charuh

2022-06-27 12:31

:wave: Hi everyone!

pramod-arjun.bhalerao

2022-06-27 12:54

has joined #general

pramod-arjun.bhalerao

2022-06-27 12:55

:wave: Hi everyone!

ssomepalli

2022-06-27 14:30

has joined #general

owen.oclee.old

2022-06-27 16:13

has joined #general

oherescu

2022-06-27 19:21

has joined #general

nathan.tejuco

2022-06-28 03:50

has joined #general

jun.ito

2022-06-28 07:47

has joined #general

daniel.shamaeli

2022-06-28 09:01

has joined #general

michael.oloyede

2022-06-28 09:55

has joined #general

lucas.azzola

2022-06-29 04:18

has joined #general

jens.suhr

2022-06-29 09:25

has joined #general

mike.geeves064

2022-06-29 10:32

:thinking_face: I'm looking at Pact message (in python specifically) and would like to get rid of the "...as there is no --provider-states-setup-url specified" warning and possibly add usage of states in somewhere. From a quick grep of "provider.states.setup.url" across pact-foundation and pactflow repos I can't find any examples (thought it was worth a try!) - it's used in "normal" http style Pact where the provider is spun up and the additional states endpoint can be spliced in somewhere, but I'm not sure how a nice pattern for message would look? Given the handler mapping approach for each of the provider states to implement, maybe it isn't actually necessary as this can be done via the defined handler itself? TLDR: does anyone have examples using provider states for message?

thammarith.likittheer

2022-06-29 10:46

has joined #general

mike.geeves064

2022-06-29 11:01

[for python, could do something lightweight with https://docs.python.org/3/library/http.server.html as per Beth's example https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47539344/pact-how-to-set-up-provider-states ...but I'm not sure that's how message is intended :thinking_face: ]

matt.fellows

2022-06-29 11:38

so the idea of provider states is definitely still applicable to messaging, albeit because in the case of messages the description is the unique key, you can often just use the description that also includes the state. I prefer not to do that though personally. But really, it?s exactly the same concept as HTTP. *maintainer detail???.* The way we handle this in several of the ?client? languages (not the canonical Rust, Java or Ruby) is that each language spins up an HTTP server transparently to the user, and registers user provided ?state handler? functions with that server, and then gives that server URL to the verifier. When the state request comes in, the framework discovers the function to call, and delegates to the user provided function to ?setup? the state. This way, it looks just like a regular function to the test author, but actually they are effectively implementing an HTTP handler.

mike.geeves064

2022-06-29 14:01

:thinking_face:

mike.geeves064

2022-06-29 14:02

I may be asking the wrong question

mike.geeves064

2022-06-29 14:04

So, I'm aware of the sneaky http implementation approach, and have gone through chunks of the pact-python implementation, it doesn't seem to provide a way to hook in with the http server to give those states, hence I was assuming maybe the expectation is to spin up something outside

mike.geeves064

2022-06-29 14:10

I should probably checkout some of the other implementations, could be something isn't complete on the python side

mike.geeves064

2022-06-29 14:21

Looking at example-provider-js-sns to give you some js rather than my python, you have: ``` const opts = { ...baseOpts, ...(process.env.PACT_URL ? pactChangedOpts : fetchPactsDynamicallyOpts), messageProviders: { "a product event update": () => createEvent(new Product("42", "food", "pizza"), "UPDATED"), }, }; const p = new MessageProviderPact(opts);```

andrevpuc

2022-06-29 14:24

has joined #general

mike.geeves064

2022-06-29 14:29

~So in this case, would you say if some actual state was required, instead of createEvent you would map to e.g. createEventWithState which 'did some stuff' to setup the state, and then made the call to createEvent, returning the payload~ (I think I am confusing myself wrt the hexagonal architecture approach - in this case the 'state' has already happened and as a result of the 'state' existing, the attributes for Product are provided) the handler is responsible for 'setting' any state based on the description, and also returning the appropriate payload for the message? -> in which case the provider-states-setup-url is no longer relevant and python shouldn't be WARN'ing that it's missing -> so possibly it would make sense to add an additional endpoint which does nothing, and send that to the verifier as a default provider-sates-setup-url as the warning isn't relevant?

mike.geeves064

2022-06-29 14:29

`make test` is failing for me on that example so I can't actually see how that one is expected to behave :thinking_face:

mike.geeves064

2022-06-29 14:34

"you can often just use the description that also includes the state. I prefer not to do that though personally." could you elaborate on that a little please? :slightly_smiling_face: as in do you mean having e.g. "A product exists with id 3" and then in your handler scraping out the 3 to create a Product? [and you prefer to not do that] ..or something else?

mylesjj

2022-06-29 16:26

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-06-30 01:08

Let?s say you are testing an `Order` updated use case, which has these scenarios: 1. Order has new shipping information 2. Order has a new delivery note 3. ? You could write the consumer tests for these in two ways: *1. The use case + scenario is all in a single description:* ?An order is updated with new shipping information? ?An order is updated with a new delivery note? ?An order is updated with ?? *2. The use case + scenario is separated by different provider states* use case: ?An order update event? scenario 1: ?with new shipping information? scenario 2: ?with a new delivery note? scenario 3: ??? I think 2 is more readable, but does rely on the state handlers instead of a single function that handles the whole thing

matt.fellows

2022-06-30 01:09

> -> in which case the provider-states-setup-url is no longer relevant and python shouldn?t be WARN?ing that it?s missing I agree that we should not have this warning though if there are no states to be setup. It?s not a useful warning - that could be fixed in the Ruby core I think (i.e. don?t warn if there are no states and that URL is not set)

matt.fellows

2022-06-30 01:09

cc @bethskurrie

bethskurrie

2022-06-30 01:37

sure, thanks.

bethskurrie

2022-06-30 01:38

is it python that is warning or ruby?

mike.geeves064

2022-06-30 02:02

It's coming from ruby I believe, `set_up_provider_state.rb` / `set_up_provider_state_spec.rb` I'll see if I can find other language examples to see what they do, in case it's a non-issue down to the way the python implementation sets things up > *The use case + scenario is separated by different provider states* Do you know of any other examples demonstrating that approach for message? Don't worry about looking if not, (I'll have a look through in the morning) I haven't been able to see so far how that's intended to hook in :thinking_face: Only approach 1 with the single description as it's basically a map of description to handler

matt.fellows

2022-06-30 02:03

Not any public ones I don?t think, but conceptually I?m not sure why it?s different than HTTP? Aside from the fact that message implementations tend to be at the function level, rather than at an HTTP API level (spanning a whole live system)

mike.geeves064

2022-06-30 02:04

possibly I've just completely missed something here :smile:

matt.fellows

2022-06-30 02:05

I think you?re right, in that most examples I?ve seen don?t actually make use of states for messages, but the infrastructure is there to support it.

matt.fellows

2022-06-30 02:06

and if it helps, it doesn?t look like a thing unique to python

mike.geeves064

2022-06-30 02:06

consumer side has something like ```( pact.given("A document deleted successfully") .expects_to_receive("Description with broker") .with_content(expected_event) .with_metadata({"Content-Type": "application/json"}) )``` provider side has something like ```def test_verify_success(): provider = MessageProvider( message_providers={ "A document created successfully": document_created_handler, "A document deleted successfully": document_deleted_handler, }, provider="ContentProvider", consumer="DetectContentLambda", pact_dir="pacts", ) with provider: provider.verify()```

mike.geeves064

2022-06-30 02:07

so you can match the "A document deleted successfully" but all the happens is the document_deleted_handler method is called

mike.geeves064

2022-06-30 02:08

the setting up of states is then just doing ```def _setup_states(self): message_handlers = {} for key, handler in self.message_providers.items(): message_handlers[f'{key}'] = handler() resp = http://requests.post(f'{self._proxy_url()}/setup', verify=False, json={"messageHandlers": message_handlers}) assert resp.status_code == 201, resp.text return message_handlers``` so calling that handler, and passing whatever it generates as a key -> payload

matt.fellows

2022-06-30 02:09

wait, that?s the exact opposite that I would expect: ```( pact.given("A document deleted successfully") <--------- this is the state .expects_to_receive("Description with broker") <--------- this is the actual scenario, that should map to a handler .with_content(expected_event) .with_metadata({"Content-Type": "application/json"}) )```

matt.fellows

2022-06-30 02:11

```def test_verify_success(): provider = MessageProvider( message_providers={ "A document created successfully": document_created_handler, <--- scenario handler, not a state "A document deleted successfully": document_deleted_handler, }, state_handlers={ "A document deleted successfully": some_func, <---- in an ideal world, we want something like this }, provider="ContentProvider", consumer="DetectContentLambda", pact_dir="pacts", ) with provider: provider.verify()```

mike.geeves064

2022-06-30 02:14

only message_providers on the python side as far as I can see

matt.fellows

2022-06-30 02:17

so does it provide an option to provide a states setup URL?

mike.geeves064

2022-06-30 02:18

not visibly, but it gets passed through to the verifier

mike.geeves064

2022-06-30 02:18

:thinking_face:

mike.geeves064

2022-06-30 02:18

I can see stateHandlers and messageProviders in pact-js, but then examples e.g. example-provider-js-sns only make use of messageProviders

matt.fellows

I?m sure there are plenty of options we don?t use in all of the examples

matt.fellows

we often get the feedback ?do you have an example with feature x? and ?your examples are too complicated? (because they use all things)

matt.fellows

can?t win that one!

mike.geeves064

:smile:

mike.geeves064

for sure

matt.fellows

I?m sure there is a lesson in there somewhere

matt.fellows

also, are you pairing with Yousaf or something? Why are you both awake!

mike.geeves064

this isn't causing me a particular problem atm btw, so maybe something to come back to slightly more structured :thinking_face:

mike.geeves064

lol

mike.geeves064

2022-06-30 02:22

I've been doing the usual going in circles a bit looking at trying to improve some of the examples and hitting the...but...different examples...things not working...head hurt :smile:

mike.geeves064

2022-06-30 02:22

it is getting a bit early yes

matt.fellows

2022-06-30 02:23

> I?ve been doing the usual going in circles a bit looking at trying to improve some of the examples and hitting the...but...different examples...things not working...head hurt Python or beyond?

mike.geeves064

2022-06-30 02:24

yes

mike.geeves064

2022-06-30 02:25

:smile:

mike.geeves064

2022-06-30 02:28

started adding one of Tim's message examples which was a bit more useful over to python but then tangenting into a bottomless rabbit hole of thinking how an uber example repo could work :thinking_face:

mike.geeves064

2022-06-30 02:29

as per the, _"do you have an example with feature x? and ?your examples are too complicated?_ :slightly_smiling_face:

mike.geeves064

2022-06-30 02:29

I think for now I'll head for sleep and maybe the implications of "wait, that?s the exact opposite that I would expect" will make more sense in the morning :joy:

qingyuliu

2022-06-30 09:35

Hi team, I'm wondering what is the difference between Kafka schema registry and pact message level contract testing. Is there any article about Pact message level contract?

oliviawalsh1

2022-06-30 09:49

has joined #general

mylesjj

2022-06-30 12:34

I'm still looking! An example azure-pipelines.yml for an azure devops ci/cd pipeline would be most useful. All the examples I can find are for Jenkins etc.

hiepluong2205

2022-07-01 06:40

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-07-01 10:45

You are amazing Mike and we really appreciate you! Thanks for this, I knew it was going to be a rollercoaster, just wasn't sure how much :sweat_smile:

mike.geeves064

2022-07-01 10:46

:relaxed:

mike.geeves064

2022-07-01 10:47

There is still also the possibility I've completely misunderstood and gone off on one, but if that's the case it is still a good place to try and help with docs to understand!

mike.geeves064

2022-07-01 10:48

Hadn't even heard of provider state injected :thinking_face: which may or may not have any relevance here

yousafn

2022-07-01 10:51

Aye I was about to say exactly that, whatever comes out of this though, will benefit others and help clear some of the confusion! As if you and me are confused, then I would imagine others are as well.

matt.fellows

2022-07-01 10:56

I think one thing we could do to save everyone?s confusion, is to have a clear set of features that are used as a ?this is what a full implementation looks like?. https://docs.pact.io/roadmap/feature_support is a start, but it?s mostly only useful for maintainers that know what each of those things means, and means almost nothing to a brand new user.

matt.fellows

2022-07-01 10:56

It also of course can and does drift from reality (which I think you proposed some solutions to, Mike)

mike.geeves064

2022-07-01 10:57

Yeah having a few chats with Yousaf about that, I have a cunning plan :grinning:

mike.geeves064

2022-07-01 10:57

I wouldn't agree about meaning nothing to a user though, if it's presented right

mike.geeves064

2022-07-01 10:58

Oh wait specific link rather than the concept nvm :grinning:

mike.geeves064

2022-07-01 10:59

I'd like to have something like that auto generated and testable with a whole load of dark magic :grinning:

matt.fellows

2022-07-01 10:59

yes! I think it could mean a lot, but right now unless you know what `Injecting values from provider state callbacks` it?s only useful for the basic/obvious features.

matt.fellows

2022-07-01 11:00

There?s no one place that says ?here are all of our features and how to use them?, with code snippets etc. and also blank spaces so it?s obvious ?oh, Python doesn?t support that. Maybe I can add it??

mike.geeves064

2022-07-01 11:07

That's what I'm working on :slightly_smiling_face:

mike.geeves064

2022-07-01 11:08

I think it would be really useful but need to see what the barrier to entry could look like etc

mike.geeves064

2022-07-01 11:09

Going a bit ot here but definitely worth carrying on the discussion!

saleh.elnagar

2022-07-01 13:20

has joined #general

mike.geeves064

2022-07-02 10:04

hm, I'm still not quite getting my head around message_provider and state_handler would work in a nice demonstratable flow :thinking_face: it makes sense to me for normal HTTP where the consumer is pulling from the provider, but where the provider is pushing to the consumer I'm finding it harder to "explain" maybe if the given/state is effectively adding to a queue/buffer object [i.e. add a payload onto a stack or something [that you can setup nicely in a test, similar to let's pretend there's a user database by setting up a dict in other examples] and then the handler is responsible for handling whatever is in the queue and pushing it out but that does seem like extra complexity without an understandable value :thinking_face: vs the slightly muddy just doing in one hit where the description/given is doing everything going to try and go through some of this with @yousafn next week, not sure if it makes sense to look at progressing the feature list examples idea and do this as one of them [later], or try and make sense of message by itself first anyway :thinking_face:

animesh.kumar

2022-07-03 16:54

has joined #general

omri.benyair

2022-07-04 03:14

has joined #general

abudi.hijazi.01

2022-07-04 10:38

Does anyone know how to generate a pact file through GH actions. I've written a yml script that runs the consumer tests to generate the pacts. The tests are passing, and it's saying pact files generated, but there's no files in my repo, does anyone know how to access the generated file? This is the script output ``` API Pact test [2022-07-04 10:29:28.863 +0000] INFO (2056 on fv-az459-64): pact@9.17.3: Setting up Pact with Consumer "consumerv1.0.0" and Provider "provider" using mock service on Port: "1234" ? ID 12 exists [2022-07-04 10:29:28.889 +0000] INFO (2056 on fv-az459-64): pact@9.17.3: Pact File Written [2022-07-04 10:29:28.890 +0000] INFO (2056 on fv-az459-64): pact-node@10.17.4: Removing Pact process with PID: 2067 [2022-07-04 10:29:28.892 +0000] INFO (2056 on fv-az459-64): pact-node@10.17.4: Deleting Pact Server with options: {"timeout":30000,"consumer":"consumerv1.0.0","cors":false,"dir":"/home/runner/work/consumerpoc/consumerpoc/pacts","host":"127.0.0.1","log":"/home/runner/work/consumerpoc/consumerpoc/logs/pact.log","logLevel":"INFO","pactfileWriteMode":"overwrite","provider":"provider","spec":2,"ssl":false,"port":1234,"pactFileWriteMode":"overwrite"} 1 passing (572ms)```

matt.fellows

2022-07-04 10:40

There are lots of examples that run on GitHub actions. In fact, probably all of the official ones do and definitely the Pact JS ones that this looks to be using

matt.fellows

2022-07-04 10:41

Why do you need the generated file? You would normally publish it to a pact broker (or a service like Pactflow).

abudi.hijazi.01

2022-07-04 10:42

How am I supposed to push the file without the file

matt.fellows

2022-07-04 10:42

The file should already be on the GitHub servers you should be publishing from

matt.fellows

2022-07-04 10:43

What makes you believe the file isn't there?

matt.fellows

2022-07-04 10:45

All of these examples build and publish from GH: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/examples

abudi.hijazi.01

2022-07-04 10:46

Usually when it's ran locally, the file appears in the pacts/ dir

abudi.hijazi.01

2022-07-04 10:47

Obviously this can't be added to your GH repo just like that

mike.geeves064

2022-07-04 10:47

Do you mean it isn't being commited to the repo by the GH action? [I'm not sure you'd want that anyway]

abudi.hijazi.01

2022-07-04 10:48

No I don't want that, I want to push it to my broker

matt.fellows

2022-07-04 10:48

So the file should be in the same relative path that it is locally, just on the remote GH file system.

abudi.hijazi.01

2022-07-04 10:49

riiiiiggght, makes sense, let me try now

mike.geeves064

2022-07-04 10:51

Hang on, do you actually "need" that file? [vs your Pact tests submitting]

mike.geeves064

2022-07-04 10:52

[not sure which of those examples show a broker configured]

abudi.hijazi.01

2022-07-04 10:52

I need to push the file to my pact broker, I don't "need" it, as in to open it or look at it

abudi.hijazi.01

2022-07-04 10:53

basically I need to know where it's located

mike.geeves064

2022-07-04 10:53

mike.geeves064

2022-07-04 10:53

you don't need to know where it is as such, that part can be handled "automatically"

mike.geeves064

Have you gone through this? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-js/

abudi.hijazi.01

Im not using pactflow as my broker, so I have to manually push it

matt.fellows

If you see the log output you shared above, the exact path is logged in the output

matt.fellows

But you should use a relative path

mike.geeves064

2022-07-04 10:55

I might be misunderstanding something here, apologies if so https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-js/#publish-contracts-from-consumer

mike.geeves064

2022-07-04 10:55

You don't need to be using PactFlow as the broker, it is the same if you are hosting your own OSS Pact Broker

chriswilliamsef

2022-07-04 13:11

has joined #general

chriswilliamsef

2022-07-04 13:24

Hi I?m hoping I could get some help with this - we?re setting up the first bidirectional test, and validation has failed because of ? we?ll we ?re not sure! The error looks more like an implementation error than something defined in our contract or openapi spec

chriswilliamsef

2022-07-04 13:26

OpenAPI3 spec file for the provider, and consumer contract generated via Montebank as per https://github.com/pactflow/example-bi-directional-consumer-mountebank

rioka68

2022-07-04 13:32

has joined #general

heinenm

2022-07-04 14:01

has joined #general

chriswilliamsef

2022-07-04 16:02

Ohh, I worked out what the above error was caused by - it was the way that the results from the Mountebank mocker where being turned into a contract - so fixed it and opened a PR - https://github.com/pactflow/example-bi-directional-consumer-mountebank/pull/6

matt.fellows

2022-07-04 23:22

Ah, thanks for that

matt.fellows

2022-07-04 23:23

It wasn?t intended to be a general solution to Mountebank. I?m interested as to why it only started failing now? :thinking_face:

matt.fellows

2022-07-04 23:23

in any case, much appreciated

abubics

2022-07-05 01:47

Also, it doesn't need to be committed in your repo, it just needs to be available in the build step runtime.

omri.eyal

2022-07-05 06:22

has joined #general

vikki.read

2022-07-05 10:22

Hi there! I was wondering if anyone is using bi-directional contract testing with multiple providers sharing a single contract? I'll thread some context :thread:

vikki.read

2022-07-05 10:22

I'm working with some code that uses a protocol as an abstraction, to make it easy for consuming code to call the same endpoints on different API providers. I'd like to formalise the protocol as an OpenAPI spec, and contract testing could be helpful to help us understand/keep track of how they're used within our system. I implemented this naively but you end up with `consumer*provider` contracts very quickly, and as it's a protocol we'd like a single provider contract, but with many provider implementations. I've got some ideas on how to make this work but thought I would check in here, in case anyone else is doing this, or it doesn't make sense and I'm misunderstanding something!

shen-yu

2022-07-05 15:35

has joined #general

ben.foster

2022-07-05 15:42

has joined #general

maarten.gryp

2022-07-05 16:20

has joined #general

hazem

2022-07-05 22:07

:wave: we just started to evaluate pactflow and i'm able to trigger webhook events to bitbucket thanks to the https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/webhooks/template_library. question. are there any resource guides available to trigger aws codebuild? does anyone have any experience triggering from pactflow to codebuild?

matt.fellows

2022-07-05 23:15

I didn?t realise people use code build? :troll:

matt.fellows

2022-07-05 23:15

If you don?t hear anything back, we?d love to get another update to that template library for the next person !

hazem

2022-07-05 23:18

most definitely - we're halfway between bitbucket and codebuild (moving towards cb) as our build tool.

harris

2022-07-06 03:35

Hello question regarding `--provider-states-setup-url` , if somehow, we cannot create a seperate endpoint for provider state url, what is the alternative way? we can use real endpoint in `before` block to arrange test data then run tests? I would like to know how others are doing :slightly_smiling_face:

mike.geeves064

2022-07-06 06:55

Could you elaborate on the _cannot create a separate endpoint_ to help understand the situation :slightly_smiling_face:

megha.t

2022-07-06 06:56

has joined #general

ravindra.dhaka

2022-07-06 07:08

has joined #general

mrigendra.ranjan

2022-07-06 07:08

has joined #general

deepak.bhoria

2022-07-06 07:11

has joined #general

cjenkins

2022-07-06 07:17

has joined #general

gustavo.chain

2022-07-06 08:04

has joined #general

tobias.friedrich

2022-07-06 08:31

has joined #general

ganesh.panchagnula-no

2022-07-06 11:50

has joined #general

morten.gejl

2022-07-06 13:02

has joined #general

varunthaper

2022-07-06 15:17

has joined #general

jwheatley

2022-07-06 17:12

has joined #general

jwheatley

2022-07-06 17:32

Hey Everyone, I am a QA at my company and new to Pact. Our company uses a microservice environment. Apparently, they tried to implement Pact in the past and it didn't catch on. I wanted to research a bit more to see if anything has changed. Here were some of the concerns that someone listed out for me from my company and I was hoping someone could help me understand if they are valid concerns still: ? its consumer-oriented design being inconvenient to work with ? Having services written in ruby, python, javascript and golang adds additional complexity. I believe there are pact libraries available for all of those languages, but I don't know anything about the non-ruby ones. ? It's not well-suited to APIs where we don't control both ends of the implementation, e.g. APIs we provide to clients

jbecker

2022-07-06 17:47

I'm an SDET building my company's pact implementation from scratch, and so far my experience with it has been: ? The consumer-oriented design is very convenient to work with, because pact effectively produces a contract automatically from the way I use mocks anyways in my consumer unit tests, and this ensures my contract only specifies the things my consumer actually cares about, leaving the provider full leeway in modifying things that are not yet in use. (I was aware of this criticism myself before getting into Pact and I don't really understand it other than maybe people who didn't understand the best-practices behind consumer-oriented contract testing were just doing it wrong.) ? Pact, in my experience so far, seems very language independent. There are lots of neat libraries for different languages for building up the contract automatically in your consumer, but I've found that outside of that, I've been using the CLI tools for everything else: for uploading and verifying pacts. ? This is true, it is not designed for APIs where you don't control both ends, but my company (as many likely do) uses a reverse-proxy front-end with all our public apis. By writing consumer contract tests into this, we can effectively test our public apis, since our reverse-proxy service does very little logic and passes-through public requests to the back-end services.

jwheatley

2022-07-06 18:00

Thank you, thank you! the more im researching, the more I like it, but it's very difficult to convince people who are hesitant to try something new! I need to really look at their concerns (as you are helping me to do) to figure out if they are valid or just knee jerk reactions

jbecker

2022-07-06 18:15

I think one of the tricks to helping people understand the consumer-oriented nature of it is that most people have this impression that that means you make a change to the consumer, and it changes the contract, and then the next time you try and build the provider it breaks because of a mistake the consumer made. This is what I mean about people doing it wrong though. Ideally, if you're following something like gitflow, you make all your changes in branches, test those branches, and only if the tests pass can you merge them. Well, by the same philosophy, you block merges to both consumers _and_ providers if _either_ breaks the contract between them. So even though the consumer defines the contract, it still has to verify the contract against the provider's master branch before it can be merged to the consumer's master branch, so you can be sure you won't break the provider.

noor.hashem

2022-07-06 20:23

has joined #general

jwheatley

2022-07-06 21:15

thank you for explaining this, i do think this is actually a misconception amongst my teammates!

harris

2022-07-06 22:29

yeap, it is little bit funny situation, I try to adopt contract tests in organisation, people want to see real example, but I dont have enough knowledge/skill set to create endpoint in provider side.

harris

2022-07-06 22:31

so if there is some alternative way, it would be good. when provider app is PHP, is it okay to create `--provider-states-setup-url` in JS and whenever request come to that url, just inject data through real(provider) api?

harris

2022-07-06 22:32

for example, ?when user id123? requird POST({user:123}) like this?

harris

2022-07-06 22:33

so contract -> state setup url->request to provider? not sure

tjones

2022-07-07 00:44

:taco: for @jbecker! Very well explained. A couple of pieces of personal opinion: Many many many teams do provider-driven development, which just seems mad to me. If you didn't have the consumer, you wouldn't need the provider. So why is the provider specifying the contract? It doesn't know what the consumer needs, only the consumer does. My personal opinion is that developing this way costs everyone time, and leads to unnecessary frustration and friction between teams - even ignoring contract testing, I don't think developing this way makes sense. > It's not well-suited to APIs where we don't control both ends of the implementation, e.g. APIs we provide to clients The general case is if you can't know who the consumers are, consumer-driven contract testing is not a good fit. Pact can work if you don't _control_ the implementation, but still know who they are (and can ask them to send you a pact file). It does depend, though- if you're also providing an API client library to your customers, then you can contract test that library. @jbecker?s point about breaking changes being a common point of confusion is spot on. Using Pact will mean you need to think about when you should ask compatibility questions (do I want to fail the master build if the master consumer is not compatible? Often, no). I don't personally use gitflow (and I try to avoid branches, depending on the team), but you can still use pact very effectively with gitflow, github-flow or trunk based - you just need to be clear about when and what you expect to be compatible. Something that may have changed since you last looked at it is that the broker has better support for telling pact which contracts you expect to fail the build. Have a look at pending-pacts and work-in-progress pacts here https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/pending_pacts > ruby, python, javascript and golang These are all languages that pact supports :sunglasses: . They share the same core, so anything you can do in one will work in the others.

abubics

2022-07-07 00:47

Also, if everyone is in a provider-first workflow, BDCT was added to make the transition away from that mentality easier. But if you can start with consumer-driven, that'd be even better :ok_hand:

abubics

2022-07-07 00:51

(to be clear, BDCT doesn't provide the same confidence, and if people are looking for an easy way to avoid doing things properly, I'd avoid mentioning it at all)

tjones

2022-07-07 00:51

Teams who are doing provider-first development almost always have mocks. The question I would have is "how are you checking that your mocks work like the real thing?" - Pact makes that check very easy.

matt.fellows

2022-07-07 03:50

What a great thread - thanks all for your answers!

harris

2022-07-07 05:59

Hello , quick question for provider state set up, I have tried to send request to deployed test server(provider) for testing v3 beta but it throw an error(Response for preflight has invalid HTTP status code 405) https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Preflight_request is the pact framework use a headless browser to send request? lol

tjones

2022-07-07 06:00

It should only generate preflight if the consumer told it to. Is cors set to true in your consumer test?

tjones

2022-07-07 06:01

Can you share the actual error you're getting? Is this from the state setup or the actual endpoint?

harris

2022-07-07 06:06

is the CORS set from consumer define in interaction header? ``` headers: { "Content-Type": "application/json; charset=utf-8" },``` if so, no we dont

harris

2022-07-07 06:07

it is from state setup, we had some ssl issue with local provider docker, so we just want to try out V3 beta to test env(staging) to point out it works as expected or not lol

tjones

2022-07-07 06:08

No. That looks like it's pact-js - if so, cors is set on the `Pact` object when you create it.

tjones

2022-07-07 06:09

I'm not sure how it is set in the beta. If you're not setting it at all, this is definitely a bug.

harris

2022-07-07 06:10

I am using `jest-pact` so it does magic for me? lol I did not set anything yet

harris

2022-07-07 06:10

maybe I will try to change `jest-pact` version to point out beta

tjones

2022-07-07 06:19

jest-pact doesn't set cors by default

tjones

2022-07-07 06:19

you won't be able to use it with the beta, though. There is a beta release of that, too

harris

2022-07-07 06:21

https://github.com/pact-foundation/jest-pact/blob/pact-js-v3/README.md yeap I found that, I will try and get back to you lol but if jest-pact doesnt set CORS, hum ?.. I can downgrade to V2 and try same step to confirm

tjones

2022-07-07 06:22

Can you share the actual error you're getting - It sounds like it might be a bug in the rust core.

tjones

2022-07-07 06:22

ideally the whole log, please

harris

2022-07-07 06:22

yeap I need to go out now, for pick up :slightly_smiling_face: I will get back to you later ! thanks

matt.fellows

2022-07-07 06:41

I?d be interested to understand _why_ you need CORS pre flights at all for your Pact test. This should be running in a Node process (V3 doesn?t support non-node environments to my knowledge) so there is no need for CORS

matt.fellows

2022-07-07 06:41

What HTTP client are you using?

tjones

2022-07-07 06:53

Also, you're not using jest-pact at the provider side, right? It is only for consumer tests.

dormeiri

2022-07-07 09:41

has joined #general

andreaschung1

2022-07-07 12:28

has joined #general

jwheatley

2022-07-07 18:00

You all are really helping me understand benefits. Another coworker has expressed concerns saying ```I believe my main concern with Pact was that you're not getting end-to-end tests, cause the frontend is still left out. In our solution, that's still a pretty big chunk that's not getting tested and while you can say that the interfaces between services work okay (and you can probably even contract test the interface the frontend uses), the code in the frontend itself doesn't get verified. In addition, I see an overlap between Pact tests and controller/requests specs/test. For a good amount of APIs, we're already verifying their behaviour based on the input -> output, so I'm wondering what Pact offers here in addition.```

jwheatley

2022-07-07 18:00

(we are using cypress to test the services separately)

jbecker

2022-07-07 18:30

contract tests are not meant to replace end to end tests, but end to end tests are slower and less reliable than lower level tests. This is why the classic image of the test pyramid is so important. If you're not familiar with it, it looks like this:

jbecker

2022-07-07 18:36

The metaphor is somewhat literal, in that you can't effectively perform e2e testing without a solid foundation of integration and unit tests. An e2e test is run late in the software development life cycle and touches everything, so if something fails, debugging can be difficult because there are many possible points of failure. The same is not true of Unit and Integration tests though, so if you have a very solid foundation of unit and integration tests before you run your e2e tests, you at least know that the logic itself is sound and the failure must have something to do with the much smaller untested code, like your service's configurations.

jwheatley

2022-07-07 19:08

Yea, I'm going to explain that this would not replace the cypress tests ive written. I thought they understood that but maybe i need to clarify. I totally agree and understand what you are saying @jbecker thanks for giving me better language to explain it!

jwheatley

2022-07-07 19:13

What would you say about the overlap between controller/requests specs tests and contract tests?

jwheatley

2022-07-07 19:14

has that been something you all have coordinated on your teams?

jbecker

2022-07-07 19:18

I'm not exactly sure what they mean by that, I suppose it depends on how they get the specs they're testing. That's what pact does, is it uses the pact broker to communicate a spec as defined in the consumer back to the provider for verification, so you can asynchronously verify that your specs are always accurate. If your team already has another system for doing the same thing, then maybe you don't need pact after all, but I don't really know enough to say

jwheatley

2022-07-07 19:59

i dont believe we do, but i need to get clarify on what our specs are currently doing

jwheatley

2022-07-07 21:33

It's looking like our specs are run against a mock. im thinking that there might be some misconceptions about how pact works...

parvatshiva

2022-07-07 22:05

has joined #general

harris

2022-07-07 22:18

```console.error Error: Error: Response for preflight has invalid HTTP status code 405 at Object.dispatchError (/app/app/node_modules/jsdom/lib/jsdom/living/xhr/xhr-utils.js:63:19) at EventEmitter.<anonymous> (/app/app/node_modules/jsdom/lib/jsdom/living/xhr/XMLHttpRequest-impl.js:655:18) at EventEmitter.emit (node:events:549:35) at Request.<anonymous> (/app/app/node_modules/jsdom/lib/jsdom/living/xhr/xhr-utils.js:370:16) at Request.emit (node:events:537:28) at Request._processResponse (/app/app/node_modules/jsdom/lib/jsdom/living/helpers/http-request.js:228:12) at ClientRequest.<anonymous> (/app/app/node_modules/jsdom/lib/jsdom/living/helpers/http-request.js:101:12) at Object.onceWrapper (node:events:652:26) at ClientRequest.emit (node:events:537:28) at HTTPParser.parserOnIncomingClient [as onIncoming] (node:_http_client:642:27) undefined at VirtualConsole.<anonymous> (../node_modules/jsdom/lib/jsdom/virtual-console.js:29:45) at Object.dispatchError (../node_modules/jsdom/lib/jsdom/living/xhr/xhr-utils.js:66:53) at EventEmitter.<anonymous> (../node_modules/jsdom/lib/jsdom/living/xhr/XMLHttpRequest-impl.js:655:18) at Request.<anonymous> (../node_modules/jsdom/lib/jsdom/living/xhr/xhr-utils.js:370:16) [2022-07-07T06:47:35Z ERROR pact_verifier] Provider state change for 'A new object will be created' has failed - MismatchResult::Error("Invalid status code: 500", Some("217f8b60aad7530b2fd3dc48dd723abba5fe8674"))```

harris

2022-07-07 22:18

This is the error I got not sure it helps lol

harris

2022-07-07 22:19

```"interactions": [ { "description": "a deleteObject request", "providerStates": [ { "name": "A new object will be created" } ], "request": { "body": { "query": "\n mutation DeleteObjectMutation($id: Int!) {\n deleteObject(id: $id) {\n id\n }\n }\n", "variables": { "id": 1 } }, "generators": { "body": { "$.variables.id": { "expression": "${objectId}", "type": "ProviderState" } } }, "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json" }, "matchingRules": { "body": { "$.variables.id": { "combine": "AND", "matchers": [ { "match": "type" } ] } } }, "method": "POST", "path": "/api/v2/graphql" }, "response": { "body": { "data": { "deleteObject": { "id": 1 } } }, "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json" }, "matchingRules": { "body": { "$.data.deleteObject.id": { "combine": "AND", "matchers": [ { "match": "type" } ] } }, "header": {} }, "status": 200 } } ]```

harris

2022-07-07 22:19

contract

harris

2022-07-07 22:20

```stateHandlers: { 'A new object will be created': { setup: async () => { const objectId = await createObject() return { objectId } } } } const createObject = async (): Promise<number> => { const body = { query: "use mutation to create an object", variables: {} } try { const res = await http://client.post("/api/v2/graphql", body) return res.data.id } catch (e) { console.log(e) throw e } }```

harris

2022-07-07 22:20

provide state

tjones

2022-07-07 22:20

That looks like it's not coming from Pact. How is your state change implemented? It looks like the state change is failing

tjones

2022-07-07 22:21

That call in the state change is what is failing

tjones

2022-07-07 22:21

the http://client.post

harris

2022-07-07 22:22

yeap we tried to use exist provider side call to create

harris

2022-07-07 22:22

send api request to create test data

tjones

2022-07-07 22:23

Well, that API request is sending a preflight that the server is rejecting

harris

2022-07-07 22:25

ok good to know thanks Timothy, let me try api request without any pact connection :slightly_smiling_face:

tjones

2022-07-07 23:24

> we're already verifying their behaviour based on the input -> output, so I'm wondering what Pact offers here in addition. Are you also verifying that the input you're testing the controller with is what your client actually sends?

tjones

2022-07-07 23:25

I think it was Matt's point originally - but if you're not verifying that the request that your client sends is the thing you're testing the controller with too, then you're just marking your own exam.

tjones

2022-07-08 01:34

To me, this is the real value of Pact. It is important to test: ? Your client sends what you think it does ? Your provider will send the responses that you think it will ? Your client can understand the responses you think it will get ? Your provider can understand the requests that you think it can This is what you're testing if you do controller/request spec tests . Pact makes it really easy to tie all those things together, so you get: ? Your client sends what you think it does ? Your provider will generate the responses that you think it does ? Your client can understand the responses that the provider actually sends ? Your provider can understand the requests that that the client actually sends This is an important difference - especially if multiple people are writing the tests. It's super important to tie the mocks together, otherwise you're just marking your own exam. Pact makes that super easy. In addition, Pact gives you knowledge of what is deployed where, so you can say: ? Is it safe to deploy this version of the consumer to prod? ^ That's the killer feature. Do you need Pact to achieve all this value? No. Is Pact the easiest way to achieve all of that value? In my view - absolutely. I don't think there's any other tool that gives you all of those features without you having to build extra infrastructure.

tjones

2022-07-08 01:36

> It's looking like our specs are run against a mock. This is very common. Pact is still a mock - but the difference is that that mock is sharable with the provider, so you check that your mocks are correct. Your team might find the diagrams on this page helpful: https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/how_pact_works

abubics

2022-07-08 02:15

Further to @jbecker?s pyramid point, and the Pact footprint confusion, here's a picture I prepared earlier :yay: sometimes the visual helps a bunch more than just trying to explain with words. Here, Pact is just the blue boxes. The purple would be Cypress in your case, and ideally not pushing past that network boundary, to keep them fast and less flaky. The better the low-level coverage is, the less exhaustive the end-to-end tests need to be.

harris

2022-07-08 03:33

Hello Timothy, I have tested without pact (direct request to test server) it works as expected lol this is provider side option ```export const createOptions = (providerName: string)=> { return { provider: providerName, providerBaseUrl: `${providerBaseUrl}`, pactBrokerUrl: `${pactBrokerUrl}`, pactBrokerToken: `${pactBrokerToken}`,, consumerVersionSelectors:[{tag:'provider-status', latest: true}], providerVersionTags: ['provider-status'], providerVersion: 'provider-status', enablePending: true, validateSSL: false, disableSslVerification: true, stateHandlers: { 'A new link will be created': { setup: async () => { const linkId = await createLinkInMonolith() return { linkId } }, teardown: async () => { } } } } }``` we did not set ```providerStatesSetupUrl:``` we got `stateHandlers` to send post request(axios) to server

harris

2022-07-08 03:33

just pure request using Axios without pact I can send request to server and resoponse as expected lol

jwheatley

2022-07-08 03:35

@tjones and @abubics you have really helped me feel more confident that I am on the right path towards doing what our team needs. I think the misconceptions about Pact have really held us back. I wish I had a bit more technical knowledge to actually implement it myself :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:. Have you all found it hard to coordinate cross team collaboration when certain teams own an endpoint?

abubics

2022-07-08 03:39

One of the important things to remember is Pact is just a tool. It can help prompt & drive conversations, because it highlights things that aren't working, and gaps that might've just been assumptions otherwise.

abubics

2022-07-08 03:39

Cross-team collaboration needs to start with buy-in on problems & solutions, so I think you're going in the right direction, trying to get people on the same page :ok_hand:

abubics

2022-07-08 03:41

In places I've used Pact, mostly the bounded contexts were narrow enough that there wasn't ownership contention within a single codebase/API/product. If you find that people don't want to own their code & quality & functionality, that's a bigger problem (which Pact or any other testing tools could highlight).

abubics

2022-07-08 03:42

Most of the push-back I've gotten has been before the buy-in happened.

jwheatley

2022-07-08 03:42

This is a good point. Yea, I think this phase of teaching people how it actually works is probably really critical. I'm not so technically savvy and pretty new to my company so I'm treading lightly!

abubics

2022-07-08 03:43

Pushing/forcing people to use a tool like this, begrudgingly, has always ended up in needing to promote the ownership and buy-in with now-annoyed people.

jwheatley

2022-07-08 03:43

Yea, this is really good to bring up. Even if a manager forces everyone to do it, people being disgruntled to do something they don't understand or believe in will not work out well in the long run.

abubics

2022-07-08 03:45

I find it's easiest to build in with empowered teams - when they already drive their own backlogs, support their own prod issues, etc. If the organisational culture is more siloed, or blamey, or has deferred responsibility (e.g. testing team, secops gatekeeping, etc), it's harder for people to want to own things.

jwheatley

2022-07-08 03:47

I'm getting the sense that our leadership is really open and supportive. I get good vibes all around from teams, so I'm hopeful :crossed_fingers:

abubics

2022-07-08 03:47

Amazing if you have top-down support :sparkling_heart:

abubics

2022-07-08 03:55

Also, if you can start small bottom-up (like if one team is keen to try it out), rather than trying to convince everyone together, that can help both shake out any teething issues small-scale, and then set a good example for others to follow :rocket:

jwheatley

2022-07-08 03:56

yes, my team is very open to trying it (minus one person..this is the person i want to convince :slightly_smiling_face: )

tjones

2022-07-08 04:03

> just pure request using Axios Yes, this is to be expected. The problem is in the `http://client.post()` call - so the question isn't "what happens if I don't use pact and implement a client myself?", the question is what happens when I do: ``` const body = { query: "use mutation to create an object", variables: {} } try { const res = await http://client.post("/api/v2/graphql", body) return res.data.id } catch (e) { console.log(e) throw e }``` without pact. (I can say confidently that it will fail - pact is not the problem here)

tjones

2022-07-08 04:04

Specifically, the errors you're getting are from an xhr library, which Pact doesn't use. So Pact is definitely not the source of the problem.

harris

2022-07-08 04:07

yeap without pact, it works lol ```const axios = require('axios').default const client = axios.create({ baseURL: "my url", timeout: 10000, headers: { "Authorization": `Bearer token`, "Content-Type": "application/json" } }) const body = { query: "mutation", variables: { accountId: 0000 } } async function main() { try { const res = await http://client.post("/api/v2/graphql", body) console.log(res.data.data.addLink.id) } catch (e) { console.log(e) throw e } } main()``` maybe I did not set `providerStatesSetupUrl:` is that the issue?

tjones

2022-07-08 04:10

I think the issue is that code will finish before the client call is made.

tjones

2022-07-08 04:10

also you're sending a different request

harris

2022-07-08 04:11

> different request sorry what do you mean?

tjones

2022-07-08 04:12

The body in your working example is different from the body in your failing example.

tjones

2022-07-08 04:13

I'm afraid I can't help you debug your code. But I can answer your pact question: > maybe I did not set providerStatesSetupUrl: is that the issue? No. You set either one of `stateHandlers` or `providerStateSetupUrl`, not both.

harris

2022-07-08 04:13

ahhh failing example(old shared one) was I modified it for sharing, the axios one (the latest shared one) and failed one are same :slightly_smiling_face:

harris

2022-07-08 04:13

I tested same request with pact, without pact!

harris

2022-07-08 04:14

> code will finish before the client call is made any tip to everything aligned?

tjones

2022-07-08 04:14

Well, the failure isn't coming from pact.

jonathan.dowling

2022-07-08 11:37

has joined #general

alex423

2022-07-08 13:59

has joined #general

jwheatley

2022-07-08 16:00

Just curious....do you also test against a live env in addition to using Pact? Currently, our Cypress tests are in the staging pipeline. A few devs want to also point these tests to a live env

jbecker

2022-07-08 16:07

In my company's case, we use Data Dog synthetic tests in prod environments, and we have simple e2e smoke suite and health suites which we run after each deploy to any environment to check the deploy was successful. The trick is keeping any sort of e2e testing or full-environment testing to a minimum though, because of how slow and expensive they are.

jbecker

2022-07-08 16:08

As a good rule of thumb, if an e2e test ever fails, you should ask yourself why you didn't catch it in a lower level test.

francis.williams

2022-07-08 19:52

has joined #general

dmitry.sarkisov

2022-07-08 20:07

has joined #general

neokree

2022-07-09 10:50

has joined #general

neokree

2022-07-09 10:58

Hello everyone! I asked about the development of a Flutter library on Twitter some days ago.. Matt can you please DM me so we can continue our conversation? Thanks

matt.fellows

2022-07-10 14:43

Check out #pact-dart

lynn.alhaimy

2022-07-10 18:20

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-07-10 21:23

I wouldn't point pact tests at a live server. You can do it, but managing provider states might be painful

jwheatley

2022-07-10 23:52

@matt.fellows ah yes, i wasn't thinking of pointing pact tests to a live env. I was asking whether people do pact AND also run e2e tests against a live env. A few devs on my team are pushing for running e2e against a live env and it was something I was told not really to do (or do VERY sparingly).

harris

2022-07-11 02:04

Hello Timothy, I got it :slightly_smiling_face: it was all becuz of jest config setup lol ```testEnvironment: "jest-environment-jsdom-sixteen",``` this one causes issue, now all fixed and working as expected :slightly_smiling_face:

harris

2022-07-11 02:04

thanks for your Advice ! cheers

abubics

2022-07-11 02:28

I tend to only run smoke-level tests in prod (ensuring connectivity), and have prod-shaped non-prod (e.g. staging).

abubics

2022-07-11 02:28

As an aside, if your Cypress tests don't cross the network boundary, you could run them anywhere safely ;D

jwheatley

2022-07-11 02:36

It?s more just that the live envs get so messy that the tests end up being flakey from changing data etc

abubics

2022-07-11 02:37

yeah, unless you have something like a test account in prod that is relatively isolated from real data, it's not really reasonable to expect that in prod

abubics

2022-07-11 02:38

and building something like that is significant dev & maintenance overhead

jwheatley

2022-07-11 02:38

Yeaaaa that?s what our infra dev was telling me!

guillermo.aguirre

Hello everyone

guillermo.aguirre

I'm having an issue running a producer test

guillermo.aguirre

When I run it, I get dependency errors that I cannot mock

guillermo.aguirre

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/tree/master/rust/pact_verifier_cli#command-line-interface

Does the Producer test run the entire app?

rarora

2022-07-11 05:08

Hi team I am facing a basic issue: 1. There are two consumers say *pact-consumer* and *pact-consumer-b* for same provider 2. When *pact-consumer* publishes new contract with tag T1, webhook triggers build for provider 3. When provider build runs, it verifies successfully contract between *pact-consumer* and *provider* with tag T1 but fails for *pact-consumer-b* and provider with tag T1(as expected) Below screenshot shows provider annotation where pactConsumerTag value is T1 sent by webhook as explained in thread

rarora

2022-07-11 05:09

webhook configuration: ```{ "uuid": "uuid", "description": "POST http://gitlab.dev.tripadvisor.com", "consumer": { "name": "pact-consumer" }, "provider": { "name": "pact-provider" }, "enabled": true, "request": { "method": "POST", "url": "https://gitlab.dev.tripadvisor.com/api/v4/projects/<id>/trigger/pipeline", "headers": { "Accept": "multipart/form-data" }, "body": "token=<TOKEN>&ref=develop&variables[PACT_CONSUMER_TAG]=${pactbroker.consumerVersionTags}&variables[PIPELINE_LIBRARIES]=contract_verification,no_common" }, "events": [ { "name": "contract_content_changed" } ], "createdAt": "2022-06-07T01:32:01+00:00", ```

rarora

2022-07-11 05:10

please suggest how should i update config so that provider runs T1 tagged test for particular consumer and not for all consumers

rarora

2022-07-11 05:11

not for now

eirikval

2022-07-11 15:08

has joined #general

alex423

2022-07-11 15:27

Hello, Is there a way to test a consumer contract (as bi-directional contract) with a provider without publishing it to the broker ?

jbecker

2022-07-11 15:35

Yeah! The pact verifier cli has an option to pass it a contract file to verify

jbecker

2022-07-11 15:36

Which pact verifier cli are you using? (I am pretty sure they both have this option, the ruby one and the rust one)

alex423

2022-07-11 15:36

nodejs

alex423

2022-07-11 15:37

but it seems the pact verifier cli is written with ruby

jbecker

2022-07-11 15:37

This is the one I'm using and it has a `-f` option for passing a pact file:

jbecker

2022-07-11 15:37

alex423

2022-07-11 15:38

thanks :slightly_smiling_face:

jbecker

2022-07-11 15:40

Hmm, actually, I'm not sure if the ruby implementation of the pact verifier cli has this option. I'm not seeing it here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-provider-verifier#usage So looks like you'll want to try out the rust implementation (the first one I linked)

alex423

2022-07-11 19:07

`--file` and `--dir` options are ignored when the env variable `PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL` is defined :confused:

alex423

2022-07-11 19:09

also this tool verify pact files against a running provider. is it possible to verify it with the provider pact submitted on the pact broker instead ?

jbecker

2022-07-11 19:51

yes, you don't need the pact broker if you're passing the contract file

alex423

2022-07-11 19:52

yes, but it requires a running provider, is there a way to verify a consumer contract using the provider contract instead of a running provider ?

jbecker

2022-07-11 19:54

I think you're a little confused, the contract is written by the *consumer* and verified against a running instance of the *provider*. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "provider contract" but the provider doesn't produce a contract

alex423

2022-07-11 19:56

on my ci flow the provider publish an OAS on the pact broker. I wanna know this is possible to verify if a consumer contract is compatible with my provider oas

alex423

2022-07-11 19:57

(i'm trying to use bi-directional contracts)

jbecker

2022-07-11 19:58

I've never heard of bi-directional contracts in pact. I thought it only supported consumer-driven contracts

alex423

2022-07-11 19:58

https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/bi-directional-contract-testing

matt.fellows

2022-07-12 03:32

> Is there a way to test a consumer contract (as bi-directional contract) with a provider without publishing it to the broker ? Are you asking if there is a way to confirm locally if a change on the provider/consumer will break things, rather than finding out using `can-i-deploy` later in the pipeline? If so, not yet, but it?s on the https://github.com/pactflow/roadmap/projects/1 (see can-i-deploy local)

matt.fellows

2022-07-12 03:32

@jbecker this is a Pactflow specific feature, and not something part of Pact OSS

matt.fellows

2022-07-12 03:36

It?s entirely up to how you run your provider to verify it

matt.fellows

2022-07-12 03:36

But usually yes, with stubbed out external dependencies

matt.fellows

2022-07-12 03:37

Pact can?t fix your dependency errors.

matt.fellows

2022-07-12 03:37

> When I run it, I get dependency errors that I cannot mock Pact is designed for situations where you have granular control over your code. Can you elaborate on this problem a touch?

rarora

2022-07-12 04:41

@matt.fellows can you please suggest

alex423

2022-07-12 04:49

I'm asking if I could run `can-i-deploy` command with a local contract instead of publishing it to the pact broker. My ci/cd workflow is basically `pact-broker publish` `pact-broker can-i-deploy` `pact-broker record-deployment` and I would want to just run `can-i-deploy` locally (with uncommited local changes for example) to make sure my code is fine and only publish validated contracts

sahil.jain

2022-07-12 10:21

has joined #general

jonathan.dowling

2022-07-12 11:29

I have an issue running the pact-protobuf-plugin binary inside a Docker container. I'm using pactflow/pact-protobuf-plugin v0.1.7. When running Pact tests, the tests fail. I tracked this to the plug-in binary failing to start due to *"Cannot assign requested address"*. ```# /root/.pact/plugins/protobuf-0.1.7/pact-protobuf-plugin Error: Os { code: 99, kind: AddrNotAvailable, message: "Cannot assign requested address" }``` This happens on the maven:3-openjdk-17-slim (and other maven images) and also on ubuntu:latest. I think there is an issue with the plug-in attempting to bind `::1`, an IPv6 address, which is not supported in containers by default. Is there a workaround for getting the pact-protobuf-plugin binary to listen on a different localhost address? I need to be able to run Pact tests inside a container as part of a build pipeline.

rholshausen

2022-07-12 13:08

I'll have a look at what is happening. It should try an IP4 address if the IP6 one failes.

sahil.jain

2022-07-12 13:10

Hello Everyone. I am bit new to Contract testing and recently started exploring it for consumer driven contract testing in Android App. The use case I am trying to solve is to generate pact file while i am running my UI Tests in Android app. My Android app makes multiple API requests to our backend server which i have currently mocked the responses through "Wiremock" framework. The next step i want to do is to record all the interactions made by the app and create a pact file so as i can validate it against my reack backend server. In order to do so i have integrated "Wiremock Pact Generator" developed by Atlassian team : https://bitbucket.org/atlassian/wiremock-pact-generator/src/master/ but i am facing crash while running my UI tests. ```com.github.tomakehurst.wiremock.servlet.WireMockHandlerDispatchingServlet.service(WireMockHandlerDispatchingServlet.java:108) at javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:790) at org.eclipse.jetty.servlet.ServletHolder.handle(ServletHolder.java:812) at org.eclipse.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler.doHandle(ServletHandler.java:587) at org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ContextHandler.doHandle(ContextHandler.java:1127) at org.eclipse.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler.doScope(ServletHandler.java:515) at org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ContextHandler.doScope(ContextHandler.java:1061) at org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ScopedHandler.handle(ScopedHandler.java:141) at org.eclipse.jetty.servlets.gzip.GzipHandler.handle(GzipHandler.java:479) at org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.HandlerCollection.handle(HandlerCollection.java:110) at org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.HandlerWrapper.handle(HandlerWrapper.java:97) at org.eclipse.jetty.server.Server.handle(Server.java:499) at org.eclipse.jetty.server.HttpChannel.handle(HttpChannel.java:311) at org.eclipse.jetty.server.HttpConnection.onFillable(HttpConnection.java:258) at org.eclipse.jetty.io.AbstractConnection$2.run(AbstractConnection.java:544) at org.eclipse.jetty.util.thread.QueuedThreadPool.runJob(QueuedThreadPool.java:635) at org.eclipse.jetty.util.thread.QueuedThreadPool$3.run(QueuedThreadPool.java:555) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:784) Caused by: java.nio.file.NoSuchFileException: target/pacts/the-consumer-the-provider-febea806-232d-4527-bacb-d501e5048f78-pact.json at sun.nio.fs.UnixFileSystemProvider.newByteChannel(UnixFileSystemProvider.java:214) at java.nio.file.spi.FileSystemProvider.newOutputStream(FileSystemProvider.java:434) at java.nio.file.Files.newOutputStream(Files.java:216) at java.nio.file.Files.write(Files.java:3292) at com.atlassian.ta.wiremockpactgenerator.pactgenerator.LocalFileSystem.saveFile(LocalFileSystem.java:14) at com.atlassian.ta.wiremockpactgenerator.pactgenerator.PactSaver.saveFile(PactSaver.java:39) ... 24 more``` Can someone please help why its not able to save pact file? or i am doing something wrong here. Thanks in Advance.

rholshausen

2022-07-12 13:12

Can you raise an issue for that at https://bitbucket.org/atlassian/wiremock-pact-generator

kyriacos.elia

2022-07-12 15:43

has joined #general

fabricio.mendes.ti

2022-07-12 16:33

has joined #general

cameron.allan853

2022-07-12 23:18

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-07-13 02:57

Also Check your host entries. If localhost is defined for both ipvr and 6 but your network stack doesn't support it that may also be a problem. Or you could always use 127.0.0.1 instead of localhost

matt.fellows

2022-07-13 02:57

I don't know android, but if you're running a UI test do you have access to the filesystem?

matt.fellows

2022-07-13 02:58

If not, that could explain it

matt.fellows

2022-07-13 03:05

Yep that's exactly the feature we're building. Not ready yet but on the near term horizon as per that roadmap

jeroen.lamain

2022-07-13 08:49

has joined #general

jonathan.dowling

2022-07-13 08:52

@matt.fellows This happens in standard Docker containers. You can reproduce it quickly with this: ```docker run --rm -it ubuntu:latest bash apt-get update && apt-get install -y wget wget --quiet https://github.com/pactflow/pact-protobuf-plugin/releases/download/v-0.1.7/install-plugin.sh bash install-plugin.sh ~/.pact/plugins/protobuf-0.1.7/pact-protobuf-plugin```

programmingwithbangal

2022-07-13 12:48

has joined #general

rohitkeshwani07

2022-07-13 13:28

has joined #general

alex423

2022-07-13 13:45

ok thanks :slightly_smiling_face:

rholshausen

2022-07-13 15:22

I think I added a command line parameter to force IP4 addresses just for docker images.

rholshausen

2022-07-13 15:43

Ah, no, I thought about adding that parameter. I'll raise a ticket for this on our backlog.

gjvengelen

2022-07-13 18:18

has joined #general

jbecker

2022-07-13 19:40

What's the best way to roll out a new pacticipant? I've started building our automation around our pact broker, and I've reached the point where our pipeline will fail pull-request builds if `can-i-deploy` for the given service to deploy to `master` fails... But now I've discovered that when build a new pact provider, it fails `can-i-deploy` because it doesn't exist yet as a pacticipant, and when I add new contract tests to a service, it fails because the contract can't yet be verified, so I'm in a bit of a dependency loop. *Is the only way out of this dependency loop to do a one-time suspension of my checks to get my provider merged?* Am I maybe doing something wrong? (To be clear, currently my script currently checks to see if the pact provider logic has been implemented in the service and if it has, it runs verifications and then the `can-i-deplay`. It doesn't run any pact stuff if it doesn't see the pact provider logic or a pact file in the service)

jbecker

2022-07-13 19:55

Actually, as I write this, it occurs to me that maybe the solution lies in just checking if a given service is a pacticipant in the pact broker. Is there an easy way to check that for a given service name?

tjones

2022-07-14 01:38

You should always be able to deploy a provider that has no consumers

matt.fellows

2022-07-14 03:13

You can definitely check if your provider exists - `:host/pacticipants/:name/` will give you the resource of the application if it exists

matt.fellows

2022-07-14 03:15

Tim is right, however with the caveat that can-i-deploy will fail if the application you?re querying doesn?t exist. To create the application, you don?t need a contract - the simplest option is to simply create the application in advance: `curl -X POST <host>/pacticipants -d {"name": "some provider"}`

lorenz.ammon

2022-07-14 08:52

has joined #general

remigijus.mazulis

2022-07-14 08:53

has joined #general

marcello.rigan335

2022-07-14 11:28

Hey there, im trying to test Kafka messages with Pact. We are using Avro to send the messages, but i can't find any documentation for that. Help would be appreciated. Thank you.

matt.fellows

2022-07-14 11:41

We don't currently support Avro

matt.fellows

2022-07-14 11:42

You could try an approach like this where you serialise to/from json https://medium.com/@ivangsa/consumer-driven-contract-testing-for-grpc-pact-io-d60155d21c4c

marcello.rigan335

2022-07-14 11:43

ok thanks. i'll take a look.

matt.fellows

2022-07-14 11:56

Or if you really were up for it, you could build a plugin. What language do you use?

marcello.rigan335

2022-07-14 11:56

The project where im trying to implement the tests is using kotlin

matt.fellows

2022-07-14 12:03

@uglyog is the content type plugin something Marcello could look to copy from Protobufs or CSV?

marcello.rigan335

2022-07-14 12:24

Is avro support something which is planned? And if yes, do you have a rough time estimation when we can expect it?

matt.fellows

2022-07-14 12:49

It's on our backlog but not yet prioritised or sized

matt.fellows

2022-07-14 12:50

See http://pact.canny.io it should be there if you'd like to vote on it

seanruffatti

2022-07-14 14:40

has joined #general

hazem

2022-07-14 17:47

:wave: , i tried to search the documentation for more info about environments, but i couldnt find anything to help describe the option `--no-production` for the cli `pact-broker create-environment` , documented https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/client_cli/readme#environments. is this option purely informational when creating an environment, or is it used somewhere like provider verification?

jbecker

2022-07-14 20:15

Perfect, thank you

jbecker

2022-07-14 20:18

I'm just changing my verifier job so if you pass it a provider name, the first thing it does is check if that provider already exists, and if it doesn't, it creates it (unless you also passed it a pactfile url, which it interprets as an error, because, honestly I'm not even sure how that would happen, but it was probably a mistake)

tjones

2022-07-15 05:14

This is a great question! I don't know the answer, but I did notice that that document links to itself for more information: > The "test" and "production" environments will have been seeded for you. You can check the existing environments by running pact-broker list-environments. See https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/client_cli/readme#environments for more information.

tjones

2022-07-15 05:14

(which leads back to the same doc)

nico.neirinck

2022-07-15 06:10

has joined #general

marcello.rigan335

2022-07-15 10:16

Anyone familiar with that error "ERROR pact@9.18.1: error making http request: axios_1.default is not a function"

dormeiri

2022-07-15 12:59

Hi :wave: , we are thinking of adding Pact to our tests. We have one concern about running the provider's verification. Currently, we are running our services locally in isolation by binding the application interfaces to mocks using IoC. Now, if we want to start using Pact we will have two mock systems, one for tests, and one for an isolated local run. I want to be able to configure and run the Pact mock server locally when running the application. --or-- Use the existing mocked implementations to configure the expected interactions in the tests. Is that possible? Do you have any idea on how to do that correctly? I opened a discussion in GitHub with more details: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/discussions/887 What do you think about this concern? How do you run your app locally in isolation?

bethskurrie

2022-07-15 14:18

Best to ask in the channel that?s relevant for your language.

bethskurrie

2022-07-15 14:18

We have 10+ pact languages here to support.

bethskurrie

2022-07-15 14:18

It?s just whether or not the environment is a production environment.

bethskurrie

2022-07-15 14:19

At the moment, it?s not used anywhere, but I could see that it might be useful information at some stage, so I included it from the start.

bethskurrie

2022-07-15 14:22

Does this help? `Whether or not this environment is a production environment. This is currently informational only.`

bethskurrie

2022-07-15 14:32

it should just work? so it sounds like something got messed up

bethskurrie

2022-07-15 14:33

This also might be helpful https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana/notes_1

jbecker

2022-07-15 14:33

I think it's just as Matt says: I think it's just can-i-deploy pointing out that my pacticipant doesn't exist in the pact broker yet

jbecker

2022-07-15 14:34

I just need to improve my pipeline a bit to add the provider as a pacticipant when it's new

bethskurrie

2022-07-15 14:34

Please do not tag the maintainers.

rholshausen

Released 0.1.8 with a fix to use IP4 addresses. See https://github.com/pactflow/pact-protobuf-plugin#running-within-docker-containers

jbecker

I reference that pact_nirvana page often, it's very helpful, haha :thumbsup:

bethskurrie

The triggered provider build should only verify the changed pact at the URL that is passed through via the webhook.

bethskurrie

https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana

If you do this workshop, it will explain that all https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/ci-cd

k.bangarusamy

2022-07-15 14:36

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2022-07-15 14:36

There is a way to pass in the specific URL of the pact, not the consumer name/tags.

bethskurrie

2022-07-15 14:37

Please look at the docs for your pact testing framework.

bethskurrie

2022-07-15 14:37

Also, it?s best to ask questions in the channel for your specific language (eg #pact-jvm)

bethskurrie

2022-07-15 14:38

Great to hear.

bethskurrie

2022-07-15 14:39

Usually, the consumer adds the pacts for the provider first, and that creates the provider.

jbecker

2022-07-15 14:40

That makes sense, but since the provider should be able to be developed independently if no consumer depends on it, I wanted to create a path in our pipeline for that as well

bethskurrie

2022-07-15 14:40

Cool. Yeah, that page I sent will cover your scenario.

k.bangarusamy

2022-07-15 14:41

Hi Folks, I joint pack to understand for implementing project just share me any guidance which is useful thanks on advance.

jbecker

2022-07-15 14:43

Oh I hadn't thought of just adding _every_ service-version to the pact broker even without contracts, but that's real smart. Thanks for the tip!

jbecker

2022-07-15 14:51

k.bangarusamy

2022-07-15 14:52

Thanks

jbecker

2022-07-15 14:53

No problem! There is a lot of really good advice on this page, it's a really good read

k.bangarusamy

2022-07-15 14:53

Is this opensource, just planning to get estimate for this tools

jbecker

2022-07-15 14:55

The pact libraries and cli tools are free open-source, but pactflow is a paid-for service. You can build everything yourself with the pact tools (which is the direction me and my team are going) or you can pay for pactflow and get a lot of that infrastructure pre-built for you

matt.fellows

2022-07-15 15:40

I?d also recommend the following resources (howtolearn)

2022-07-15 15:40

Here are a number of useful hands-on labs that teach all of the key concepts: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops and https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/workshops

matt.fellows

2022-07-15 15:41

Looks like a Pact JS issue. That?s worrying though, axios was a recent addition to the stack replacing another lib

matt.fellows

2022-07-15 15:41

if you could please share a repro issue in the #pact-js channel that would help

harinder.kaur

2022-07-15 17:19

has joined #general

jbecker

2022-07-15 19:18

```docker run --network host pactfoundation/pact-cli broker can-i-deploy --retry-while-unknown=60 --retry-interval=10 --pacticipant=test-service --version=430ff0f --to-environment=master Computer says no �_(?)_/� No pacts or verifications have been published for version 430ff0f of test-service``` Bummer... I thought if a provider had no pacts, it should be safe to deploy? Do I need to specify some other option?

hazem

2022-07-16 00:15

yep, definitely more clear there. i looked in the cli doc first, so :thumbsup: from me. fwiw, i was partly wondering if i could use it with `can-i-deploy` as a way to check many environments containing `production = true`

mahidasp

2022-07-16 17:30

has joined #general

juan.aa.espiritu

2022-07-17 08:39

has joined #general

dormeiri

2022-07-17 16:24

Any thoughts?

rarora

2022-07-17 23:57

sure thanks, let me have a look

abubics

2022-07-18 00:28

There's a lot to unpack here. The example looks like a consumer-side scenario, but your explanation talks about provider verification :thinking_face:

abubics

2022-07-18 00:29

Since V3 or V4, you can include state with parameters in the consumer side of the tests, so if you want to use those to set up your provider state (values for test doubles), you can :slightly_smiling_face:

tjones

2022-07-18 00:49

I don't think I understand your question, sorry.

tjones

2022-07-18 00:50

What is an isolated local run if not for tests?

tjones

2022-07-18 00:50

What is IoC?

tjones

2022-07-18 00:50

What do you mean by configuring the expectations with mocks? That definitely doesn't sound right

tjones

2022-07-18 00:51

The diagrams here might help understand how pact works: https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/how_pact_works

tjones

2022-07-18 00:52

you set up the interactions manually, as expectations.

tjones

2022-07-18 00:52

The answer to your question - whether it is possible to run a pact mock server without a test - is yes. But, I think there's a misunderstanding here about what pact is for

abubics

2022-07-18 00:54

I had to look at the sample code to work out the inversion of control specifics, it's just a DI framework binding.

tjones

2022-07-18 00:58

Oh right. I think I understand the question - you're saying that you have a pact verification for your service's endpoints, and your service makes some downstream service calls, which you would usually mock during testing. But, if you *also* test those downstream service calls with pact, then you're thinking "maybe we can just reuse what we set up for pact instead of manually maintaining mocks"?

tjones

2022-07-18 00:59

You could do this I suppose. I agree with you that it's a lot of mucking around. I don't really think of pact as a mock service (it happens to be backed by one, but the real killer feature is the ability to record and share the contract)

tjones

2022-07-18 01:00

An advantage of using mocks like your example (which is what I would do) is that they are very fast - all your unit tests don't hit the network boundary

tjones

2022-07-18 01:01

You still want to tie your mock together with your pact expectation, of course

tjones

2022-07-18 01:02

I spoke about this a bit last year, let me get you a link

tjones

2022-07-18 01:04

https://youtu.be/wkld_wRsTDE?t=2545

tjones

2022-07-18 01:04

This is the slide - although that section of the talk starts earlier.

tjones

2022-07-18 01:04

I configure the mocks with the pact expectations, not the other way around

tjones

2022-07-18 01:06

I don't think of this as double-mocking - the pact test is around the client in your code - asserting that the innards of `getOrder(id: string): Promise<Order>;` work correctly and return what you expect.

tjones

2022-07-18 01:07

Pact mocks the network part, and what is under test is everything inside `getOrder`

tjones

2022-07-18 01:07

Now, for your unit tests, you know you can safely mock everything inside `getOrder`

tjones

2022-07-18 01:09

For maximum safety, you can use the pact expected return as the mock data that is returned by mock `getOrder`

dormeiri

2022-07-18 06:55

Thanks @tjones! That was really insightful, few thoughts... Seems like I better understand now the benefits of adding Pact, it can validate that my mock classes mimics the provider correctly. Which improves the confidence on my unit tests, it also gives us coverage on the live concrete implementation. As you said in the slide, there is some overlap between functional tests and contract tests, which is good because it validates that isolated run and production run works the same. Just need to find the balance. This is stronger than traditional integration tests where your mocks and live implementations are separated. To maintain this overlap correctly, I need that one of these will happen: 1) Mocks will use Pact 2) Pact will use mocks 3) Pact and mocks will use another component that maintains mocked data. I feel like option 2 suites us best. If we will also implement a state handler, we need it to dynamically mutate our mocks from outside. Our mocked classes already has this possibility and it really fits our needs.

tjones

2022-07-18 06:56

Option 2 might be easiest at first, but you may have a bad time long term. The reason for this is that to get the best use from pact, you'll want to use matchers

tjones

2022-07-18 06:56

For example, your contract for a user might look like: ```{ "firstName": "Dor" }```

tjones

2022-07-18 06:57

But maybe that's not the exact mock data that is on the provider. And, in the contract test, you don't really care exactly what the string returned from the provider is, just that it really was a string

tjones

2022-07-18 06:57

so, you then use matchers: ```{ "firstName": like("Dor") }```

tjones

2022-07-18 06:58

This means your consumer contract test can expect an explicit string, and your provider verification will pass as long as the provider returns any string (eg `{"firstName": "Tim"}`)

dormeiri

2022-07-18 06:59

Hmmm interesting, haven't thought about the matchers, but if I pass `like(mock.getOrder)` it will have similar result? It doesnt give us flexibility of using the matcher

dormeiri

2022-07-18 07:00

So it seems like option 3 is the best, but it requires more to maintain

thomas.loudon

2022-07-18 11:05

has joined #general

david.hayden

2022-07-18 11:12

has joined #general

gibraltor999

2022-07-18 13:01

A quick question for the experts 1. If we already have schema and integration tests in our CI pipelines and are tested as a part of each PR to master, do I still benefit from using Pact? 2. We are following the following approach: Acceptance Criterias created by BA-> Team refines the story -> Squad teams pick up the story fort implementation(please bear that the contracts are not ready here, before our domian services needs to call the third psrty vendor?s APIs) -> Implementation completed (domain services end points created after understanding how the third party vendors apis behave)-> Swagger docs are created-> QEs create their integrations tests and schema tests and are ready to merged into the main PR-> PR is now raised against master -> all checks are made before it gets deployed to master.. Same happens at the consumer side as well.. Can somebody let me know if we would still benefit out of Pact and if yes how? Highly appreciate your thoughts on it. Thanks

mike.geeves064

2022-07-18 13:07

1. You can benefit when making changes to the "interface", i.e. when you are wanting to add or change the producer/consumer. I'm currently adding into some existing services to capture how they currently worked, before then going onto make a few hefty structure changes and it's been helpful so far picking out when my integration tests were all fine but e.g. one end had a timestamp with a T while the other had a space. By themselves they worked fine, together they did not

hakan.b.jansson

2022-07-18 14:04

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-07-18 14:10

> integration tests can you please elaborate what you mean by this? The definition has widely ranging meanings, so it?s important to make this clear

gibraltor999

2022-07-18 14:13

integration tests - testing the integration between my domain services & third party vendors and when I hit my application endpoint it actually hits the third party api endpoint and gets the real time response and not mock data.

matt.fellows

2022-07-18 15:04

Well, only the usual benefits of speed, reliability, visibility, precision etc.. If you test all of the scenarios you need against the real thing, then Pact tests are just going give you faster feedback loops, but no more guarantees than testing against the real thing.

matt.fellows

2022-07-18 15:09

If those tests aren?t causing you pain, then you might find it harder to make the case to your team. They are usually harder to coordinate, take longer to run and get harder to manage as they grow. If this works for your team though then it?s up to you if you want the extra visibility and earlier feedback on problems

jakehowden

2022-07-18 15:54

has joined #general

noor.hashem

2022-07-18 19:59

Hi all, quick question, I am trying to use the can-I-deploy command, and I am getting authentication failed. Is there anything I have only installed pact-foundation/pact, is there something else I need to install to get it to work?

noor.hashem

2022-07-18 20:09

Got it!

abubics

2022-07-19 00:31

You should definitely think about flexible matchers :slightly_smiling_face: they're what gets Pact to the sweet spot of "flexible like schemas" but with "the reasoning power of unit tests".

abubics

2022-07-19 00:33

`like(mock.getOrder)` will probably get you close to schema-level flexibility & reasoning. It doesn't let you specify which parts of the payload are important in value vs shape/type.

tjones

2022-07-19 02:17

The primary downside of `like(wholePayload)` is that you will only match on the json types of everything. If your payloads are simple then you can totally get away with it. However, it won't work for all payloads, so you might miss things: Cases where this won't work include: ? where the client only understands specific values where you need an enum (say `userType` which could be `"admin"` or `"member"` - this is an important part of the contract, because you want to be sure that the backend doesn't return `"someOtherType"` or maybe "ADMIN" if your client is case sensitive) . ? If you have any arrays, it will tie the backend to providing exactly that structure ? Same thing you have any objects used as maps

tjones

2022-07-19 02:26

Vs integration tests: Pact gives you deployment safety that most people aren't getting with integration tests. With integration tests, when you're about to deploy something, you need to run an integration test against exactly the versions it's about to deploy against. This is expensive in time and resources (and very hard to do without a test environment that needs booking exclusively for you). It's .... possible, but most of the time it's so much work that people aren't doing it, or aren't doing it strictly. Even if you are, the test setup time is so long that it substantially increases the friction for small fixes Vs Schema tests: Schema tests tell you whether something matches the grammar of the request/response contract. A best-practice Pact test will tell you whether something matches the semantics of the contract. This is substantially more valuable. Pact is by-example, so you're actually testing whether your provider can really understand the requests that your consumer is really sending. Also, depending on your contract design some things can't be expressed (or are difficult to express so people take shortcuts) in schema tests. For example, when you have dependent properties: ```{ "type": "foo" "fooField": {....} } and { "type": "bar" "barField": {....} }``` typically this is expressed in schema as: ```{ type: "bar" | "foo" barField: Optional<BarField> fooField: Optional<FooField> }``` which means the following two examples are schema-compliant, but probably wrong: ```{ type: "bar" } and { type: "bar" fooField: { ... } }```

hakan.b.jansson

2022-07-19 05:20

Hi, I just wanted to flag for a potential problem in the workshop, unless I did something wrong.I ran through the workshop https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-jvm-spring yesterday, and I experienced errors about authentication already in ~step 5. So, "Yay - green" was not the case. But after step 10, all was ok again.

alanbos

2022-07-19 07:57

I've been using Pact (pact-js) for GraphQL contracts between client apps and Apollo GraphQL servers, by using pact-js on the client side and server verification tests that allow pact to check the GraphQL response meets contract expectations. Now I'm looking at moving to Apollo Federation, and trying to figure out whether pact could still be used in this context. In a federated architecture there is an single API Gateway sitting in front of multiple subgraphs, responsible for composing the schemas from those subgraphs into one unified supergraph that is consumed by client applications. Each subgraph is a separately versioned deployable component (as is the gateway itself), but from the client perspective the behaviour of the GraphQL server is the _same_ as in the non-federated case. In the non-federated case, the GraphQL server is a single versioned (consumer) pacticipant in this case. In the federated case however, the gateway itself is a relatively thin component whose source version rarely changes, and each subgraph is more like a non-federated server with its own version history. When a contract between a client and the gateway is verified, this is in effect saying that _N_ (where _N_ is the number of subgraphs) "sub-contracts" between the client and each subgraph are verified i.e. can-i-deploy for the client depends on the versions of all the subgraphs used to service the query. As client requests will typically span multiple subgraphs, defining contracts between clients and subgraphs isn't the right approach; the contract should be between the client and the supergraph. It feels like this would be quite a technical challenge - from the client perspective there is one contract, but from the provider perspective there are multiple contracts because each provider (subgraph) has a role to play in servicing the query. There isn't a single deployable versioned component that can take the role of the provider here because the gateway itself isn't changing when the subgraphs change, unless one invents some pseudo-deployable supergraph pacticipant whose version depends in some way on the versions of all contributing subgraphs but is never really deployed, just recorded in the pact broker as such. I'd be interested in any thoughts on this; it feels quite complex to manage and use, but maybe I have missed something.

tjones

2022-07-19 09:00

I feel like this design is going to cause complexity whether or not you use pact... but

tjones

2022-07-19 09:01

Pact versions assume a single "deployable". What you could do is front multiple versions as one deployable

tjones

2022-07-19 09:01

do verification of the gateway at version X, with A, B, C beyond it, and treat that all as one provider "version"

tjones

2022-07-19 09:02

it'll work, and you'll get the contract safety, but now you will have some of the disadvantages of integration tests

alanbos

2022-07-19 09:05

Thanks @tjones - yes it feels like having a pseudo-provider that is versioned as a logical aggregation of gateway + subgraphs is the inevitable conclusion; I'm just not sure the effort and cognitive complexity for developers is repaid by the benefit, which is a shame as GraphQL pacts against a single monolithic server are super-easy to do.

tjones

2022-07-19 09:14

A good thought experiment you can try to help unpack this is - how would I be sure it's safe to deploy without pact?

tjones

2022-07-19 09:15

if you find that it's hard to reason about what is deployed where, and what you should test against, then you'll find a challenge with or without pact - and the design might need some re-thinking

alanbos

2022-07-19 09:18

I think in this case there is some overlap between the checks and balances around deployment provided by Apollo Managed Federation and that provided by a CDC solution; its a matter of trying to figure out what each solution brings that the other doesn't.

tjones

2022-07-19 09:20

I don't know if it would help, but you could also trivially publish the contract repeatedly - so each backend service would see the same contract

alanbos

2022-07-19 09:21

I don't think it would in this case alas; each backend subgraph would in general not be able to handle the contract, because the GraphQL request would contain elements that the subgraph knew nothing about.

alanbos

2022-07-19 09:23

.. but thanks for your advice; I think its confirmed for me what would _need_ to be done. The only question now is the cost/benefit analysis, so I'll plug away at that for a while.

tjones

2022-07-19 09:23

You can also consider a contract between the client and the gateway, and then between the gateway and each provider. But I think that will make you do work that GraphQL Federation is supposed to do

tjones

2022-07-19 09:24

Let us know if you come up with a good solution!

alanbos

2022-07-19 09:25

Yes exactly - I'd have to figure out the federated server query plan and use that to drive gateway-subgraph contracts, but it feels like the wrong bit of the flow for me to be testing to be honest. Will do!

dormeiri

2022-07-19 09:42

Thanks! So I can take the mock result `mock.getOrder(id)` and translate it to a Pact response body more precisely according to the test, something like this: ```const order = mock.getOrder(id); const expectedResponseBody: Order = { id, name: like(order.name), // ... } ``` So my pact tests can use my mocks, with the flexibility of using matchers. Right now, this seems the easiest way to manage the mocks in our services. WDYT?

chrstnklb

2022-07-19 10:58

has joined #general

tjones

2022-07-19 11:24

Yes, exactly.

tjones

2022-07-19 11:25

Once you have that object with matchers, you can use the stripMatchers function to get back the raw object if you need- then you can import it in your other mocks

tjones

2022-07-19 11:25

(It may not be called stripMatchers, I'm not at my computer)

dormeiri

2022-07-19 11:26

Thank you! @tjones

bethskurrie

2022-07-19 14:42

tell me more about that usecase @hazem

bethskurrie

2022-07-19 14:42

Would it just be something you?d do once off to check the status of something, or in a CI/CD pipeline?

bethskurrie

2022-07-19 14:43

If you?re not publishing any pacts or verifications, you need to make the pacticipant version explicitly using ```pact-broker create-or-update-version --pacticipant ${APPLICATION_NAME} --version ${GIT_SHA} --branch ${GIT_BRANCH}```

bethskurrie

2022-07-19 14:43

It knows about the pacticipant, but not the version.

jbecker

2022-07-19 14:46

Oh, I have to publish the version for the provider too, so it can see that it exists and knows that there is no consumer to connect it to?

jbecker

2022-07-19 14:47

Sorry if you said this already, but do I have to do it as two separate commands, or will `create-or-update-version` also create the pacticipant if it doesn't exist?

jbecker

2022-07-19 14:52

From that pact_nirvana page you linked above, it looks like the one command may be enough, but I may be mis-reading it

matt.fellows

2022-07-19 14:53

yep, it should do both

yousafn

2022-07-19 15:21

Spot on @tjones - will get that on the site either in the FAQ https://docs.pact.io/faq or under Pact concepts https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/conceptual_overview will check messaging on here too https://docs.pact.io/faq/convinceme

noor.hashem

2022-07-19 18:02

Hi all, my team and I are looking into what is the best way to split the creation of contracts between consumers and providers, let me elaborate. We have a monorepo for the consumer (front-end) and several different provider services, do we create one pact file for each controller or for each endpoint? There are countless ways to go about creating contracts between the providers and the consumer but I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks about this?

jbecker

2022-07-19 18:07

I think the way Pact works is to create a contract file for each version of each consumer -> provider pair (versioned based on the consumer's version number so that it can verify it against an arbitrary version of the provider to check if those two versions of those services work together)

matt.fellows

2022-07-19 18:23

The simplest pathway is to create contracts between independently deployable units

matt.fellows

2022-07-19 18:24

Controllers is probably not the right abstraction

matt.fellows

2022-07-19 18:24

(just about to hop on a plane, sorry for quick response)

andrew.favaloro

2022-07-19 19:36

has joined #general

tarun.gulati1988

2022-07-19 19:41

has joined #general

boweixu

2022-07-19 20:39

has joined #general

hazem

2022-07-19 23:56

so we have a canonical environment pipeline for our micro service deployment: `dev-> stg -> prd` using the pact broker, i created the three envs. two with the field `production=true` , eg stg and prd. dev has the field `production=false` . this was due to me not knowing this flag was purely informational. after merge to main, we were thinking our AWS codepipeline as such: ```#dev can-i-deploy --environment=dev --dry-run deploy record-deployment --environment=dev #stg can-i-deploy --environment=stg deploy record-deployment --environment=stg #prod can-i-deploy --environment=stg deploy record-deployment --environment=stg``` in our pr pipeline, we wanted to verify can-i-deploy would work for all of our production env: ```test can-i-deploy --environment=stg can-i-deploy --environment=prd``` then it crossed my mind that the `--production --no-production` flags i came across during the create-environment might have special meaning. so i asked in this thread. :) basically i was curious if i could do this instead: ```test can-i-deploy --to-production-environments```

juanalvarezarquillos

2022-07-20 05:46

has joined #general

jkaur

2022-07-20 06:32

has joined #general

jkaur

2022-07-20 06:48

Hi everyone , My use case is that my consumer is an API service i.e. it exposes Rest API Endpoints , however the provider internally it calls is a gRPC service. Moreover its more like a passthrough service for Provider APIs So the consumer <-> provider are integrated via gRPC. I read that the gRPC support is not there yet. So does that mean there is no way to go ahead contract testing this use case with Pact ? Any help is appreciated , thanks

steve.heasman

2022-07-20 09:08

has joined #general

tjones

2022-07-20 09:09

You can use pact for the rest clients right out of the gate. I believe there is some support for protobuf contracts, see #protobufs for the current state

je.alvinez

2022-07-20 11:17

has joined #general

jkaur

2022-07-20 12:23

Thanks @tjones, I will check out there!

noor.hashem

2022-07-20 14:48

I am still a little unclear about this, what do you mean by independently deployable units in this case? How could I group contracts per controller or per API version?

matkruse

2022-07-20 14:53

has joined #general

2billy

2022-07-20 16:56

has joined #general

tjones

2022-07-21 04:30

an independently deployable unit is the thing that is versioned in your version control. If you run a deployment, what is deployed?

tjones

2022-07-21 04:30

If you have two controllers in the same service, they are deployed together , as a unit

tjones

2022-07-21 04:30

if you have two different services deployed separately, they are different units

christopher.forbes

2022-07-21 09:27

has joined #general

noor.hashem

2022-07-21 12:30

Hi everyone, what is pact/pactflows capabilities when it comes to slack, jira, and testRail integrations, I thought I read somewhere that they are able to provide slack messages with webhooks?

matt.fellows

2022-07-21 12:31

Yes at the moment, webhooks are the primary means of connecting Pact Broker/Pactflow to other systems

matt.fellows

2022-07-21 12:32

noor.hashem

2022-07-21 12:36

I see, but are these features for pactflow or pact as well? For example if I use the open source pactbroker can I also integrate slack messaging and jenkins etc? Or is this only on pactflow

jbecker

2022-07-21 12:59

Yes, I use the open source pact broker and I've been using the webhooks :slightly_smiling_face:

noor.hashem

2022-07-21 13:02

Oh I see, that's great then!

noor.hashem

2022-07-21 13:03

Another question I had was about feature flag support, does pact or pactflow have any accommodations for this?

sandy.oberoi

2022-07-21 18:57

has joined #general

adelamarre

2022-07-21 19:37

has joined #general

david.vancouvering

2022-07-21 20:06

Hey. I repeatedly have people saying what they really want is to write isolated functional tests and then feel confident that the mocks they are using are correct. The way many people are solving this is by doing a record/playback approach, where they run their tests in staging on a weekly basis, record the results, and use these as their mocks. But I thought it would be great to say "use Pact to define your mocks, run your functional tests, and then use the Pact mocks to verify your provider." But in the docs you recommend *not* doing this for reasons I don't fully understand - something about the mocks defining a contract that is too constrictive and which breaks even when the contract has not broken. Can you explain more? I am very tempted to start using Pact as the mocks for functional tests, but not if this is just a non-starter use of Pact. Thanks!

matt.fellows

2022-07-21 22:12

Nothing first class, it's something we'll need to think about soon as it grows in popularity. If you search the docs we have some advice about how to use it with Pact tho

matt.fellows

2022-07-21 22:59

yes, webhooks are available to all however Pactflow does have a few additional benefits. e.g. we have a secrets feature that means any credentials used in the webhooks are properly secured, but that may not be a concern. We also have webhooks editing and execution view.

matt.fellows

2022-07-22 02:19

Great question. The main issue is that Pact is not a general purpose mocking tool, so often times the mocks aren?t extensive enough to be used in functional tests. A good example is boundary testing - you might want to test a UI that accepts a user?s name with many combinations of short, long and unicode characters. From a contract POV, this is not useful additional information to encode and enforce a provider test for, but if you did it, it could make provider verification more cumbersome.

matt.fellows

2022-07-22 02:21

You can absolutely use the pact stubs in these environments (including the hosted stubs that Pactflow offers). However, there are some limitations to be aware of - such as the lack of provider states to differentiate between different response codes / bodies for a given request. e.g. you might have two tests that cover a `GET /users/1234`, one that returns a `200 {?}` and another that returns a `404` . In this case, the stubs won?t be able to differentiate. This can be mitigated by not having overlapping requests, but is worth noting

matt.fellows

2022-07-22 02:22

In the case of BDCT, the situation changes because we _don?t_ replay all the examples against a provider, so you can create more extensive mocks and that doesn?t create any additional burden on the provider. As long as the mocks are compatible with the provider contracts (OAS) you?re good to go. Mock with impunity! :wink:

david.vancouvering

2022-07-22 02:45

Makes sense, thanks!

husamhindustani

2022-07-22 06:52

has joined #general

noor.hashem

2022-07-22 11:59

Hey all! How do you guys go about organizing pacts in pactflow? Is there a way to group pacts per API version or per team atc?

akke.luukkonen

2022-07-22 12:13

You can create teams there and then filter the contracts by projects related to a team

matt.fellows

2022-07-22 12:14

You can group the applications by team

matt.fellows

2022-07-22 12:14

Ha, beat me to it :rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:

akke.luukkonen

2022-07-22 12:14

Fastest keyboard in the west :sheriff: :cool_cowboy:

abudi.hijazi.01

2022-07-22 13:43

I see the words participant and consumer being thrown around interchangeably, is there a difference between them or are they the same thing?

wilco.van.esch

2022-07-22 13:47

A participant/pacticipant can be a consumer or a provider. https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/pacticipant

noor.hashem

2022-07-22 13:55

Okay perfect, thanks both!

jbecker

2022-07-22 19:49

It looks like publishing a new contract does not trigger the `contract requiring verification published` event/webhook. Is this intended behavior?: ``` Events detected: contract_published, contract_content_changed (first time untagged pact published) No enabled webhooks found for the detected events```

matt.fellows

2022-07-23 00:54

A pacticipant (application) _can be a_ consumer, a provider or both (role)

harley

2022-07-23 02:15

has joined #general

japlavaren

2022-07-25 09:21

has joined #general

alasdair.ryan

2022-07-25 10:45

has joined #general

hui.supat

2022-07-25 13:22

has joined #general

balaramvineethvenugop

2022-07-25 17:06

has joined #general

alan.still

2022-07-25 18:18

has joined #general

yshkedi

2022-07-25 21:16

has joined #general

apapia

2022-07-26 02:27

has joined #general

apapia

2022-07-26 02:31

Hi Pact community. Looking for some advice on how to integrate Pact into runtime and/or deployment checks. We run our microservices architecture on Kubernetes using FluxCD2 to provide a GitOps deployment model.

apapia

2022-07-26 02:32

We have pretty good coverage with Pact contract tests but these only run as part of our CI. There is no CD pipeline anymore. We simply update the declared state in git and Flux will apply the state in the K8s clusters.

apapia

2022-07-26 02:34

I am looking for advice on how to implement the can-i-deploy checks in this model. Our infrastructure team thinks we should use helm pre-install hooks for deployment checks or readiness probes for runtime checks, but doesn't want to put our Pact Broker in the critical path.

apapia

2022-07-26 02:36

We have multiple production environments, so we need to track each of our deployments and rollbacks in the pact broker and then run can-i-deploy prior to deployment or before becoming ready.

tjones

2022-07-26 02:36

>> We simply update the declared state in git and Flux will apply the state in the K8s clusters. :open_mouth: Ignoring pact, isn't this risky?

apapia

2022-07-26 02:37

yes!

tjones

2022-07-26 02:37

Oh, well, carry on then :sweat_smile:

tjones

2022-07-26 02:37

Does whatever repo you're declaring state in have CI? Can you do `can-i-deploy` there?

apapia

2022-07-26 02:38

Currently, the proposal is to implement a version API on each of our microservices and have each service track its required dependency versions and do a runtime or deploy time check to make sure dependency versions are satisfied in the environment. But this is totally sidestepping Pact for dependency management. :open_mouth:

apapia

2022-07-26 02:39

Anyone, I'm wondering if anyone else has implemented something for "GitOps" that might satisfy our infra team.

tjones

2022-07-26 02:39

Can we keep this in a thread, please? Some maintainers/contributors have notifications set for new messages

tjones

2022-07-26 02:40

One challenge with Pact is that it kind of needs your deployment process to be able to be reasoned about

tjones

2022-07-26 02:40

I would ask your infra team how they expect to solve all these problems

tjones

2022-07-26 02:41

This proposed process sounds... scary

apapia

2022-07-26 02:41

Sure sorry.

apapia

2022-07-26 02:42

Yeah agreed. I need to come up with a counter proposal so we don't end up in dependency hell and just use Pact to test compatibility.

apapia

2022-07-26 02:44

My thoughts are: 1. Add a check on the PR to update the git state - this could be a Jenkins job or GitHub Action that inspects the change to the declared state and makes the appropriate can-i-deploy check. Not sure if it would make sense to track deployments this way but maybe a GitHub Action could be used for this as well. 2. Pay for pactflow so that they don't have to worry about maintaining the pact broker and it being a SPOF in the deploy process. We already have other SaaS products in the path like GitHub.

tjones

2022-07-26 02:45

You can probably present it as a win for the infra team - "hey, we're already doing these contract checks with our CI, you could get deployment safety for free if you integrate it into your deploy pipeline"

tjones

2022-07-26 02:46

yes, #1 feels like a sensible change. You might run into problems though: PR1 updates some consumer version , it's checked compatible with the current provider in prod at PR time PR2 updates some provider version, it's checked compatible with the current consumer in prod at PR time both PRs get merged, and something breaks because the versions in PR1 and PR2 are not compatible.

tjones

2022-07-26 02:47

Ideally you are doing the check right before you deploy.

tjones

2022-07-26 02:48

> 2. Pay for pactflow so that they don't have to worry about maintaining the pact broker and it being a SPOF in the deploy process. We already have other SaaS products in the path like GitHub. I don't work for pactflow, but I'd still heartily endorse this as an option to simplify things.

tjones

2022-07-26 02:50

> I need to come up with a counter proposal What I would do is look at the things that pact solves, and then ask how those issues are solved with the current proposal (they're probably not, but if they are, then you can compare eng effort etc). If you have history of your past deployments when you had CD, you might be able to motivate your case with statistics on how often the contracts break

tjones

2022-07-26 02:53

> Not sure if it would make sense to track deployments this way but maybe a GitHub Action could be used for this as well. A github action for can-i-deploy is a *great* idea, and if you build this it would be totally worth open-sourcing (I reckon @yousafn would agree)

apapia

2022-07-26 02:56

thanks for the feedback!

tjones

2022-07-26 03:02

You're very welcome! Let us know how you go

yousafn

2022-07-26 09:47

Hey hey, Heard my :batman: call! We do have a can-i-deploy https://github.com/pactflow/actions/tree/main/can-i-deploy Github Action for the Pactflow broker, so it uses a `PACT_BROKER_TOKEN` rather than a `PACT_BROKER_USERNAME`/`PACT_BROKER_PASSWORD`, it would be easy to tweak for the OSS broker.

rziembicki

2022-07-26 10:47

has joined #general

dpal

2022-07-26 10:58

has joined #general

dgrace

2022-07-26 11:02

has joined #general

dgowdappa

2022-07-26 11:02

has joined #general

apapia

2022-07-26 13:23

Thanks @yousafn. Do you also recommend recording deployments and releases with GitHub Actions?

yousafn

2022-07-26 13:58

Hey it is up to you buddy, Our CLI tools are available in a variety of formats, although the linked page is your bi-directional contracts, a Pactflow only feature, the toolset is the same. https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/bi-directional-contract-testing/contracts/oas#installation You can pick whichever is most suitable for your workflow, the GH Actions, is simply a wrapper around the CLI tools, and may be an additional layer of abstraction too far (the CLI tool itself is super versatile) :thumbsup:

sascha_pactflow

2022-07-26 20:29

has joined #general

hunsolitude

2022-07-26 22:34

has joined #general

maksym_odanets

2022-07-27 08:07

has joined #general

andrew.january

2022-07-27 09:03

has joined #general

davidf

2022-07-27 09:17

has joined #general

gibraltor999

2022-07-27 17:07

@tjones Thanks for your detailed response. I am running my integration tests at CI level , well before CD. In my CI, a docker build agent will spin up and I am creating an environment to have all the domain services up and running and connected to different third party vendors and hence I am able to run the tests before it gets deployed. Thats helping me to identify issues even before it gets deployed. AT the same time , you are also right--->setting up this environment in the build agent might take few minutes , and will eventually add up to the whole CI execution time. If possible can you give me an example of difference between grammar vs semantics testing of a contract. I want to understand what my current schema tests lack?

matt.fellows

2022-07-27 22:36

https://pactflow.io/blog/schemas-are-not-contracts/amp/

matt.fellows

2022-07-27 22:37

This talks about some of the differences and considerations

tjones

2022-07-27 23:35

The example in my post above is the main one I like to illustrate this problem. Another problem is that the schema can't tell you what's valid- eg a delete for a resource gives a different response if the response doesn't exist. This information is implied in a schema, or encoded in comments. A good contract test will include this information directly.

gibraltor999

2022-07-28 08:49

One thing I had to say.. Pact has awesome *DOCUMENTATION*. It looks like they are very particular for the users to actually use it, documentation is not one-sided, it also talks about down-sides of Pact and how we can overcome them. KUDOS to the TEAM for a fantastic *DOCUMENTATION*. :clap-all:

ankit.mittal

2022-07-28 10:00

has joined #general

vishal.kukreja

2022-07-28 10:22

has joined #general

hazem

2022-07-28 18:45

@bethskurrie in case you didnt see. :grin:

robert.henzel

2022-07-28 19:50

has joined #general

jbecker

2022-07-28 21:00

Hey, something came up recently and I'm not sure what the correct "pacty" way to handle it is: I have a POST rest endpoint I'd like to test which takes an object and creates it in the database. One of the properties on this object must be the ID for an inner object that must exist already in the database, so in my state setup function inside my provider I'm creating the inner object. The problem is that the object is always created by the database with a random UUID, and a database constraint prevents me from creating the object with a known ID. So how do I write my contract such that the object being posted is using the ID of the inner object in its own properties if it's randomly generated? I see that I _can_ use matchers in the POST body in the contract, but if I don't actually know the real ID of the inner object that was created during the setup, I'm going to get a 400 error when I try and post my new object because it's not matching on a valid row of the inner object in the provider's database, so the matcher doesn't actually help me in this instance. Thanks!

bethskurrie

2022-07-28 21:36

Thanks! That makes sense.

tjones

2022-07-29 00:54

You can do this with provider state, where the provider state setup returns the value you need

matt.fellows

2022-07-29 01:21

What language are you using @jbecker?

adam.witko

2022-07-29 08:29

Hey hey :wave: . I have a question about ?dev? environments when pacticipants are deployed to it by N feature branches. We have a setup where each branch is deployed in to a shared ?dev? environment but it itself is physically separate than any other ?instances? of that consumer/provider already in that environment. So Provider A on `feature/123` and Provider A on `feature/234` will have different versions but they?ll represent two distinct instances. This leads me to think about using `record-release` so the other versions are not marked as undeployed (as `record-deployment` will do for you). Our upper environments all have 1 instance of each pacticipant so a normal `record-deployment` workflow will suffice. Is using `record-release` the best for this setup over `record-deployment` with the `--application-instance` to a ?dev? environment like this? If you know of anywhere in the docs or working examples you could share that would be amazing :heart: .

adrianminnock123

2022-07-29 08:53

has joined #general

gibraltor999

2022-07-29 09:22

@tjones I am using https://ajv.js.org/json-schema.html to do my schema testing. I am using an http client to call my endpoint with -verb, headers, payload, and matching the response with the schema.. And I am doing this for variety of combinations (e.g what req will give back different response codes/response body). So am I wrong in assuming that I am also checking the HTTP level semantics using AJV?

matt.fellows

2022-07-29 10:24

It's been a while since I looked at AJV in detail. My understanding is that v doesn't know about HTTP semantics like paths, verbs etc.

matt.fellows

2022-07-29 10:25

How do you map the open API paths and verbs to the right schemas (This is out of genuine interest)

matt.fellows

2022-07-29 10:26

I'm also keen to know if you capture any consumer examples and test those too (e.g. a form of contract testing)

adam.witko

2022-07-29 10:53

Adding to this. These pacticipants in the ?dev? environment are not long lived. When the feature branch is merged to main or deleted, the pacticipant is removed from the environment. This has led me to think about the pros/cons of can-i-deploy and record-deployment/alternative to this environment. Is it better to simplify the pact broker usage for this ?dev? environment and change it to verify in the build/PR pipeline to run can-i-deploy to the next higher environment, e.g. staging/qa?

tjones

2022-07-29 11:15

Interesting. Would you be comfortable sharing an example from your tests?

massimiliano.devivo

2022-07-29 12:12

has joined #general

jbecker

2022-07-29 13:19

For this interaction the consumer is TypeScript and the provider is Python

jbecker

2022-07-29 13:19

The database the provider is using under-the-hood is postgres

jbecker

2022-07-29 13:21

and like I said, the data I'm trying to insert into the fake database as part of my provider state setup has a constraint on that ID field so I can't set it, it gets set automatically when the row is created

tjones

2022-07-29 13:24

The provider state provided variables are perfect for this. Once the row is created in your state hook, you read the ID field and return it in the response from the state hook. This needs spec version 3, which means you?ll need to upgrade to pact-js v10

tjones

2022-07-29 13:24

The method you need on the consumer side is called something like ?fromProviderState?

jbecker

2022-07-29 13:27

Oh I had no idea you could return state from the state setup hook. What does that look like? Can you point me to an example somewhere?

jbecker

2022-07-29 13:28

You're right though, that does sound like exactly what I want

tjones

2022-07-29 14:12

personally, in that scenario I would just not use can-i-deploy - it's ok to deploy broken stuff to dev

adam.witko

2022-07-29 14:13

That?s what I?ve started to make changes towards. Deploying to the env but not can-i-deploy/record-deploy but doing a can-i-deploy post ?deploy to dev? on the next environment along (QA)

tjones

2022-07-29 14:13

or, I would do can-i-deploy only on the master deployment (assuming that your dev deploys don't clobber each other)

tjones

2022-07-29 14:15

I guess my question is - why are you deploying feature branches at all? My guess is that the answer is something like "well, the devs sometimes want to manually test something they're working on" - and in that case, having deployments gated by contract tests would be very annoying.

tjones

2022-07-29 14:16

(I'm not a fan of the "I want to deploy this to test it during development" style, but I haven't found a way to communicate this to people who want to do that)

tjones

2022-07-29 14:17

And, to your actual question - yes, I think record release is ideal. It's for situations where you might have multiple versions of something all live in the same environment (eg, mobile clients or public library clients)

tjones

2022-07-29 14:19

It's a new feature for pact-js, only just out of beta thanks to the hard work of Matt and team

adam.witko

2022-07-29 14:20

Yeah the reasons for the deployment per feature branch is exactly that, for manual/exploratory testing. As we migrate to having the CI/CD contract testing set up in our pipelines the reliance on such deployed consumers/providers should start to reduce. Thanks for your thoughts @tjones

jbecker

2022-07-29 14:21

Oh wait, so if my provider is in Python then I won't be able to do this?

tjones

2022-07-29 14:21

See the ?provider state injected variables? section here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/master/docs/matching.md

tjones

Oh, sorry, I thought you said typescript

jbecker

The consumer is typescript

tjones

Yes, you start this on the consumer

tjones

You put it in the contract as ?this thing is set by the provider?

tjones

https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/cli#native-binary-new

*by the provider state

tjones

2022-07-29 14:24

I don't know if pact-python supports this yet (it will if it supports v3 of the pact spec), but you don't need to do provider verification the same language as the provider

jbecker

2022-07-29 14:26

How would I create the state setup router in my FastAPI service _without_ using Python?

tjones

2022-07-29 14:29

you can use a state change endpoint (in python), but drive the test with some other pact-supported language

tjones

2022-07-29 14:29

you would need to have something scripted that starts the provider with this state change endpoint available

hareesh.dj

2022-07-30 12:01

has joined #general

heera

2022-07-31 08:00

has joined #general

adam.redlisiak

2022-08-01 10:18

has joined #general

altan.demirkiran846

2022-08-01 14:38

has joined #general

nick080

2022-08-01 14:44

has joined #general

ali.ustek

2022-08-01 15:09

has joined #general

dimundo

2022-08-01 19:31

hi! is there some way to check `can-i-deploy` against all version , having tag `live` and deployed within n months? like am i `compatible with all versions deployed to live within 3 months?`

dimundo

2022-08-01 19:33

having deployments once a month one can imagine `live1`, `live2` and `live3` for 3 last months version, what to do if deployment arent regular - could happen once a year or each 25 minutes ?

momarquez

2022-08-01 19:37

has joined #general

adam.anderson

2022-08-01 22:07

Hello, any recommendations on using Pact for server to server communications involving files. Examples SFTP file transfers, S3 pre-signed URL file downloads, SWIFT files. I see the file handling as more of functional testing and not contract based. But we have encountered some microservices moving large amounts of JSON via files experience an occasional breaking change.

matt.fellows

2022-08-01 22:39

You can definitely do it. I don?t know if we have any public examples, but if it?s about moving JSON files about you could consider the use of Message Pact for that purpose

matt.fellows

2022-08-01 22:42

This is a very old post that shows that with DynamoDB, but it works just as well with file transfers: https://dius-au.medium.com/contract-testing-serverless-and-asynchronous-applications-part-2-76b5576c789e

matt.fellows

2022-08-01 22:47

Yes! That?s exactly what the `deployed`, `released` and `deployedOrReleased` https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/consumer_version_selectors are for.

matt.fellows

2022-08-01 22:47

If you?re not using deployment/releases yet, you can still use tags. e.g. you might tag things that are in production as `prod`

matt.fellows

2022-08-01 22:48

you would then apply the selector `{"tag": "prod", "latest": "false"}` to fetch all contracts with the `prod` tag. This does mean you need to remove the `prod` tag from the undeployed version

john

2022-08-02 04:12

Just a quick question is pact written in ruby but been refactored to rust via the ffi?

matt.fellows

2022-08-02 04:21

The initial implementation was Ruby, and a number of languages to assist with getting it up and going, bundled Ruby into them as the ?shared core?. This worked great, but as Ruby is not easily distributed there were some challenges. There is a program of work to migrate to Rust. See also https://docs.pact.io/history and https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/issues/83

matt.fellows

2022-08-02 04:21

why do you ask?

john

2022-08-02 07:06

ah i saw some ffi in the pacts for rust and some rust like error messages and i was curious if it was refactoring i9t or building it fromt he ground up

matt.fellows

2022-08-02 07:07

Are you a Rustacian? :stuck_out_tongue:

john

2022-08-02 10:16

i think i mentioned it previously, but i dabble quite a bit outside of work with Rust. Mainly games development and some stuff like that. Though i have been dabbling in writing rust and importing it as python functions etc. My current project ive been dabbling quite a biit with Warp and will get around to maybe writing some contract tests in rust. My next project will be to get some games into the browser with web assembly

dimundo

2022-08-02 11:00

`latest false` will check all of them ? what if one needs that only last 3months of service is supported ?

rubemfsv15

2022-08-02 20:13

has joined #general

tjones

2022-08-03 01:00

^ This sounds awesome, John!

rene.klatt

2022-08-03 06:13

has joined #general

imayat

2022-08-03 09:42

has joined #general

mark.shand

2022-08-03 10:15

has joined #general

gunjan.titiya

2022-08-03 11:51

has joined #general

gibraltor999

2022-08-03 12:12

@matt.fellows @tjones AJV doesn?t have to know the paths and semantics, we write our tests using an http client(superagent in our case) to hit an endpoint with respective verbs, headers, endpoint , query params, etc etc?and capture the response and then validate them against the schemas we generated through a script( this script basically takes the response which we think is ok once the endpoint is implemented, and then convert it into a schema). 2. Not only we verify the schema but we also check response code, values within the response(e.g, the currency type should be � and not $)- this way we also test E2E integration and contract test in one single scenario. Dont need two tests for it. 2. We write tests to check all possible scenarios - negative tests, and simulate different scenarios which sends different response code. I am very keen to run past an example with both of you and really wanted to understand and also give some insights to you on how I am doing my contract and integration testing ? I went through the complete documentation of Pact and BDCT , but just have few things which would be good for all of us to discuss and get a different perspective.. Any time slot you both are comfortable and I can run past the things in less than 10 minutes - which covers my Ci-CD process, Contract and Integration testing (all happening before even the code gets deployed ? basically how I implemented Pacts?s ?CAN-I-DEPLOY?..

chaitanya.guttula

2022-08-03 12:43

has joined #general

deb.kimnach

2022-08-03 12:48

has joined #general

abudi.hijazi.01

2022-08-03 14:55

I've encountered a CI/CD design blocker that I can't seem to get around: I was planning to create a pact on every commit, use the commit sha as the consumer version, and the branch committed in, as the consumer branch. I was planning to use github statuses to report whether a commit is compatible with the API, where, once the provider publishes the test result, a webhook will be triggered to change the consumer commit status in accordance with the test result. Now this causes this issue to arise: If a branch commit produces the same pact as the previous commit, how do we get the status of the new commit to be the same as the previous one, without having the provider test every single pact that is published? 'Branch Commit' meaning a commit with the branch set as _XYZ_ on Pactflow. We are assuming we are committing on the same branch in these scenarios. I initially thought, that you could set a webhook on pactflow to be triggered when a duplicate pact is published, but that's not an option in the webhooks. So basically I have no idea how to get around this issue.

kyle.hammond

2022-08-03 17:05

Not sure if this helps or not, but if you commit the pact file itself you could trigger your workflows only when the pact file changes. This would have problems with your version numbering scheme though because getting the hash of the commit that created the pact is one thing, then committing the pact file itself would have a different hash.

adam.anderson

2022-08-03 21:40

Thanks Matt! Very helpful

tjones

2022-08-03 23:17

If the contract is identical to one previously verified, then the broker knows that it doesn't need re-verification

tjones

2022-08-03 23:18

you can then use can-i-deploy as your github status check

tjones

2022-08-03 23:32

Idea: prod pact. A bit of middleware that will log if you're about to send a request or a response that doesn't match any pact interaction

kaiquan.shi

2022-08-04 03:38

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-08-04 06:53

Haha it's on the backlog! Runtime violations is what we've been calling it internally, but it can go further. E.g. Missing interactions could show up in the broker as test cases that need coverage, frequency/importance of certain interactions etc. Lots of ways to get the data too. Middleware, log files, eBPF etc.

matt.fellows

2022-08-04 06:54

I'll consider this a form of validation of the idea :rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:

tjones

2022-08-04 06:54

You'd need to use matchers on the request in order to get some of the features there

tjones

2022-08-04 06:55

but it's a small cost

tjones

2022-08-04 06:55

it would be super easy if there was a system of recursive matchers :thinking_face: :sunglasses:

matt.fellows

2022-08-04 06:56

Problems for future us to worry about. Don't let implementation get in the way of fun ideas :wink:

aalexandrumihai

2022-08-04 10:15

has joined #general

pollet_22

2022-08-04 12:25

Can any one help me to design which parts i should do a contract test with Now we have microservices , FrontEnd which is a mobile apps and web and there are also an api gateway which handles requests between microservices and FE for which parts i should add my contract test in to get best test coverage ?

alex.makdessi

2022-08-04 13:03

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-08-04 13:08

Hey, Have you got a diagram of your setup. What existing test coverage do you have? There will be contracts between integration points between two applications. I would generally start with the high value endpoints, one that are subject to change frequently, or those which is they did change, would cause significant detriment. Each of the applications should have a distinct unit test suite, where I would assume developers are performing component integration with mock representations of their dependencies. It is these mocks that are subject to drift from the real implementation, and that is what you will be using contract testing for, to provide that feedback prior to implementing and deploying both sides.

matt.fellows

2022-08-04 13:37

This is a draft, but might be helpful: https://docs.pact.io/recipes/apigateway

ynechaieva

2022-08-04 14:11

has joined #general

dineshh.wot2021

2022-08-05 10:17

has joined #general

fernandapontual5

2022-08-05 11:34

has joined #general

sridhar140895

2022-08-05 11:58

has joined #general

glenn

2022-08-06 18:13

has joined #general

sandy.mechie

2022-08-07 21:46

has joined #general

prapurna.manda3

2022-08-08 07:38

has joined #general

laura.cabantous

2022-08-08 10:42

Hi there, I'm trying to run a test scenario where a parameter is passed in an invalid format (and it should throw a 400), but it fails with the error message `with 30000 ms timeout for Pact`. I've tried to increase the timeout (quite significantly but it still fails with the same message). Is there any way to check why it times out? It seems due to a promise that doesn't resolve... Also it seems to be specifically when looking to get the provider to respond with status 400 :thinking_face:

matt.fellows

2022-08-08 11:16

Might be best asking in #pact-js. If you could please share the code snipped of the test that fails and any terminal output/logs that would help too

matt.fellows

2022-08-08 11:17

My guess is that your HTTP client is throwing and the test isn?t catching it (that is, it?s not a Pact problem, it just happens to be a Pact test that is showing you the problem)

laura.cabantous

2022-08-08 11:19

sure, will do!

jaroslavburi

2022-08-08 14:44

has joined #general

manumahendran

2022-08-08 16:14

has joined #general

lmendonca

2022-08-08 22:18

has joined #general

jbrauchler

2022-08-08 22:44

has joined #general

cristideacc

2022-08-09 09:05

has joined #general

gueorgui

2022-08-09 10:48

Hi folks, We (my team) have a react consumer and a ruby provider, and we?re doing work refactoring one of the endpoints on the provider, by removing unused attributes from the returned JSON in order to improve performance. I want to write a test that would validate that after changes to the provider, the relevant component on the consumer can still render correctly. My idea so far is like this: 1. Update contract test on consumer to match what I expect the backend to return 2. Update my component?s unit test on the consumer to ensure the component will render correctly with the updated backend data 3. Once everything validates, make changes to the backend. Does this sound correct? If so, is there a smart way of not having to maintain two sample API responses on the consumer side (one for the contract test, one for the component?s unit test?) In other words, is there some best practice to reuse data setup for a contract test in a component?s unit tests?

matt.fellows

2022-08-09 11:39

You could use the data from the Pact tests in your component tests, so you don?t have separate mocks that could drift

matt.fellows

2022-08-09 11:40

In the 9.x.x version `extractPayload` in the matchers package lets you do this (it removes any matching rules and gives you the raw JSON.

gueorgui

2022-08-09 12:44

Oh that?s very nice, I didn?t know about `extractPayload`. Thanks Matt!

matt.fellows

2022-08-09 13:50

We need to port this to 10.x.x. let me know how you go and if this helps

alison.stuart.contrac

2022-08-09 20:41

has joined #general

jean.paiva42

2022-08-10 19:03

Hey everyone, quick question: I am using the `pact-provider-verifier` and I installed it through `gem`. On my use case I needed to use a header called `response-format` (all lower case)but it seems like when pact-provider-verifier does the request it changes the header and capitalizes it to `Resonse-Format` , is there a way to prevent this from happening and being able to use the header all lower case?

matt.fellows

2022-08-10 21:56

It might be worth searching this question across the pact foundation GH organisation. I believe it's come up before and I think the answer is no. The header names are standardised.

matt.fellows

2022-08-10 21:57

I believe header keys should be case insensitive as far as the RFC is concerned

matt.fellows

2022-08-10 21:59

The behaviour is built into the framework that pact ruby uses. There is a rust verifier which may not do that

matt.fellows

2022-08-10 21:59

tischnerd

2022-08-11 06:49

has joined #general

tischnerd

2022-08-11 07:28

Hi there :wave: I have a quick design question regarding the `fromProviderState` mechanism. Its not language specific, but I'll use the JVM examples. A frequent situation, also shown in the docs, would be that a consumer is asking for a specific situation: ```builder.given("product with ID 10 exists") .uponReceiving("get product with ID 10") .method("GET") .path("/product/10") ...``` In this example the consumer had to came up with an ID that might exist for a product. (And the provider will then have to adhere to that, making product 10 available). Would this also be a valid application for `fromProviderState` to let the provider decide on the ID of an existing product? (All examples I found in the docs only relate to autogenerated IDs that can not really be picked by the consumer without making life hard for the provider. And they are also mostly focused on using `fromProviderState` for the response part, i.e. after `willRespondWith()`.) I.e. should we write this code instead as ```builder.given("a product exists") .uponReceiving("get that product") .method("GET") .pathFromProviderState("/product/\${id}", "/product/10") ...``` with a provider having a state like ```@State("a product exists") fun createProduct(params: Map<String, String>): Map<String, Any> { val product = ... // maybe create that product in the DB or something return mapOf("id" to product.id) }``` Thanks in advance and cheers :thumbsup:

tischnerd

2022-08-11 07:33

Additionally, would that also be applicable for a product that does **not exist**? Such as ```builder.given("a product exists") .uponReceiving("get a product that does not exist") .method("GET") .path("/product/\${unknownId}", "/product/999") ...``` with a state like ```@State("a product exists") fun createProduct(params: Map<String, String>): Map<String, Any> { val product = ... // maybe create that product in the DB or something return mapOf( "id" to product.id, "unknownId" to 50 ) }```

uglyog

2022-08-11 07:48

Yes, this was exactly what that was for

tischnerd

2022-08-11 08:32

awesome, thanks for clarification :thumbsupparrot:

tischnerd

2022-08-11 08:32

(for visibility: @lucka (colleague of mine))

lucka

2022-08-11 08:38

Good to know

k.bangarusamy

2022-08-11 10:44

Hi @matt.fellows will you just give me some high level description for pact and pactflow - usecase etc

k.bangarusamy

2022-08-11 10:44

We are highly recommending with client so need to include on the slides

matt.fellows

2022-08-11 10:50

That's great to hear!

matt.fellows

2022-08-11 10:50

If you have an email I have a nice a PDF/preso that could be helpful.

k.bangarusamy

2022-08-11 10:50

matt.fellows

2022-08-11 10:51

I'm confused about what additional info you might need that's not already on http://Pactflow.io, http://Pactflow.io/features or docs http://pact.io What's missing?

k.bangarusamy

2022-08-11 10:53

got it, I thought to get some overview from your side. Document has detailed infomation

matt.fellows

2022-08-11 10:54

I just sent you an email now, hope that helps!

k.bangarusamy

2022-08-11 10:56

Thanks Mill Will check it

gueorgui

2022-08-11 11:12

`extractPayload` has made my life much easier overall. We were going to upgrade to 10.x but if not having `extractPayload` available seems like a solid reason to hold back. Is there any alternatives in 10.x?

matt.fellows

2022-08-11 11:49

It?s a pretty simple little function. It just recurses the object and removes any Matchers.

gueorgui

2022-08-11 11:49

Ah fair! I?ll take a look at the code and roll my own then

matt.fellows

2022-08-11 11:51

9.x.x `extractPayload` function: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/c0f3d37b3a1f1843d4e92182b388bfe23d95e5c8/src/dsl/matchers.ts#L290-L309 It just needs one here (10.x.x): https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/master/src/v3/matchers.ts If you?re up for writing that, it would be ace. Please also call the new function `reify` and type alias it as `extractPayload` (or maybe we don?t bother keeping both, and add it to the upgrade guide?) Reify is the term used in other parts of the project and it has been pointed out we should make that consistent

joel.wochele

2022-08-11 12:53

has joined #general

gueorgui

2022-08-11 13:09

Working on it :slightly_smiling_face:

gueorgui

2022-08-11 13:09

Never seen this syntax before: ```export function isMatcher(x: AnyTemplate): x is Matcher<AnyTemplate> { return x != null && (x as Matcher<AnyTemplate>).getValue !== undefined; }``` what is this `x is Matcher<AnyTemplate>` ?

gueorgui

2022-08-11 13:16

Oh it?s a type predicate. TIL

tischnerd

2022-08-12 08:46

I have a follow-up question on `fromProviderState` design. Where do I ideally draw the line when to use it for argument details that the consumer simply does not care about. Lets say the pact is testing a `hello world` response and the API also requires a somewhat unrelated header that the consumer is supposed to send, maybe `X-Locale: de`. Now, for the test and pact this argument does not matter, any valid country-code would suffice, `fr` for example. Should the pact on consumer side now explicitly demand `de`, using `headers("X-Locale", "de")` or let the provider decide on this with `headerFromProviderState("X-Locale", "${anyValidLocale}", "de")`? This question goes even further. Lets say we have to send a complex DTO body, but for the particular pact only one value in it actually matters. Should the rest of the DTO be given by the provider state or should the consumer just specify the full DTO, even though majority of it _doesnt matter_? Essentially, I am looking for ways to signal to the provider that something was not picked due to any particular reason, but could be _anything_. So that the provider clearly knows which part of the contract is actually important to the consumer.

matt.fellows

2022-08-12 11:20

as a starting point, I think this principle still stands, and the one directly beneath https://docs.pact.io/consumer#only-make-assertions-about-things-that-will-affect-the-consumer-if-they-change

matt.fellows

2022-08-12 11:20

> Lets say the pact is testing a `hello world` response and the API also requires a somewhat unrelated header that the consumer is supposed to send, maybe `X-Locale: de`. Now, for the test and pact this argument does not matter, any valid country-code would suffice, `fr` for example If varying the value isn?t important from a contract point of view, I wouldn?t complicate the tests further

matt.fellows

2022-08-12 11:21

`fromProviderState` does involve some extra setup by the provider, and I tend to have golden data sets on the provider side when I verify them, so the consumers can just use known IDs etc. But of course YMMV

matt.fellows

2022-08-12 11:22

> This question goes even further. Lets say we have to send a complex DTO body, but for the particular pact only one value in it actually matters can you please elaborate on this? Are you saying the JSON that you send doesn?t matter (or just a subset of that) or only a subset of the response matters?

tischnerd

2022-08-12 11:28

the thing is, from a consumer POV some values of a *request* are actually important to be the way they are. and others could be anything that fits. for example, lets say the request has to send a positive value in the body ```"value": 5``` now, the consumer pact could be something like _"when sending a positive value, you respond with 200"_ who is supposed to decide on a value here? the consumer? the provider? and if the consumer picks one, how to signal that they could also have picked 10 or 20, i.e. that they do not really care? for a response, i would just use a lose regex matcher, but afaik for the request part the consumer is supposed to be as strict as possible, no?

tischnerd

2022-08-12 11:32

an actual case from practice could be this here: https://i.imgur.com/YfLroLz.png thats the body of a request. right now, fully specified without any regex or similar. all that matters for this particular pact however is that the date is in the past and not in the future. so the date here just acts as an example. the consumer wants to signal the provider that, for this pact, `anyDateFromPast` would have worked - how to do that?

tischnerd

2022-08-12 11:34

i could use `valueFromProviderState` to let the provider pick one. but it doesnt feel like the right tool for the job

matt.fellows

2022-08-12 11:36

> now, the consumer pact could be something like _?when sending a positive value, you respond with 200?_ > who is supposed to decide on a value here? the consumer? the provider? I would default to the consumer, unless there is a good reason. > for a response, i would just use a lose regex matcher, but afaik for the request part the consumer is supposed to be as strict as possible, no? (edited) Yes, ideally you don?t have matchers on the request unless you really need to (the matchers are only checked on the consumer test, not on the provider side - in case that wasn?t clear). I wouldn?t get too hung up on some of these things though. Occasionally that will border on a functional test, but that?s OK, the lines aren?t always clear and bright. See also https://docs.pact.io/consumer/contract_tests_not_functional_tests. If it is important that the ?positive number? or ?date in the past? scenario is checked, then it should be covered (and specified from the consumer). > i could use `valueFromProviderState` to let the provider pick one. but it doesnt feel like the right tool for the job I would tend to use this function sparingly, and only give more work to the provider if necessary.

michel.kaporin

2022-08-12 11:58

Hi there! I have a question on how Pact / bi-directional contract testing can be beneficial when developing APIs where providers generate new specs when introducing breaking changes and consumers consume it via an HTTP query parameter? E.g. REST API have a form of `GET /path/to/resource?version=2021-09-21` with the parameter targeting a specific date of the API specification. In other words, when new API breaking changes get published, API provider creates completely new OpenAPI specification that consumers have to switch to if they want to target the latest version. The old versions are being supported until a certain deprecation date. You can read more https://github.com/snyk/sweater-comb/blob/main/docs/principles/version.md#api-versioning, if you need a more detailed explanation. How would the consumer and provider contract testing flow look like in such scenario?

tischnerd

2022-08-12 12:01

makes sense. gonna find the sweetspot then, thank you for the input :thumbsup:

matt.fellows

2022-08-12 12:08

I?m keen for other thoughts on this too!

evert.vanloo

2022-08-12 12:16

has joined #general

jors.matthys

2022-08-12 13:27

has joined #general

ricardo.maury

2022-08-12 18:34

has joined #general

prateekm33

2022-08-15 00:46

has joined #general

prateekm33

2022-08-15 01:20

hello! wanted to repost my question in #pact-js here as well. having some issues configuring my consumer tests. any advice would be greatly appreciated! https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9VBGLUM9/p1660526266380169

ahmed.fahmy

2022-08-15 09:10

has joined #general

tpaktopsp

2022-08-15 18:47

has joined #general

prateekm33

2022-08-15 19:30

curious what ya?ll think about needing or not needing contract tests when the provider is graphql. seems like the graphql schema can be a good enough proxy for a stand-in contract test. just want to make sure we use contract testing in the correct places

matt.fellows

2022-08-15 20:49

See https://pactflow.io/blog/contract-testing-a-graphql-api/ and let me know what you think. TL;DR - GraphQL doesn?t give you protections on its own, you still need a way to ensure the schema doesn?t change in a breaking way

tjones

2022-08-16 00:03

How do you check compatibility between any two versions of the schema? How do you reason about what you can and can't deploy?

tjones

2022-08-16 00:33

GraphQL doesn't solve those problems, it just makes it less work to implement the transport of data

cyrus.devnomad

2022-08-16 06:24

*Hi* *In the following articles "contract testing using json schema" is explained from a theoretical point of view:* *https://pactflow.io/blog/contract-testing-using-json-schemas-and-open-api-part-1/* *https://pactflow.io/blog/contract-testing-using-json-schemas-and-open-api-part-2/* *https://pactflow.io/blog/contract-testing-using-json-schemas-and-open-api-part-3/* *If I'm not mistaken Bi-Directional contract testing is a kind of contract testing using json schemas. In the articles above it is mentioned that one of the advantages of this type of testing is the possibility to test the provider as blackbox.* *For example in the dotnet Bi-Directional contract testing workshop ( https://github.com/pactflow/example-bi-directional-provider-dotnet ) the schemathesis tool is used to verify the provider API in a blackbox manner as follows (in this case the provider is running on the docker host on port 9000 and the tool access it from within the docker container to test it):* *docker run --net="host" schemathesis/schemathesis:stable run --stateful=links --checks all http://host.docker.internal:9000/swagger/v1/swagger.json > report.txt* *Of course it has advantages to be able to test a provider in this blackbox manner but what if most of your microservices have external dependencies? Can you use this approach then?* *In the workshop mentioned above you have to send both to Pactflow server, the swagger.json file (which is generated during the build phase in the workshop) and the report.txt file which contains evidence that the provider API was tested (by that blackbox test mentioned above).* *The problem is what if you can?t easily get your provider with lots of external dependencies running in the pipeline. In that case the generation of that provider API test evidence gets quite difficult. You would have to have access to the code to make sure that your external dependencies are mocked away during the blackbox test. But being forced to have access to your code while you want to perform blackbox tests kind of defeats the advantage of blackbox testing.* *I have tested the Pactflow workflow to see whether the system could work without the need to publish the provider API verification evidence and by only publishing the swagger.json.* *It turns out that the consumer?s can-i-deploy is happy with provider?s swagger.json being published alone and can be deployed without the provider having its API test evidence published. But the provider?s can-i-deploy does not allow it to be deployed as long as its API test evidence is not published.* *Of course this all makes perfect sense.* *But what if you really want to take advantage of blackbox testing but you can?t get your provider with lots of external dependencies up and running in the pipeline. What if you are mostly interested in the compatibility between your consumers and providers and not so much about testing your providers themselves.* *Is there a way to work with swagger.json alone and leave out the provider API test evidence (represented by report.txt in the workshop example above)?*

julian.schmidt

2022-08-16 09:03

has joined #general

jack340

2022-08-16 09:11

has joined #general

g.varga

2022-08-16 11:55

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-08-16 12:06

So the TL;DR is ?yes?, you can definitely omit the report (I think the field may need something, even just text that says ?we tested this, trust me because I?m a developer?.

matt.fellows

2022-08-16 12:07

But. > But what if you really want to take advantage of blackbox testing but you can?t get your provider with lots of external dependencies up and running in the pipeline. What if you are mostly interested in the compatibility between your consumers and providers and not so much about testing your providers themselves. The question implies that the provider _implements_ the spec to a degree you have a level of confidence that is the case. If you do have that confidence, this should be fine. But the question then is, how are you getting that confidence? It sounds like testing it is already difficult - do you test it by hand? Autogenerate the OAS? Something else? That?s the evidence you should upload to Pactflow.

matt.fellows

2022-08-16 12:08

If you don?t have confidence the provider is compatible with the OAS, then you?re leaving yourself open to production issues.

cyrus.devnomad

2022-08-16 12:25

Well in the workshop I mentioned above we have the following two steps: 2. Generate the dll for the project, this is the binary file that would be deployed to an environment. This step generates the Swagger doc for the project, which will be uploaded to Pactflow. Run the following command in the terminal on the root of the project: make publish_dll 3. Use Schemathesis to verify that the API endpoints match the generated Swagger doc by running the verify_swagger target. This will generate a a Schemathesis report documenting the compatibility of the endpoints with the Swagger doc make verify_swagger I imagined that the step number 2 automatically generates the swagger.json from the API. In that case I imagined that the confidence that the API matches the swagger.json would be quite strong. If thats indeed the case, would the step 3 be really necessary? Is is about having the HTTP communication really tested? Or am I missing something here!

matt.fellows

2022-08-16 13:03

There is always the chance 2 isn?t a perfect representation of things. Particularly with respect to the behaviour where discriminators such as `anyOf`, `oneOf` etc. are concerned. So (3) is usually a good thing to balance that out

matt.fellows

2022-08-16 13:04

There is of course also the possibility of bugs or e.g. an unimplemented controller that still generates a resource in an OAS - that could give you a false sense of confidence

matt.fellows

2022-08-16 13:05

But to answer your question, if schemathesis gives you the confidence of correctness, and you generate your OAS from working code that should probably be enough. You can upload whatever you want as the report - ultimately, it?ll be future you (or a consumer) that reads that report if things break. so making it useful/readible is probably in your best interest anyway

cyrus.devnomad

2022-08-16 13:11

Thank you for your explanation and clarification, that makes a lot more sense now.

lnthai2002

2022-08-16 15:02

has joined #general

lnthai2002

2022-08-16 15:21

Hello, I am new to pact so when experimenting with versioning, I see that when I run a provider validation, it seems to only validate against the latest pact found in the broker. Is this the expected behavior? In this matrix, there are 2 versions of the consumer (different content of pact files), but 3 versions of the provider. There is no verification result of the *green* version of the provider against the *blue* version of the consumer. However, when i run can-i-deploy on the *green* version of the provider supplying the *blue* version of the consumer as pacticipant, I get a failure, is it right?

sarunas.kavaliauskas

2022-08-16 19:15

has joined #general

hazem

2022-08-16 19:24

Question about webhooks for consumer/provider pipelines. TLDR: in thread :slightly_smiling_face:

hazem

2022-08-16 19:24

We're following https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana/step_6 and have implemented a consumer PR pipeline with two webhooks: ? Webhook 1 - Trigger provider verification for event `contract_requiring_verification_published` ? Webhook 2 - Update Consumer's PR build status for the commit with the verification results using event `provider verification published` Another sequence diagram documented https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/webhooks#example-cicd-and-webhook-configuration. This all works great! However, the intent of webhook 2 is really meant for consumer PR builds and I noticed an undesired side-effect. In the case of Provider CI's, a provider feature branch failed verification due to a breaking change on the provider branch. This was great and awesome it was detected on the provider CI and PR. However, webhook 2 fired as a result of the published verification from the provider feature branch against the consumer main branch. Ultimately this updated consumer's main branch commit with a failed build status and alerted the consuming team via their own slack notification. Ultimately we decided it was a false alarm. Do others experience the same? Considering webhook 2 is meant purely for consumer's CI, it would be nice for webhooks to have conditions.

matt.fellows

2022-08-17 02:11

The answer lies in how you use https://docs.pact.io/selectors in your verification, and the flags you pass to can-i-deploy

matt.fellows

2022-08-17 02:16

Great question, thanks for taking the time to explain it in detail

ben.a.hubbard

2022-08-17 09:33

Are there any metrics that can be pulled (or visualised over time) from the open-source pact broker or pactflow. Like, the pass rate of integrations or number of integrations over time? (Not necessarily these but just in general)

matt.fellows

2022-08-17 09:36

Good question. May I ask why

matt.fellows

2022-08-17 09:37

(I'd love to know more for some use cases in PF I'm exploring)

matt.fellows

2022-08-17 09:39

But if you hit the /metrics endpoint there is data there you could pull daily into e.g. splunk/sumo and visualise

sushant.soni

2022-08-17 09:49

Can a provider application upgrade to Pact V3 independently of the consumers? is it backward compatible?

ben.a.hubbard

2022-08-17 09:52

Thanks, that looks pretty good! Was just for a high level view of trends and progress of adding new integrations etc

ben.a.hubbard

2022-08-17 09:54

But would also be good if we were given enough info to try and catch bad habits early. Like if there are problem providers (for bi-directional etc) who just keep trying to publish breaking changes. So we could investigate why and if they aren't following api evolution from the start (or something similar). If they constantly run into contract verification failures when trying to deploy it could slow down development as they need to go back to redesign/implement/test etc

ben.a.hubbard

2022-08-17 09:58

I guess that would need finer detail than existing metrics as it's currently all grouped under "verificationResults", if you could pull them by team or by pacticipant that could be interesting

ben.a.hubbard

2022-08-17 10:00

Also if you could distinguish integrations by type (CDCT or BDCT)

matt.fellows

2022-08-17 10:01

Yes that should work

matt.fellows

2022-08-17 10:01

JS?

tbansal

2022-08-17 10:30

has joined #general

sushant.soni

2022-08-17 13:28

provider - js consumer - js, jvm, swift

dekkofilms

2022-08-17 21:14

has joined #general

prateekm33

2022-08-17 22:41

so looks like we already have tooling in place in our automated pipelines to handle disallowing breaking schema changes. i think that addresses the concerns above

tjones

2022-08-17 23:33

Does your tooling test that each side understands the same semantics? Most of the time this is the issue with graphql

tjones

2022-08-17 23:36

> seems like the graphql schema can be a good enough proxy My experience is that people assume they don't need contract tests because of graphql tooling, and then they have issues in prod because the tooling couldn't detect the issues.

tjones

2022-08-17 23:42

Of course, you can use what you like. You don't even need to test at all, as tests are only risk reduction. However, doing contract testing (whether or not you use pact) is more than just "is this change a breaking change to the schema". For example, just because an update is backwards compatible it doesn't mean that a non-updated provider is compatible with an updated consumer.

tjones

2022-08-17 23:44

Can you tell me more about your setup? If there is tooling that provides proper deployment confidence for GraphQL, I'm very keen to hear about it.

matt.fellows

2022-08-18 01:23

Awesome, thanks for sharing

matt.fellows

2022-08-18 01:25

Yes we've been thinking about a lot of these at various levels (e.g. at the account, team, integration and app level)

matt.fellows

2022-08-18 01:26

Trying to work out what exactly will be helpful in providing actionable feedback. E.g. as you say, if there are broken integrations can we infer if that's a problem, or if it's because the feature is in development (i.e. TDD for APIs).

matt.fellows

2022-08-18 01:27

Broken webhooks might be useful for admins to keep up maintenance Particularly interested in who is interested in seeing the data and who might end up being on the receiving end of any insights (.e.g Devs, testers, management etc) and why it's important they get it. We do get asked a bit about reporting, but ideally we don't just share vanity metrics that look good but aren't actually very useful. I think seeing trendline activity is helpful, because you can get a sense if teams are increasing, maintaining or decreasing their investment in the tool

matt.fellows

2022-08-18 01:31

I'll share some more thoughts when I get back to my desk

bethskurrie

2022-08-18 07:18

See this guide for the best practice https://docs.pact.io/provider/recommended_configuration

bethskurrie

2022-08-18 07:20

It?s worth updating your quick link to this page now @matt.fellows

matt.fellows

2022-08-18 07:40

the http://docs.pact.io/selectors one?

nirajlalr

2022-08-18 09:46

has joined #general

sushant.soni

2022-08-18 10:49

our api responses are usually very big and when running provider verification for multiple consumers we have large logs even with `error` logLevel. How to make it manageable and to be able to debug from those? maybe a flag to not show the actual responses but just the error and differences. or any other tips?

bethskurrie

2022-08-18 10:50

which language+version?

sushant.soni

2022-08-18 10:51

pact-js `@pact-foundation/pact": "^9.16.4`

bethskurrie

2022-08-18 10:51

I?ll need someone to let me know if that?s a ruby backed one or a rust backed one.

bethskurrie

2022-08-18 10:51

@matt.fellows will know.

jon669

2022-08-18 11:14

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-08-18 11:31

Ruby

gibraltor999

2022-08-18 15:58

quick question: I have this pact file with the contents. This file is in my local machine path: `/Users/srentala/Desktop/Pact/pacts` ```{ "consumer": { "name": "test-consumer" }, "provider": { "name": "test-provider" }, "interactions": [ { "description": "a request to get the machine IP", "providerState": "a endpoint to get IP", "request": { "method": "GET", "path": "/product" }, "response": { "status": 200, "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json; charset=utf-8" }, "body": { "ip": "81.96.249.131" }, "matchingRules": { "$.headers.Content-Type": { "match": "regex", "regex": "^application\\/json" }, "$.body": { "match": "type" } } } } ], "metadata": { "pactSpecification": { "version": "2.0.0" } } }``` I am running the following command to create a mock server using Pact : `pact-mock-service --consumer test-consumer --provider test-provider --port 1234 --pact-dir=/Users/srentala/Desktop/Pact/pacts` but on hitting the endpoint from Postman, it gives following ?no interactions found? . What am I missing here?

yousafn

2022-08-18 17:13

The pact-mock-service is documented here https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service#mock-service-usage The option you are specifying is where the pact mock service will write generated pacts. ``` -d, [--pact-dir=PACT_DIR] # Directory to which the pacts will be written``` If you are trying to load a pact file, to generate as a stub, you can use https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service#stub-service-usage

yousafn

2022-08-18 17:14

Here is an example of a usage of the pact-mock-service https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service/blob/master/script/example.sh You would need to load your interactions in via HTTP requests

alejandro.velez

2022-08-18 19:20

Hello! We are beginning to incorporate `record-deployment` as part of our CI/CD process. If a provider version (git sha) was never required to verify a pact should we still use `record-deployment` when deploying that version of the provider? We are only using consumer driven contract testing, and leverage the `contract_requiring_verification_published` event so the consumer in some cases never triggers a provider build because the content is the same. Should we be leveraging `create-or-update-version` first in this case?

michael.birchmeier

2022-08-18 19:27

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-08-18 20:14

Hey hey, If I understand the contract for the latest provider version you want to deploy is pre verified because the contract between its consumers hasn?t changed. If so I would record the deployment of the sha associated with your provider build you are going to deploy. The verifications will still be valid and you are know in your pact broker exactly which provider version is deployed in production

alejandro.velez

2022-08-18 20:17

yes exactly Yousaf. We thought that would be ok, but we received an error ? something like -> `<Pacticipant> version <git sha> not found` when running `record-deployment`

yousafn

2022-08-18 20:18

Interesting, did the provider build run it?s own pact verification against the deployed consumers and publish a result?

yousafn

2022-08-18 20:19

With the version that you want to record?

yousafn

2022-08-18 20:20

I am assuming you have two provider verification tasks, one as part of the providers regular build and one triggered by the webhook you described which would use a pactUrl rather than the consumerVersionSelectors?

alejandro.velez

2022-08-18 20:23

no it did not. we only have one provider build by itself to verify a specific pact when a consumer published a pact that requires verification. Do you think we need to add the additional provider build?

yousafn

2022-08-18 20:30

Yes, if you consumer contracts do not change, but your provider build changes it's response schema or endpoints, you would not know that it was not compatible with its consumers

alejandro.velez

2022-08-18 20:31

ok that makes sense! thank you!

yousafn

2022-08-18 20:32

This recommended step refers to the one you already have in place https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana/step_6#add-a-new-provider-verification-job Your verification pipeline during a regular provider CI run would look similar to https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana/step_4#provider-pipeline although we advise recording environments over tags now, it is on my backlog to update the guide

yousafn

2022-08-18 20:33

My pleasure @alejandro.velez let us know how you get on, and if you want a platform to talk about your setup and how it's helping out your organisation, I would be happy to help. Good luck on the road to Pact Nirvana :rockon:

jwang

2022-08-18 21:07

has joined #general

msiyaj1

2022-08-18 22:03

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-08-18 22:12

yes, you want the stub server

matt.fellows

2022-08-18 22:12

You should probably also use the new recommended one here: https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/cli

ben.hansen

2022-08-19 00:44

has joined #general

marko.justinek

2022-08-19 02:37

PactSwift supports v3.

matt.fellows

2022-08-19 02:42

The verifier supports up to v4 Sushant, so you should be good no matter which client you use

sushant.soni

2022-08-19 08:22

Hey :wave: Any solution/advise for me here on the problem?

lottie.kett

2022-08-19 12:08

has joined #general

bethskurrie

2022-08-19 12:55

There's no way to turn off the noise, but do you know how to run just one test at a time?

bethskurrie

2022-08-19 12:56

You run the test with the PACT_DESCRIPTION and PACT_PROVIDER_STATE env cars set.

sushant.soni

2022-08-19 14:05

Hello Team, What is the general notion while setting up provider states? For example - "A user John Doe with bank account exists", here should we actually create a user and link a bank account? Or is it possible to mock this behaviour?

paul.lynn

2022-08-19 14:18

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-08-19 14:54

Either is fine. If it's a db state you could seed the data. If it's a service layer you can mock it out. The important thing is the system is setup to receive and respond to the request and the key layers that are responsible for sending back the shape of the data are tested

matt.fellows

2022-08-19 14:55

Some choose to mock from the controller down. Some choose to test all the way to the boundary. Neither is right or wrong, but is contest dependent. I'd say start with mocking the data layer if that's convenient tho, as you'll get some additional functional test coverage as a nice side effect

tjones

2022-08-19 15:12

I strongly prefer mocking the repository layer in your provider. The rationale is: ? If you mock at the controller layer, you get no functional coverage. Pact is not about functional testing, but if you mock at the controller layer, all you know is that your provider can possibly marshal that response, not that it will. ? If you create the data directly in the DB, you have to express the state in terms of DB data, which means that you then need a contract test between the provider state data and the actual data that is saved in the DB ? If you create the data in the DB by calling endpoints / service methods in your provider, then it?s hard to know what went wrong when the tests fail ? If you mock the repository layer in your service, you can express the provider state in terms of business logic - eg `A user John Doe with bank account exists -> when { userRepo.get('John Doe') } willReturn johnUserData`

duynguyenptithcm

2022-08-20 07:22

has joined #general

duynguyenptithcm

2022-08-20 08:03

Hi all, I'm newbie. Please, reference me some course or document about pact to contract testing...thank you

tjones

2022-08-20 09:22

Certainly. You can find what you?re looking for here: https://docs.pact.io

matt.fellows

2022-08-20 09:48

Howtolearn

2022-08-20 09:48

Here are a number of useful hands-on labs that teach all of the key concepts: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops and https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/workshops

matt.fellows

2022-08-20 09:48

How about these?

duynguyenptithcm

2022-08-20 12:02

thank you all, how to implement pact with java?

matt.fellows

2022-08-20 13:20

With all due respect, did you read any of those links? One of them literally has 2 workshops for Java

matt.fellows

2022-08-20 13:21

The Pactflow page has an in browser tutorial in java and there are numerous examples there also in Java

matt.fellows

2022-08-20 13:21

Howtoexamples

2022-08-20 13:21

https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/examples/

gaudenz.halter

2022-08-22 07:52

has joined #general

lottie.kett

2022-08-22 10:07

Hi all, Could you please clarify how can I fix Network Error on the http://localhost:3000/error? When I run 'npm start' in the cloned 'example-consumer' repo, I receive the error I repeat as on the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qd-kq1AzZI

matt.fellows

2022-08-22 10:10

:wave: You need to run the `example-provider` if you want to run the app. But you don?t need that if you just want to run the pact tests

matt.fellows

2022-08-22 10:11

lottie.kett

2022-08-22 10:14

Thanks

harold.robson

2022-08-22 13:07

has joined #general

bentzion.schochet

2022-08-22 13:27

has joined #general

mat.delong

2022-08-22 14:03

has joined #general

sushant.soni

2022-08-22 15:12

Thanks for the answer both. That makes sense. But I'm trying to figure out how it would work with shared environments. For example - for unit tests the mocking is easy as it is being done in isolation. But with a shared environment (staging), other users would be affected if we mock our responses to particular http requests. :thinking_face: Or is my understanding still incorrect here? :disappointed:

jean.paiva42

2022-08-22 16:49

Sorry for the VERY LATE reply here, but you were right Matt, we should adjust it on ourside, which we did. Thanks again for the reply!

gibraltor999

2022-08-22 16:53

Thanks @yousafn and @matt.fellows

matt.fellows

2022-08-22 22:03

The answer is you don?t use a shared environment

matt.fellows

2022-08-22 22:04

> For example - for unit tests the mocking is easy as it is being done in isolation. exactly - this is why it?s preferable!

matt.fellows

2022-08-22 22:04

> But with a shared environment (staging), other users would be affected if we mock our responses to particular http requests. exactly - it?s one of the reasons it is _not_ preferable to do it this way!

lottie.kett

2022-08-23 09:02

Hi all, Could you please help me how to fix this error? I have executed 'npm run test' in the 'example-provider repo'. But I have error at the Pact Verification ? validates the expectations of ProductService. Please see the screenshot attached. The error is ' Must provide the pactUrls argument if no pactBrokerUrl provided'. I have thus pactBrokerUrl mentioned at PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL: https://zlata.pactflow.io in .github/workflows/ -build.yml -verify_changed_pact.yml

matt.fellows

2022-08-23 09:05

Looks pretty clear to me. How do you know the environment variable is properly set?

lottie.kett

2022-08-23 09:09

Hi @matt.fellows, I have entered echo %PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL% in terminal and the value wasn't returted. Could you please clarify, if I should paste this value in all the files mentioned in the error or there is another way?

matt.fellows

2022-08-23 09:14

Sorry off the top of my head I can't remember how to export an environment variable in all windows shells.

matt.fellows

2022-08-23 09:15

But that seems to be the issue, you'll need to properly set the URL and token. You can out them straight into the verifier opts (see the available types in your IDE or look at the docs on what ones are there)

lottie.kett

2022-08-23 09:16

Thanks, Matt :slightly_smiling_face:

gibraltor999

2022-08-23 10:30

@yousafn @matt.fellows I have successfully created a mock service as explained in the documentation. However I was wondering if we have a way to just create pacts directly from the interactions?s json(without actual doing registering of pacts, hitting the endpoint etc etc..) ? I have interactions with me ? all I want is to generate pacts using a single command? Can we do that?

volker.wengert

2022-08-23 10:59

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-08-23 11:20

What are you trying to do? Can you just create a pact file in advance and send to a stub server?

alejandro.velez

2022-08-23 13:32

Hello! quick question, is there a way to debug why the `contract_requiring_verification_published` event was detected when publishing a pact? the pact content is not changing and I believe we are populating all the required fields. I also see this message beside it `(pact content is the same as previous versions with tags and no new tags were applied)`

yousafn

2022-08-23 13:54

Hey hey, Do you have an existing verification against your mainBranch Taken from https://docs.pact.io/blog/2021/10/11/contract-requiring-verification-published-webhook-event#post-content > It will be triggered if a pact is published with content that does not have a verification result from the main branch of the provider, or any of the deployed or released versions of the provider. Full usage details https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/webhooks#using-webhooks-with-the-contract_requiring_verification_published-event It is worth paying attention to the `Use of this webhook requires that:` section just to ensure you have the necessary pre-requisites in place

gibraltor999

2022-08-23 13:54

So If I have an agreed interactions.json file, can I not create pact out of it directly?

yousafn

2022-08-23 13:54

RE debugging webhooks https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/webhooks/debugging_webhooks

yousafn

2022-08-23 13:55

No, as the Pact framework seeks to assure strong guarantees in the generated pact consumer contract file, that the client actually issued those requests, prior to serialising into a pact file. What is your particular use case?

yousafn

2022-08-23 13:56

You could transform your interactions file into a pact file, and validate the output against the v2 schema https://bitbucket.org/atlassian/pact-json-schema/src/master/schemas/v2/schema.json to ensure you are generating a valid pact 2.0.0 specification file

sushant.soni

2022-08-23 14:57

Perfect, thank you so much. This clears up a lot :slightly_smiling_face:

alejandro.velez

2022-08-23 15:29

ah I see I will try that! thanks Yousaf!

lnthai2002

2022-08-23 17:20

thank you guys

alejandro.velez

2022-08-23 17:25

after recording a verification against the main branch now I only see `contract_published` thanks again!

yousafn

2022-08-23 17:28

Nice one @alejandro.velez :raised_hands: - Thanks for letting us know

rubemfsv15

2022-08-23 17:44

Hello! I saw in the pact docs FAQ a topic about points with Swagger, and it said to contact one of the maintainers if you are interested in doing something like generate a Skeleton Pact test code from a Swagger document. Do you already have something thought about this? Who can I contact about it?

sathish.sundararajan

2022-08-23 19:32

has joined #general

pedroefajardo_pactio

2022-08-23 21:15

Hello All, I have some questions. I am working on setting contract tests for a GraphQL service (provider) using Pact. The provider is a Ruby on Rails app, the consumer is JavaScript. The JS version of Pact was wrappers for creating GraphQL interactions but the Ruby version does not. 1. For the provider (Ruby) do I create state handlers that return the correct GraphQL. where the objects are loaded from say a file or 2. Do I have to: ? Have the actual provider running; and ? Have to seed the DB with the data elements the tests need Item 2 above being more complicated I am guessing the answer is implement the provider verification as in item 1 above, is that correct?

yousafn

2022-08-23 21:44

Hey @rubemfsv15 , Welcome! Very cool idea, it?s been on want list for many a moon. First off I?d start with some terminology. OpenAPI, is formerly known as Swagger, with Swagger now referring to tools used to interact with Open API Documents/Specs referring to the document in yaml or Json. I?m curious but unsure of the intristic value, in the real world. I know that swagger-codegen will allow for generation of both servers and client sdk?s. The client sdk?s actually having at least stub tests in place for a unit testing framework. It isn?t too much uplift to scaffold a basic pact test, in which the consumer could then record their expectations when they decide what they want to consumer on a particular providers endpoint, or remove anything they don?t wish to consume. I wonder how many people use the codegens, and how well they help over time as a service evolves, and you have had to augment the initial generated client code. Both myself and @tjones have discussed vscode snippets for each of the pact languages so it if easy to create the boilerplate for an interaction in any given language. I hacked out how we could incorporate consumer expectations into an openAPI spec and generate consumer contract files ( pacts ) off the back of it. These could be replaced by the real expectation in the future, when the consumer code is created. I think @matt.fellows would also be interested in this conversation. Love to hear your thoughts and what you?ve got up to so far, if anything :)

tjones

2022-08-23 22:52

When I started with pact, this is something that I wanted. However, it?s worth pointing out that: ? the point of pact is not to describe the whole api, but to describe only the parts that the consumer is using. So, if you did pact-from-swagger, it would probably describe too much and you would lose some of the advantages of pact. There would be some use cases for people who create the swagger for exactly one client, but over time as the api changes think it would produce unnecessary maintenance of dead code ? A disadvantage of swagger is that it doesn?t have clear mapping between requests and responses (and there are a few other challenges generating examples from swagger), so I?m not sure how this would work. Of course, just because I can?t see how it would work doesn?t mean it doesn?t work

bethskurrie

2022-08-24 00:53

I meant your quick link matt.

bethskurrie

2022-08-24 00:53

Selectors are used in multiple places.

matt.fellows

2022-08-24 01:50

Sorry, what?s the quick link?

bethskurrie

2022-08-24 01:50

Your slack short help shortcuts

bethskurrie

2022-08-24 01:51

maybe you didn?t have one for the selectors.

bethskurrie

2022-08-24 01:52

yeah, that wasn?t what I meant. ```commit 3206c823c6446665ebd27df4cea722e7d6a4a9ef Author: Matt Fellows <matt.fellows@onegeek.com.au> Date: Thu Aug 18 17:41:23 2022 +1000 chore: update redirect for /selectors```

matt.fellows

2022-08-24 01:52

Yep :100:. The main use case and supporting argument for this is to reduce boilerplate code and really nothing else. The risk runs the other way of course (now you might over specify requests etc. and the above context may get lost, which is something that needs careful consideration - documentation will not solve that problem)

bethskurrie

2022-08-24 01:53

I meant, instead of sending people to /selectors for this topic, send them to https://docs.pact.io/provider/recommended_configuration

matt.fellows

2022-08-24 01:55

Doesn?t look like we have one. If you do want to add/create them, you can just go here: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/customize/slackbot

matt.fellows

2022-08-24 02:01

If you did (1), how would you be confident your GraphQL provider actually works?

matt.fellows

2022-08-24 02:01

The point of provider verification isn?t to make Pact tests pass, but to ensure your provider actually works

matt.fellows

2022-08-24 02:01

(so the answer is 2)

patrick.lu

2022-08-24 02:12

has joined #general

pedroefajardo_pactio

2022-08-24 02:26

> The point of provider verification isn?t to make Pact tests pass, but to ensure your provider actually works Exactly! and thank you for replying. After saying the approach should be (1.) got me thinking what?s the point of having hard-coded responses? What if the schema changes and developers fail to update the hard-coded responses? Then will you please explain what?s the use of state handlers (provider states)? Do the state handlers query the db for the data that was seeded just for the tests? How do we link a state handler for say ?state 1? with the query that returns the values in the db for ?state 1??

matt.fellows

2022-08-24 04:09

Have you read https://docs.pact.io/provider/using_provider_states_effectively?

krishna.cv

2022-08-24 04:38

has joined #general

pedroefajardo_pactio

2022-08-24 04:50

i have also have read https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/ruby/provider_states and https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/provider_states#:~:text=Provider%20states%20allow%20you%20to,matches%20what%20the%20consumer%20expects and https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-provider-verifier#api-with-provider-states it is finally coming into focus! (I think) The expected provider state will be passed to the provider via the/from the Pact file that the consumer created. The endpoint to create the data, tries to create the data and return an error if it doesn?t recognize the state or even if it recognizes it but the ?shape? of the request does not match the current schema in the db of what Pact is passing.

matt.fellows

2022-08-24 05:24

It needn?t be writing to a DB, but that?s an option for sure

matt.fellows

2022-08-24 05:24

matt.fellows

2022-08-24 05:25

The idea is that your consumer can signal to your provider somehow that it needs to be in a given state, for a test to work. Just like the `given` in your TDD tests, just at an API testing level. The given represents some arbitrary, abstract state. How you get into that state is up to your provider (implementation detail)

ravishankar.emc

2022-08-24 06:00

has joined #general

alan.zhu

2022-08-24 08:54

has joined #general

pedroefajardo_pactio

2022-08-24 13:58

this is great info. thank you

nabil.bourenane

2022-08-24 14:19

has joined #general

alan.zhu

2022-08-25 02:07

Hi, team:wave: we are using pact contract test and many of our consumers are developed by Perl, is there any official support on Perl language?

matt.fellows

2022-08-25 02:18

:scream:

matt.fellows

2022-08-25 02:18

I mean, no we don?t sorry

matt.fellows

2022-08-25 02:18

This might help though https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/other_languages ?

alan.zhu

2022-08-25 02:47

Thanks for reply, that really help, I saw the example by https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service/blob/master/script/consumer-interaction.json and I have a question: Is there a way to generate looser match rules by something like DSL in this solution ?

matt.fellows

2022-08-25 04:03

Sorry this isn?t ideal, but you can. When you send requests to the mock service to setup the interaction, values that need matching rules can be given specific JSON objects that contain the matching rule definitions. See https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/9.x.x/src/dsl/matchers.ts for the matching rules available (and how to serialise them) properly

tjones

2022-08-25 04:42

What you could maybe do is write your tests in one of the supported languages (eg JS), and then have a call out to a perl script that just invokes the relevant bit of your client code

tjones

2022-08-25 04:42

whether that is a good idea or not depends on the rest of your ecosystem

ami.ta

2022-08-25 06:05

has joined #general

ami.ta

2022-08-25 06:07

Hi.. the 5 min tutorial defined in https://docs.pact.io/5-minute-getting-started-guide. hangs on the ?Repl Waking up? ? phase Who can help ?

matt.fellows

2022-08-25 06:17

hmmm I?ve found they can be unreliable. I know ad blockers / firewall can also interfere if you have those

matt.fellows

2022-08-25 06:18

We have some killercoda tutorials here that are similar: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/tutorials/

me1001

2022-08-25 07:24

has joined #general

me1001

2022-08-25 07:30

Hi. I managed to convince my team to give http://Pact.io a shot. We have a GraphQL provider, and multiple consumers, but focusing on a single one right now. We are working using git flow - feature branches, develop branch that we merge FB to, and then master branch for production-ready code. We have introduced can-i-deploy on develop/master branches, that checks against current environment (`staging` for develop branch, and `production` for master branch). We have noticed a potential obstacle: ? have a query `User{fullname}`, ? lets assume we want to change that query to return firstName, lastName our initial thought was: ? lets change the provider to return `{firstName, lastName, fullName}` ? then we are able to make changes in the consumer, and deploy to `staging` ? then we are able to remove the redundant & unused `fullName` from the provider, and deploy to `staging` that would work okay for develop branch, but then if code gets merged to `master`, we wouldn't be able to deploy provider (as the currently deployed `production` consumer still _requires_ `fullName` to be passed) and in such case, we are unsure how to proceed.

me1001

2022-08-25 07:32

Consulting a friend led to another idea: feature toggles. We would be able to pass a consumer version to the backend and because of that, backend could select which implementation should be used. However, that seems like a commitment on backend team's side to always ensure every query is supported when breaking changes occur. And I don't think we like that idea.

me1001

2022-08-25 07:32

So how do we deal with existing interaction changes?

me1001

2022-08-25 07:34

(just to be clear: the first post's idea would work if we DIDN'T remove redundant attribute in the `develop` branch. Then, we would still be able to push to master and deploy code to production. However, i'm worried about cases where developers _will_ forget that this `fullName` is still required on the currently-deployed production consumer, and thus it will lead to git chaos because we would have to revert some just merged commits in order to get back to a point where the redundant attribute is not yet removed, deploy, and then remove.)

tjones

2022-08-25 07:42

Are you failing the build on a failed verification, or on a failed can-i-deploy?

tjones

2022-08-25 07:43

Pact prevents you deploying a breaking combination of consumer and provider

tjones

2022-08-25 07:44

so, you need to have a path to deployment that is never breaking - for a "breaking change" this means deploying either a consumer that can speak to both providers, or a provider that can speak to both consumers.

tjones

2022-08-25 07:45

it's worth noting that, whatever your branching strategy, pact just exposes this problem. You would have the same problem without pact, it just wouldn't block deployment.

me1001

2022-08-25 07:52

Yes, correct. This is not a pact problem, but more of a "let's make sure what is live, never breaks" :slightly_smiling_face:

me1001

2022-08-25 07:52

I'm just trying to find an optimal solution to this. We would be failing on a failed verification on the provider side, and also can-i-deploy on consumer side.

tjones

2022-08-25 07:54

You might find it helpful to not fail if verification fails, but to fail only during can-i-deploy

me1001

2022-08-25 07:54

Yeah, we have enabled pending contracts in feature branches.

me1001

2022-08-25 07:55

But overall I guess the real question is: how do you develop without ever breaking the path to deployment? How do we ensure developers do not forget of the production installments, and the fact that they can't just change interactions?

me1001

2022-08-25 07:56

I guess just backend has to be ready to serve both ways? Or we should create new queries (that reflect new interactions) on the consumers side?

nidzgorskiadrian

2022-08-25 08:05

has joined #general

thomas.shipley

2022-08-25 09:41

*Free Hands-on Training Tonight (6:30 pm BST) - Pact Consumer Driven Contract Testing* Hi Testers :wave: - this evening Grace Tree and I will be hosting the DevOps Playground Meetup in Manchester, UK and Online. After a short consumer-driven contract testing talk, we will be diving right into a hands-on lab. There is no need to install anything locally; it is set up and ready to go in the cloud :cloud:. You will get a terminal; a hosted Visual Studio Code editor, and guidance on using Pact through a pre-designed scenario. If you fancy it, here is the link to sign up: https://www.meetup.com/devopsplayground/events/287778275/

alan.zhu

2022-08-25 09:50

Thanks, that make sense. Do we have a plan to implement pact features in Perl ?

matt.fellows

2022-08-25 09:52

What tool are you looking to run for the workshop?

thomas.shipley

2022-08-25 10:08

The one and only Pact .NET! With the pact broker. It is very loosely based on the workshop I wrote years ago now. Mixed in with the latest one published by yourselves. https://github.com/DevOpsPlayground/Hands-on-With-PactNET Grace has done the bulk of the work (and I great job) I am presenting at the start really/helping. https://bit.ly/2QcXY08 - I just need to get the slides in the brand format... a task for today!

matt.fellows

2022-08-25 10:09

Nice! What's the environment you're providing for the participants to run it?

thomas.shipley

2022-08-25 10:30

I am not directly involved with the ops bit. But the high level is a series of docker containers hosted on a cloud platform. There is a web-based front door in which attendees put in their name they get their own unique env with all the docker images prebuilt and ready to go. As a result, they get auto-generated credentials and a browser-based shell and browser-based Visual Studio Code instance with all the code and directory structures setup. The two are linked to each other. Use the terminal to run commands and the VS Code tab to make code changes. At the end of the session the instances are torn down.

matt.fellows

2022-08-25 10:34

Sounds great, hope it goes well - I wish you?d let us know earlier, we?d no doubt have given you a bit of a shout elsewhere. If it is something you do again, please do reach out so we can spread the word

matt.fellows

2022-08-25 10:34

Also those cloud labs sound nice - I?d be interested to seeing if that is something we could replicate for our community at large?

thomas.shipley

2022-08-25 10:46

Ah yeah sorry - our marketing team have been on the ball... but I haven't!

thomas.shipley

2022-08-25 10:46

Yeah, we could potentially do something together - maybe a co-branded thing. I can ask around internally if you like?

yousafn

2022-08-25 11:18

Hey @thomas.shipley this sounds great. I am actually based in Leeds, and spent my early career in Manchester so still know loads of people in the tech scene there. If you are running events in the future, let me know and we can shout about it in our socials :thumbsup: Will stick out a call to arms today

dealandi

2022-08-25 11:50

has joined #general

jreynolds

2022-08-25 12:44

has joined #general

jreynolds

2022-08-25 12:51

Dang! this sounds slick as all get out! And it's my birthday! Which also means I probably won't attend this evening but Dev Ops Playground looks really cool. Sorry to miss it!

josh.steffensmeier

2022-08-25 13:18

has joined #general

thomas.shipley

2022-08-25 13:40

Appreciate it @yousafn :slightly_smiling_face: - many things delayed me from putting the word out. I shall let you know next time! And if you ever fancied doing something with DevOps Playground I am sure we could work something out :thumbsup: Thanks, @jreynolds - lots of effort is put in by the team. All the kit has been shipped down from London to run online. I just do the easy bit and talk for 20 mins :wink:

prateekm33

2022-08-25 14:41

hi! sorry for the late turnaround on this. we?re looking at https://www.graphql-inspector.com/

tjones

2022-08-25 14:54

Thanks! I?ll take a look

abubics

2022-08-26 00:37

I think the only option is to keep the compatibility window open on both sides, until it's safe to remove the old functionality. https://docs.pact.io/faq#how-can-i-make-a-breaking-change-to-a-provider Hopefully the lead time to release isn't too long, so it's not a hassle to support both versions.

abubics

2022-08-26 00:37

It's also customary to check can-i-deploy for both the feature branch and the main branch in CI, pre-merge

abubics

2022-08-26 00:37

if main is ahead of prod, then check against prod, too

mhtkandpal10

2022-08-26 11:29

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-08-26 13:31

Happy Friday everyone :woo: The August edition of the Pact Open Source Update is out now https://docs.pact.io/blog/2022/08/24/pact-open-source-update-august-2022 We are focusing on Pact-JS v3 and the people that made it happen, thank you so much and have an amazing weekend :sunglasses:! https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/53900/180370118-f11c61f3-4ae0-496f-98fa-052fdfad409e.gif

dwalleck

2022-08-26 20:51

has joined #general

lijinze01

2022-08-26 22:20

has joined #general

mhaller

2022-08-27 00:19

has joined #general

mvliannoi

2022-08-29 03:41

has joined #general

duynguyenptithcm

2022-08-29 04:49

How to test graphql ?

duynguyenptithcm

2022-08-29 04:49

Which libraries is best?

tjones

2022-08-29 04:54

I put "pact graphql" into google and I got this https://pactflow.io/blog/contract-testing-a-graphql-api/ and this https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/javascript/docs/graphql

tjones

2022-08-29 04:54

I quite like the central library in Christchurch. They have very comfortable chairs.

tjones

2022-08-29 05:45

In general, though, you want to use the library that matches the language and framework that your client is written in

duynguyenptithcm

2022-08-29 05:50

Thank you

haobei.ma

2022-08-29 06:06

has joined #general

tjones

2022-08-29 07:28

You're welcome. In general, it's much better to ask specific questions rather than general questions - otherwise you'll give the impression that you haven't read the documentation. If you have read the documentation and are still confused, it's good to let us know what you read. That way the documentation can be improved.

maram.elsayed

2022-08-29 08:52

has joined #general

siddharth.gupta

2022-08-29 09:16

Hi , I have an array in response . The structure of array elements is different from one another . Not able to write expected body match of consumer test and it is giving error " No best type found for implicitly typed array " : Following is the response [2:45 PM] "extension": [ { "url": "http://xyz.com/fhir/v1/StructureDefinition/schedulable", "valueBoolean": true }, { "url": "http://xyz.com/fhir/v1/StructureDefinition/serviceOrganization", "valueReference": { "reference": "Organization/Organization-Dept-1", "display": "myDepartment" } } ] [2:46 PM] How do i verify an array having different structure of elements

matt.fellows

2022-08-29 10:05

For anyone responding, see the original post and subsequent responses here: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9UTHV2AD/p1661764550843779

helloitsdave

2022-08-29 14:51

has joined #general

mberkowitz

2022-08-29 16:16

has joined #general

lnthai2002

2022-08-29 18:42

Hello, if my provider has 2 endpoints (*/products* and */statistic*) and i have 2 consumers 1/*online-store* that uses the */products* end point, 2/*analytic-service* that uses */statistic* end point can both consumer pact tests have the same provider name? Would the pact files generated by the consumer tests get combined when uploaded to pact broker or one will replace the other?

matt.bremer

2022-08-29 20:10

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-08-29 21:32

Yea you should use the same provider name. The pacts aren't combined as we need to track each consumer and provider separately, but this is how it's supposed to work

lnthai2002

2022-08-29 21:50

thank you for confirming

tjones

2022-08-30 00:00

We should make a documentation page that explains this. It's kiiind of inferred on the versioning in the pact broker page here https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/versioning_in_the_pact_broker , but it would be good to have a diagram that just talks about consumer / provider names and their relationship to pact

lennart.querter

2022-08-30 09:24

has joined #general

apapia

2022-08-30 14:25

Does anyone have experience performing can-i-deploy checks and recording deployments using Kubernetes / Helm? I wondering if it makes sense to use Helm hooks for these steps. Has anyone had success with that?

thanuxxxx

2022-08-30 14:54

Regarding to the `pactbroker.providerBranch` or tag I still need some clarification. When I do this in Jenkins, what is the value I should assign to that variable? `GIT_BRANCH` or `GIT_MAIN_BRANCH.` From my understanding, the reason we are setting a value here because only that provider branch is eligible for pending pact feature. Is that right?

veaceslav.gaidarji

2022-08-30 15:29

has joined #general

sharonw

2022-08-30 15:29

has joined #general

grace.quek

2022-08-30 15:32

has joined #general

s.kadium1

2022-08-30 16:12

has joined #general

s.kadium1

2022-08-30 16:15

Hi, I'm facing the below issue while publishing the pact json : ```Publishing 'ppe-service-bus-issue-compilation-ppe-service-ent-issue-compilation.json' ... FAILED! 409 Conflict - {"error":"Cannot change the content of the pact for ppe-service-bus-issue-compilation version 1.0.0 and provider ppe-service-ent-issue-compilation, as race conditions will cause unreliable results for can-i-deploy. Each pact must be published with a unique consumer version number. For more information see https://docs.pact.io/go/versioning"}``` I'm not sure why it is failing and the same json file is getting verified when the run the provider from my local machine pointing to the json file. Any idea?

s.kadium1

2022-08-30 17:04

I have tried to invoke the endpoint that publishes the contract with a similar body mentioned below and got a response: ```{ "pacticipantName": "Foo", "pacticipantVersionNumber": "dc5eb529230038a4673b8c971395bd2922d8b240", "branch": "main", "tags": ["main"], "buildUrl": "https://ci/builds/1234", "contracts": [ { "consumerName": "Foo", "providerName": "Bar", "specification": "pact", "contentType": "application/json", "content": "<base64 encoded JSON pact>" } ] }``` Response: ```{ "notices": [ { "type": "error", "text": "Cannot change the content of the pact for ppe-service-ent-issue-compilation version 1.0.0 and provider ppe-service-ent-issue-compilation, as race conditions will cause unreliable results for can-i-deploy. Each pact must be published with a unique consumer version number. For more information see https://docs.pact.io/go/versioning" }, { "type": "info", "text": "" } ], "errors": { "contracts": [ "Cannot change the content of the pact for ppe-service-ent-issue-compilation version 1.0.0 and provider ppe-service-ent-issue-compilation, as race conditions will cause unreliable results for can-i-deploy. Each pact must be published with a unique consumer version number. For more information see https://docs.pact.io/go/versioning" ] } }``` I dont see any difference in the content that is causing this issue

matt.fellows

2022-08-30 22:01

The error in the output is quite clear. You need to use a unique version each time you publish a pact

matt.fellows

2022-08-30 22:01

Otherwise you can invalidate previous results

matt.fellows

2022-08-30 22:22

see also https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/troubleshooting#409-when-publishing-a-pact. Also, please avoid cross posting unless there is a reason the community would benefit from it. A lot of the maintainers are based in different timezones, and will help you if/when they can.

sumanta.roy

2022-08-31 01:33

has joined #general

shuying.lin

2022-08-31 05:45

has joined #general

victor.lopez

2022-08-31 10:08

has joined #general

nfinley

2022-08-31 15:52

has joined #general

hartror

2022-09-01 06:26

has joined #general

uralsmh

2022-09-01 10:37

has joined #general

uralsmh

2022-09-01 10:38

Hi, Can we use pact for integration tests with mocking rather using mock-server ?

matt.fellows

2022-09-01 11:24

With Pact, you must use the mock server. It?s an important part of how the framework captures the contract.

matt.fellows

2022-09-01 11:24

If you want a slightly more decoupled approach, you can consider something like our BDCT approach: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/bi-directional-contract-testing There are differences in the value/guarantees they provide, the link above discusses some of these trade offs.

krystof.sykora

2022-09-01 12:34

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-09-01 13:18

:arrow_up: *Level up your testing game with Full Stack Testing Academy* Are you hunting for contract testing training materials for you and your team? Our friend @pietrucha.bartosz ? the founder of Fullstack Testing Academy ? covers this in his course, including launching a new Pactflow module. The course starts on *October 6th, 2022.* Our Developer :avocado: @yousafn has personally completed the course and has given it the :thumbsup:. It covers all you need to know about full-stack web application testing and automation. We think it will be helpful for many teams in improving their test quality, knowing how and when to employ test automation at what level, and using tools in their appropriate context. From unit, integration, E2E tests, and automation to CI/CD and contract testing, everything is in one place. @pietrucha.bartosz is generously providing our community with a ?50 discount. Use the code `PACT_FLOW_50` to secure your spot. Sign up :point_right: <https://pactflow.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=d975bc32fd84ad3580ed4777e&id=1581d47252&e=f3a6913421 |here>. The course will teach you: ? the good practices of unit, integration, and e2e testing and learn how to implement them in front-end and back-end ? How to test the architecture from different perspectives like dependencies and abstraction layers ? The importance of setting up different quality gates in the project securing its long-term success ? How to establish an automation mindset to free your time to do the ?real work? and monitor quality metrics provided by different tools The course is delivered via 1-2 hours of dense video content, with assignments after each module to put into practice what you learned. In includes lifetime access to on-demand video lessons, as well as ten weeks of support on Slack and via Zoom. If you have any questions, I?m sure @pietrucha.bartosz will be happy to to field them.

pietrucha.bartosz

2022-09-01 14:15

Thanks for the heads-up @matt.fellows :wave::skin-tone-3: Feel free to join the 10-week journey :tada:

lesa

2022-09-01 14:34

has joined #general

gunesmes

2022-09-01 15:31

has joined #general

uralsmh

2022-09-01 15:55

@matt.fellows actually i am looking for some alternatives for mock-server

rubemfsv15

2022-09-01 18:45

Thank you all for the contribution, it was enlightening. I'm maturing the idea, and when I have something more concrete I'll get back in touch!

matt.fellows

2022-09-01 23:12

What's your goal?

uralsmh

2022-09-02 09:19

Remove the dependencies and mock the response

matt.fellows

2022-09-02 09:21

That's what Pact does.

matt.fellows

2022-09-02 09:22

If you want to use your own mocks, that's where bidirectional comes in. You can use your own locking tools and convert to a consumer contract

uralsmh

2022-09-02 09:25

I never used Pact but is it ok to do this with Pact as well, right ?

uralsmh

2022-09-02 09:25

Cause its not a contract testing to be honest its more integration test

matt.fellows

2022-09-02 09:26

No, you must use the mocker server with pact to generate a contract. Once you've done that we can provide a stub server you can use to remove dependencies

matt.fellows

2022-09-02 09:26

It's not a general purpose mocking tool

uralsmh

2022-09-02 09:26

So should I use mock-server in any case ?

matt.fellows

2022-09-02 09:30

Just so I'm clear, what exactly are you proposing

uralsmh

2022-09-02 09:30

Mocking response and isolate service from other dependencies

matt.fellows

2022-09-02 09:30

Ok. Will you be using one of the pact languages?

uralsmh

2022-09-02 09:31

You mean smth like pact-js ?

matt.fellows

2022-09-02 09:38

Yeah

uralsmh

2022-09-02 09:38

yeap..

uralsmh

2022-09-02 09:39

When I check this documentation seems mock server is possible but I guess I need to use stub server as well https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js

uralsmh

2022-09-02 09:39

So the things confused me do I still need to use mock-server(https://www.mock-server.com/) or can I achive samething with pact

mvliannoi

2022-09-02 09:47

Hello! I have three questions about the global Pact conception. 1. Please, tell me, should I separate pact files demands on provider features? For example, I have an API for the Task Manager application and implemented API by feature architecture on the C# language. Such as TaskCrud (CRUD operations on tasks), TaskFilter (filtering tasks) etc. And SPA React application, where I write contact tests. So my question is, should I have a single pact file (e.g. `task-api-consumer-task-api-provider.json`) for checking responses to all features from the provider side or better split generating pact files depending on provider features (e.g. `task-api-consumer-task-api-provider-crud.json` and `task-api-consumer-task-api-provider-filter.json`) and after that writing two verification test methods on the provider side for each coming pact files? 2. Where should I save the pact file path? Is reading from a configuration file (such as launchSettings.json) for a test project better than C# constant? 3. If a consumer has many providers, which algorithm is better to use if I need to publish one pact file to a specific provider? Depend on the pact file prefix, or save the pact file in a particular folder during generation on the consumer side on passing tests? Thanks, Maksym

matt.fellows

2022-09-02 09:48

Once you've created a pact you can use the stub server a bit like http://mock-server.com. but it's not a general purpose mocking tool, so you'll need to see how far it gets you

matt.fellows

2022-09-02 09:49

Remember it's goal is creating contracts, and ensuring your mocks don't drift from reality

uralsmh

2022-09-02 10:02

Is delays, erroneous situations etc possible with Pact?

matt.fellows

2022-09-02 10:19

I've responded in #pact-net

matt.fellows

2022-09-02 10:20

No non functional tests like delays, but 4xx and 5xx yes

alanwallaceross

2022-09-02 16:27

has joined #general

wdridi1

2022-09-02 18:59

has joined #general

daviseago

2022-09-03 02:16

has joined #general

daviseago

2022-09-03 02:22

:wave: Hi everyone! I?m quite interested in contract test. Our system has two parts: one is on cloud, the other is on edge. They communicate via MQTT (over websocket). How can this be contract tested? Will pact help in this case?

tjones

2022-09-03 06:56

Yes, you can use message pacts for this. It's not quite as end-to-end as an http pact, but it still brings a substantial improvement to deployment confidence.

tjones

2022-09-03 07:15

see here https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/how_pact_works#non-http-testing-message-pact

daviseago

2022-09-03 11:20

Thanks Timothy!

mvliannoi

2022-09-05 22:14

Hello! I feel a bit confused about using provider states. Even after reading https://docs.pact.io/provider/using_provider_states_effectively, seeing examples of test applications on the web and trying to find https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1660921939235489?thread_ts=1660917914810099&cid=C5F4KFKR8 about that - even after that, it is tough to consolidate naming and describe a little algorithm of his naming. So, as I can see, if we are mocking the repository layer (or even the business service layer that is directly referenced to the repository layer) - we should set a human-readable provider state. For example, for Task Manager API and test `GET` and `POST` methods, we should name the provider states as `Task with existing ID is available` and `Task with the correct body is created`. But, how should we call the provider state of checking _unauthorized_ scenarios or _bad requests_ (with invalid request body)? And which name of the provider state is better in the point of view of Pact best practices, the first one or `post-task-success` and `get-task-success`?

abubics

2022-09-06 00:59

I would definitely tend towards human readable, and describe a state that the provider can represent before a request is made. ? "Task with existing ID is available" sounds ok, although "existing ID" is hard for me to understand, but it might be very meaningful for your domain. ? "Task with the correct body is created" sounds more like an outcome or action, rather than a declarative state. If you take it from a ReST perspective, it might be easier to think about. You want to say "my provider is in this state, so when my consumer asks it to perform an action, my intended outcome will be achieved". The same state could be useful for several actions. A `POST` may only need a parent resource to exist beforehand, so that's all you need to specify. The same state may work for a `GET` or `DELETE` of the parent, too.

abubics

2022-09-06 01:08

For an unauthorised scenario, it should be enough to say "there are no users", or "there are no sessions", or "an unauthorised user". However you want to phrase the concept (that the provider can represent) that means any incoming request will be rejected.

abubics

2022-09-06 01:08

For bad requests, you don't even need a provider state. The request should be rejected at the front door (e.g. controller layer) before any domain logic is even applied.

abubics

2022-09-06 01:10

Or, if the bad request is invalid for domain reasons, rather than structural reasons, then it'll be something like a joining resource is missing, or something isn't in the right state (e.g. a date is too early/late, or a transaction is in the wrong phase, etc).

tjones

2022-09-06 01:47

Also, you probably don't need bad requests in your pact. Pact tests are consumer driven - which means they cover the interactions that the consumer will actually send.

tjones

2022-09-06 01:48

You might need unauthorised scenarios because an authentication token might expire, and so your consumer will want to handle this - but unless your consumer is expected to sometimes send bad requests, you don't need this in your pact

hsanghavi538

2022-09-06 02:33

has joined #general

mvliannoi

2022-09-06 06:43

It seems a bit more challenging than I imagined. So, I created a diagram of your answers. Can you please check if it is correct? Also, I want to ask, should we provide a separate state when we cannot find the object by id? @matt.fellows Matt, please, can I ask you for an additional answer to this question?

matt.fellows

2022-09-06 06:45

I agree with the comments from Andras and Tim

mvliannoi

2022-09-06 06:48

Thanks, Matt!

abubics

2022-09-06 06:51

I'd be interested to know what kind of invalid input you expect your API client to produce. That might remove a third of your cases, which can also be caught be Pact.

matt.fellows

2022-09-06 06:52

One thing to consider is whether or not you want to test all of the authorization errors per endpoint, or just a representative sample on a key endpoint (usually, auth is universally applied so I?d tend to only run these once, and not across the entire set of API endpoints)

abubics

2022-09-06 06:53

Also, it would be surprising if all the endpoints handle auth by themselves, so the general "unauthorised" contract should be the same test, regardless of endpoint. Depends on your auth model, but I usually don't duplicate it for every endpoint/verb combination.

abubics

2022-09-06 06:54

great minds? :stuck_out_tongue:

matt.fellows

2022-09-06 06:55

If your client code is designed so that you can?t send a bad request, that might be hard to test properly. You can still of course have a scenario somewhere that can deal in a generic `4xx` or `5xx` error (auth errors probably warrants a separate error handling to validation or system outages). That can probably be done outside of Pact though, because it might be hard to produce a `5xx` on the provider side

abubics

2022-09-06 06:56

The "bad request" response should still be handled, but probably in provider-level (functional?) tests, rather than contract tests. I.e. you want it to respond appropriately if a new consumer makes bad requests (e.g. `curl`)

mvliannoi

2022-09-06 06:59

Authorization sets on an entire controller, so I cannot imagine how we can test it once. Only if check it for GET method, and delete from every endpoint, for example

mvliannoi

2022-09-06 06:59

For example, for tasks/{id} - if id is string-value, we cannot accept null and should return bad request with validation errors object

abubics

2022-09-06 07:03

Can your consumer actually send a request like that, though? An ID like that usually (at least, in my code) comes from the provider, and is sent back without modification (optionally parsed into a strong type, too).

abubics

2022-09-06 07:04

What kind of auth do you have per controller? Is it, like, granular claims per endpoint, or something?

tjones

2022-09-06 07:05

Pact is not about testing that your API behaves as specified, it's about testing that your API behaves as the client actually uses it

abubics

2022-09-06 07:06

oh yeah, that might be the missing piece :pray:

tjones

2022-09-06 07:08

So you don't need to cover cases that your client doesn't send

tjones

2022-09-06 07:09

If you want to cover something other than what the client sends, then you might want a different tool for that, or you could use pact with a fake consumer

mvliannoi

2022-09-06 07:18

So, is that conclusion correct? ? We should cover only each case that client sends to our provider; ? Check unauthorized responses only once per endpoint (e.g. for GET method); ? Give names to provider states as generic as we can, but complete them as human-readable as possible; ? Cover with Pact case for bad request, where expect a validation error object from a provider - is okay

tjones

2022-09-06 07:28

> We should cover only each case that client sends to our provider; Yes, and all response types (eg both 404 and 200 for `GET /some/item`) > Check unauthorized responses only once per endpoint (e.g. for GET method); Yes, usually - generally you need one response type per client behaviour. For example, if your client treats all 401s the same, then you don't need tests for invalid token vs expired token, etc. But, if the server responds with a reason that prompts the user differently (ie, if the client relies on a specific field value eg `reason: "expired_token"` to switch some behaviour), then you'll want a test for each response > Give names to provider states as generic as we can, but complete them as human-readable as possible; Yes > Cover with Pact case for bad request, where expect a validation error object from a provider - is okay Yes. Examples might include `username: " "`, which maybe the user can enter, might return `400: {reason: "Your username must not contain spaces" }`, or maybe `username: "bob"` -> `{reason: "Your username is too short" }` In a case like that, if the behaviour is "show the reason to the user", then you don't need to test each reason that the provider might reject a username, you just check that the response is `400 { reason: <string> }`

tjones

2022-09-06 07:29

> Give names to provider states as generic as we can, but complete them as human-readable as possible; To add to this, keeping the pact states consistent across multiple consumers for the same provider can be annoying - but pact is not a substitute for team to team communication (I'm afraid :sweat_smile:)

tjones

2022-09-06 07:34

If you want to read more on the last point about functional tests vs contract tests, this page is pretty helpful: https://docs.pact.io/consumer/contract_tests_not_functional_tests

mvliannoi

2022-09-06 07:41

Great, everything is understood but requires a lot of practice. Thank you very much @tjones @abubics @matt.fellows!

tjones

2022-09-06 07:42

Awesome! Feel free to ask more questions when/if you have them

thibaut.bodart

2022-09-06 10:41

has joined #general

bastien.decroix

2022-09-06 11:45

has joined #general

pabcagi

2022-09-06 12:28

has joined #general

patrickbadley

2022-09-06 13:25

has joined #general

james.grubb

2022-09-06 19:19

has joined #general

snehasingh291506

2022-09-06 19:42

has joined #general

snehasingh291506

2022-09-06 19:46

Hello! I wanted some clarification because I'm a bit confused. I have read in the doc that Pact supports several languages, but I just want to make sure that I can write the provider-side verification in goLang and use typescript for the consumer-side.

senchu.pampoorickal

2022-09-06 20:15

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-09-06 22:56

Yes, assuming the consumer is a typescript app and the provider is a Golang one

nagasrinivas.thota

2022-09-07 06:56

has joined #general

mahinsyeda99

2022-09-07 09:40

has joined #general

sashaavramchik

2022-09-07 13:19

Hi there! Could someone explain me what's the point of using 'Environment' in pactflow? I thought it's replacement for tags but seems like I'm wrong

snehasingh291506

2022-09-07 13:28

Getting the below error while running pact test in the consumer side... i might be doing something really stupid but just can't figure out what... ```'use strict' process.env.REACT_APP_ENGINE_SERVICE_URL = 'http://localhost:8992' import { expect } from 'chai' import path from 'path' import { Pact } from '@pact-foundation/pact' import { fetchACEFields } from '../api/index' describe('fetch ACE fields', () => { const port = 8992 const objectType = 'dummy' const provider = new Pact({ port: port, log: path.resolve(process.cwd(), 'logs', 'mockserver-integration.log'), dir: path.resolve(process.cwd(), 'pacts'), spec: 2, consumer: 'webapp', provider: 'engine-service', pactfileWriteMode: 'merge', }) const expectedBody = { status: true, data: [{ fullName: 'dummy' }] } before(() => provider.setup()) after(() => provider.finalize()) afterEach(() => provider.verify()) describe('request to fetch fields', () => { before(done => { const interaction = { state: 'fetch ace fields', uponReceiving: 'a request to get all ace fields', withRequest: { method: 'GET' as const, path: `/ace-fields?object_type=${objectType}`, headers: { Accept: 'application/json', }, }, willRespondWith: { status: 200, headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json', }, body: expectedBody, }, } provider.addInteraction(interaction).then(() => { done() }) }) it('verify it returns the correct response', async () => { const res = await fetchACEFields(objectType) expect(res).equal(expectedBody) }) }) }) Error: ReferenceError: navigator is not defined at Object.<anonymous> (/Users/snehasingh/Documents/webapp/node_modules/flags/node_modules/supports-color/browser.js:3:58) at Module._compile (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:1068:30) at Module._extensions..js (internal/modules/cjs/loader.js:1097:10) at Object.require.extensions.<computed> [as .js] (/Users/snehasingh/Documents/webapp/node_modules/ts-node/src/index.ts:1445:43) ```

matt.fellows

2022-09-07 13:34

It looks like something needs a web runtime but you're running in a node environment?

snehasingh291506

2022-09-07 13:49

Okay, so I believe that my tsconfig.json file may be to blame since I'm attempting to run a front-end test with backend configuration. That could be it?? @matt.fellows

lisnychyis

2022-09-07 14:00

has joined #general

marek.czerwinski

2022-09-07 16:07

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-09-08 00:59

could be

matt.fellows

2022-09-08 01:00

It doesn?t look like a Pact issue though. Remove all of the pact bits and see if you get the same issue - then you?ll know

xiaofeng02111

2022-09-08 03:20

has joined #general

alan.zhu

2022-09-08 04:15

Hi team I try to do timestamp check in LambdaDSL?is there a proper way to do accurate timestamp check in LambdaDSL?For now I only do a looser type check? ```.object("updatedAt", updatedAt -> updatedAt .integerType("epochSeconds",1661307606)```

uglyog

2022-09-08 04:27

If it's an integer value, there is not much else you can do

matt.fellows

2022-09-08 04:49

Hi all! :wave: Next week I?ll be speaking at API Days in Melbourne, on the challenges of testing modern, multi-protocol microservices at scale. The talk is titled: ?Schemas are not contracts! Why contract testing matters in the age of gRPC, Kafka and GraphQL? I have 10 free in-person tickets to give away for the conference (worth about $800 AUD). If you are keen in attending, use the promo code IKNOWMATTFELLOWS , https://www.apidays.global/australia?utm_source=IKNOWMATTFELLOWS&utm_campaign=SC (and drop me a DM). No strings attached, please feel free to share to anyone who might benefit from a great conference. You can also register for free online access Hope to see you there :slightly_smiling_face:

abubics

2022-09-08 05:38

`IKNOWMATTFELLOWS` namedrop for free tix lol :joy:

jayvdb

2022-09-08 06:22

has joined #general

snehasingh291506

2022-09-08 07:36

Any idea what is causing this: ```'use strict' process.env.REACT_APP_ENGINE_SERVICE_URL = 'http://localhost:8992' import path from 'path' import { Pact } from '@pact-foundation/pact' import { fetchACEFields } from '../api/index' const port = 8992 const objectType = 'dummy' const provider = new Pact({ port: port, log: path.resolve(process.cwd(), 'logs', 'mockserver-integration.log'), dir: path.resolve(process.cwd(), 'pacts'), spec: 2, consumer: 'webapp', provider: 'engine-service', pactfileWriteMode: 'merge', }) describe('fetch ACE fields', () => { const expectedBody = { status: true, data: [{ fullName: 'dummy' }] } beforeAll(async () => { await provider.setup(); }); describe('request to fetch ACE fields', () => { beforeAll(async () => { await provider.addInteraction({ state: 'fetch ace fields', uponReceiving: 'a request to get all ace fields', withRequest: { method: 'GET', path: `/ace-fields?object_type=${objectType}`, headers: { Accept: 'application/json', }, }, willRespondWith: { status: 200, headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/json', }, body: expectedBody, }, }); }); test('verify it returns the correct response', async () => { const res = await fetchACEFields(objectType) expect(res).toBe(expectedBody) }) }) })```

matt.fellows

2022-09-08 08:10

It looks like a CORS problem. I?d suggest running this in a node environment, or usinsg the `cors` flag (also this looks to be a JS question, could you please add future JS questions in #pact-js?)

matt.fellows

2022-09-08 08:13

I did see a recent cors issue in the Pact JS repo, so it might be related.

yousafn

2022-09-08 12:04

:wave: Hey all, hope you are doing well. I?ve just created a new Slack channel called #blogs where you can post, or see links to Pact/Pactflow and Contract testing related posts. If you have any posts you want to share, feel free to pop them in. If you post about contract testing, let me know. I think I would like to build up an RSS feed for contract testing related posts, similar to https://www.ministryoftesting.com/feeds/blogs Also thank you to @anja.gruss for the first post to go live in #blogs, why not hope over and check it out

snehasingh291506

2022-09-08 12:10

when i run it in node env i get navigator not defined error..

vvarunbajpai1988

2022-09-08 12:13

has joined #general

tjones

2022-09-08 12:26

What is your client using to send http requests?

tjones

2022-09-08 12:27

From the error, it looks like you're using xmlhttprequest objects (which is pretty unusual these days). For the best experience with pact, you'll want to run it in a node environment. To use xmlhttprequest in node, you'll want a shim like this: https://www.npmjs.com/package/xmlhttprequest

tjones

2022-09-08 12:28

(disclaimer: I have never used that library, I just found it now)

snehasingh291506

2022-09-08 12:48

we are using axios

tjones

2022-09-08 12:54

Axios will work in node, so that's not the problem. Something is using the navigator API, which doesn't exist outside the browser. It's not pact and it won't be axios

zakir

2022-09-08 12:55

has joined #general

tjones

2022-09-08 12:55

I would guess it is something in your code

gregory.hanson

2022-09-08 12:56

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-09-08 13:23

Are you running tests in Jasmine perhaps? I think axios will attempt to use the xmlhttprequest interface if not in a node environment

tjones

2022-09-08 14:03

The problem is that outside node, it's failing as expected - and inside node, it's failing with `navigator not defined`

ashishmerani

2022-09-08 21:54

has joined #general

ramesh.ambastha

2022-09-09 11:06

has joined #general

nickm

2022-09-12 17:15

has joined #general

uzma_khan

2022-09-12 18:13

has joined #general

danielflieger

2022-09-13 06:57

Hey community, thanks in advance for the support! Let?s assume a consumer application triggers a post call to a provider. Within the request of that call comes a request body in a json format. I wonder if the consumer should structure that request body with matchers just like he does with response body, or should he put a json-object for any reason? My suggestion is to use matcher for request body just like with the response body, but I?m not what?s best practice here. Thanks!

matt.fellows

2022-09-13 06:58

Usually you wouldn't, because the matchers on the request are only used in the consumer test

matt.fellows

2022-09-13 06:58

And hopefully it's a unit test, so you should be able to control the conditions and this be very specific

matt.fellows

2022-09-13 06:58

In some cases it's warranted but as a general rule I'd avoid it

matt.fellows

2022-09-13 06:59

The matchers aren't used outside of that scope so there's no additional benefits of them being there

danielflieger

2022-09-13 07:01

Thank you very much.

tjones

2022-09-13 07:08

Matt is completely correct. I'd add - the point of the matchers is just to relax the reliance on exact test data when verifying the provider. If you use any matchers at all, you are saying "I believe this test covers all messages that pass the matchers for this example"

stefan.tertan

2022-09-13 15:28

has joined #general

lnthai2002

2022-09-13 21:29

Hello, i wanna use the pactfoundation/pact-cli docker image to run my bash script to record deployment to pact broker as the last step of my CI/CD pipeline. Since we have quite a number of services deployed, my bash script need to loop over the deployed services and run "pact-broker record-deployment" for each. However, i soon realized that this docker image does not have bash and when i build a custom image from this image with bash installed, i got "NoMethodError - undefined method `request_uri' for #<URI::Generic ?>" when calling pact-broker. I suspect the ruby env is missing something when running from bash. Do you have a docker image built with bash instead of sh? if not, how do i fix this undefined method error?

tjones

2022-09-13 22:11

I don't know the answer to your questions, but I'm pretty sure that the CLI docker image will have bash, as I think the CLI needs it to run. Someone else can confirm

lnthai2002

2022-09-13 22:33

Thanks for the quick reply. As far as i can tell, the pact-cli image only has sh, not a fully functional bash so associated array is not supported. Anyway, i found the issue with my script on my customized image.

matt.fellows

2022-09-13 22:37

does the host that runs the image have bash? Why not just call the CLI docker multiple times?

lnthai2002

2022-09-13 22:50

my script is run in a kubernetes job as part of a helm chart that get installed after the deployment is done. I prefer to install this post deployment helm chart once to record all the services that have been deployed instead of installing this chart multiple time each for one service that was deployed.

mvliannoi

2022-09-14 01:59

Hello, guys! Could we continue our discussion about provider states with ideas from my colleagues? My colleagues propose to introduce the one _God state_ that sounds like ?`default`? and introduce something another; only if we need to change the response to the client from mocked domain service (repository layer). In ?_standard_? conditions, will we behave in the following situation: ? Verifying for HTTP 401 Unauthorized status code - will be done on the layer of Authorization middleware (C# language). So if the client does not send the Authorization header in his request - we regard that as ?`an unauthorised user`? scenario and respond with HTTP 401. So, the provider doesn't have any mocks of domain services in that case (or even if it has, for us, it doesn't matter), and we don't see sense in introducing another provider state. ? Verifying for HTTP 400 Bad Request - will be very similar to the first one, but in that case, a client should pass the Authorization header on his request, and we _automatically_ assign it to this user admin role. And if given other body doesn't meet controller / DTO validation - we expected this response from the provider. And even in this case, execution doesn't execute to mocked domain services - so we can say that it doesn't matter what is mocked on this layer during that verification on the provider side. ? Verifying for HTTP 200/201 Success/Created - but in this case, it is the most complicated because the main idea from my colleagues is if it a just positive case and we don't have any specific response to the client - mock all domain services that are using for verification on the provider side to himself all methods in positive cases. So, in conclusion, I need your help to answer the two main questions: Is that correct from the point of view of Pact conception and in theory, is that implementable on .NET with Moq library (will we not use only the last mock for each domain services, as I write before - because that will be a lot, for each domain service for all himself methods to mock positive scenarios)? Thanks

abubics

2022-09-14 02:29

I don't know much about the .NET ecosystem, so some of those questions might be better placed in #pact-net :sweat_smile:

abubics

2022-09-14 02:30

There are a few considerations I'd like to mention, but if your approach works for you, then I don't see why you shouldn't use it :slightly_smiling_face:

abubics

2022-09-14 02:31

401 isn't just for missing the header, but also for authenticated users trying to access resources that they don't have authorisation for. If that's not a use case for you, then that's fine.

abubics

2022-09-14 02:33

> _automatically_ assign it to this user admin role Might be fine, but if you have other roles you want to test, then consider being more explicit about it. Newer Pact versions support multiple states, and metadata in states, so you don't have to make unwieldy states.

abubics

2022-09-14 02:34

I prefer to make combinations of more granular states, to increase specificity of tests, and reduce the chance of accidental/coincidental passes.

mvliannoi

2022-09-14 02:57

Thank you, Andras! I understand; so, if that is correct from the point of view of global conception - it should be implemented just like that

abubics

2022-09-14 02:59

As very general advice, yes :slightly_smiling_face: I would just try it, and see what problems you end up with. Nothing is really perfect on the first attempt :innocent:

tjones

2022-09-14 04:24

Remember that Pact is not about describing the whole API, but just the parts your client needs. Usually you don't need to test 400 bad request, unless the client is expected to receive and understand that (eg some designs with validation might be done this way)

mvliannoi

2022-09-14 04:31

Yes, that's already clear to me after our previous discussion. Thank you, Timothy

tjones

2022-09-14 04:37

Ah, sorry. I didn't check which discussion was above :sweat_smile:

tjones

2022-09-14 05:12

FWIW: Yes, I usually end up with a default state, or several default states (one per use case). Something like "user with ID 10 exists who has task 1 open and task 2 closed". This isn't so much "best practice" as it doesn't provide any value other than convenience. However, it is definitely convenient.

tjones

2022-09-14 05:12

I believe pact specification version 3 allows multiple states, which might obviate the convenience provided by a default state.

tjones

2022-09-14 05:15

I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying with the 400 example and the auto-assign an admin role. Are you saying that in the contract you have eg `Authorization: Bearer SOME_TOKEN` and you auto-assign permissions to `SOME_TOKEN`, so that they can access the endpoint? That sounds fine to me.

tjones

2022-09-14 05:17

That's a good example for the several defaults pattern - I would have `default authorized` where `SOME_TOKEN` is considered valid, and `default unathorized` where `SOME_TOKEN` is considered invalid.

tjones

2022-09-14 05:18

This would then cover @abubics?s example of an invalid token being provided. This is almost always a use case, as tokens almost always have an expiry date.

mvliannoi

2022-09-14 05:39

Andras has also written about newer Pact versions and multiple provider states. So that is definitely what I need to figure out. But, if we are talking about the default provider state, I mean the provider state with the name exactly `default`, not `"user with ID exists who has task 1 open and task 2 closed"`. Just `default`, without a shortcut or, better, an alias for getting a specific user. But, if we rethink that process, the default aligns only for fetching all users or getting one by id, so a provider state with a name default isn't enough. Instead, we should inject a new provider state with a different name (maybe as `"user with ID exists who has task 1 open and task 2 closed"`). If moved back to Authorization, so in our contact tests, we implemented him by adding additional middleware https://github.com/DiUS/pact-workshop-dotnet-core-v3/blob/master/Provider/tests/TestStartup.cs#L22, such like ```services.AddAuthentication(AuthenticationHandler.Schema) .AddScheme<AuthenticationSchemeOptions, AuthenticationHandler>(AuthenticationHandler.Schema, _ => { });``` and ```public sealed class AuthenticationHandler : AuthenticationHandler<AuthenticationSchemeOptions> { public const string Schema = "Test"; public AuthenticationHandler(IOptionsMonitor<AuthenticationSchemeOptions> options, ILoggerFactory logger, UrlEncoder encoder, ISystemClock clock) : base(options, logger, encoder, clock) { } protected override Task<AuthenticateResult> HandleAuthenticateAsync() { AuthenticateResult result; var authorizationHeader = Context.Request.Headers.Authorization; if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(authorizationHeader)) { result = AuthenticateResult.Fail( new UnauthorizedAccessException("To access API, you must provide a Bearer token.")); return Task.FromResult(result); } var claims = new[] { new Claim(ClaimTypes.Name, "Test user"), new Claim(ClaimTypes.Role, "admin") }; var identity = new ClaimsIdentity(claims, Schema); var principal = new ClaimsPrincipal(identity); var ticket = new AuthenticationTicket(principal, Schema); result = AuthenticateResult.Success(ticket); return Task.FromResult(result); } }```

mvliannoi

2022-09-14 05:40

Nowadays, seem like that workshop is deprecated :sads:

tjones

2022-09-14 05:41

For me, I don't like the name `default` as it is ambiguous - I would confuse it with "the state that a blank provider would start in". But the concept of "this state actually covers most of the situations I want to test" is pretty helpful.

mvliannoi

2022-09-14 05:45

Agree. We should think about a name that says, "we mocked all domain services for all positive scenarios, that's also compatibly to test all 401 unauthorized and 400 bad request requests"

tjones

2022-09-14 05:45

This is where the granular states really help. With one state, you would go: ```state: "user with ID=10 exists who has task 1 open and task 2 closed" GET /users/10 returns {/* user 10 */}``` and ```state: "user with ID=10 exists who has task 1 open and task 2 closed" GET /users/10/tasks returns [{/* id=1, open */}, {/* id=2, closed */}]``` with granular states, you could say: ```state: ["user with ID=10 exists"] GET /users/10 returns {/* user 10 */}``` and ```state: ["user with ID=10 exists", "user 10 has task ID 1, which is open", "user 10 has task ID 2 which is closed"] GET /users/10/tasks returns [{/* id=1, open */}, {/* id=2, closed */}]``` this has clear advantages when you want to add new concepts (eg, "task 2 has comments from user 12")

tjones

2022-09-14 05:46

I would say what the state is, not what it is for

tjones

2022-09-14 05:47

eg `SOME_TOKEN is an invalid admin auth token` not `SOME_TOKEN returns 401`

mvliannoi

2022-09-14 05:49

Granular states look fantastic and don't confuse like just `default`

mvliannoi

2022-09-14 05:54

Regarding authorization, to verify the 401 status code in our contact tests, we should skip the header, so it's tempting to get something common state for that. But should we react on _provocation_ or make a separate state that sounds like `SOME_TOKEN is an invalid admin auth token`?

mvliannoi

2022-09-14 05:56

The same goes for a situation when we don't need to mock anything on the provider side (e.g. for bad request testing). How should we do that?

tjones

2022-09-14 06:04

I usually just don't provide any provider state in that case. What you're saying then is "it doesn't matter what state the provider is in, I expect request X to respond with Y"

tjones

2022-09-14 06:04

Apologies, I don't think I understood your 401 question

mvliannoi

2022-09-14 06:15

> I usually just don't provide any provider state in that case I am a bit surprised. Is that possible? > Apologies, I don't think I understood your 401 question Sorry, my guilt is related to the general difficulty of our enterprise system. It seems like we can just don't provide any provider state in that case, also if it's possible

tjones

2022-09-14 06:18

> Is that possible? Yep. The point of provider states is to set up some precondition. If you don't have any preconditions, you don't need to use them. If you prefer, a related pattern is to use empty states - like "there are no users", which you implement to do nothing during setup or teardown. This is a neat way to use the states as documentation.

mvliannoi

2022-09-14 06:24

Great, I understand. Can you also help me define the provider state for testing entity creation (POST method)? Something like `"user with ID=10 does not exist"` is a good one? Whereas, for other methods (GET, PUT and DELETE), we can adapt your granular states example

tjones

2022-09-14 06:33

> "user with ID=10 does not exist" This is exactly what I do.

tjones

2022-09-14 06:35

Note that Pact might run requests in any order, so the "no states" case should always be empty. Typically you do this by either: ? Implementing teardown for each state ? Implementing a blank state that resets the server

mvliannoi

2022-09-14 06:43

Sorry, I don't understand you completely. What does it mean to teardown for each state? As I understand, for the state that is representing no-state or, in other words, nothing preparing / mocking on the provider side - such as the "there are no users" state we should do nothing before pact verification of that test case. So, what does it mean to do a teardown or reset the server on such states? Can you please explain more?

tjones

2022-09-14 06:46

Apologies, I wasn't clear. Pact might verify the interactions in any order. So, if you have interactions with no state, you need to make sure that the interactions that _do_ have state are torn down. Eg: ```start server with mock repos that are empty "user 10 exists" setup - mock user repo layer so that user 10 exists teardown - replace mocked user repo layer with empty mock```

tjones

2022-09-14 06:47

alternatively, you can do: ```"user 10 exists" setup - mock user repo layer so that user 10 exists "there are no users" setup - mock user repo layer so that it is empty```

mvliannoi

2022-09-14 06:53

Perfect, everything is clear!

mvliannoi

2022-09-14 06:54

Thank you very much, Timothy! For giving me a ton of helpful information and allocating more than three of your hours :slightly_smiling_face:

konitzert

2022-09-14 07:11

has joined #general

tjones

2022-09-14 07:21

You're welcome!

matt.fellows

2022-09-14 12:09

interesting. Must you use associative arrays or could you achieve this using other ash primitives? I don?t expect us to want to add Bash to the image any time soon

matt.fellows

2022-09-14 12:10

It?s probably not out of the question, but would require some consideration (e.g. it would be a breaking change if others depended on it)

lnthai2002

2022-09-14 13:24

I am also looking for alternative to bash script, i noticed the pact-broker command is a ruby script. Perhaps i could write a ruby script that read the environment variables passed in to the docker container and then call the record-deployment function directly. However, my knowledge of ruby is limited, i would appreciate very much if you can point me how to call the record-deployment.

daniel.puiu

2022-09-14 13:43

has joined #general

edouard.lopez

2022-09-15 08:55

We are starting to explore gRPC as a replacement of HTTP REST in my company, some developers argues that contract testing isn't necessary anymore. What value does pact bring in such situation?

tjones

2022-09-15 09:23

Schemas are not contract tests

tjones

2022-09-15 09:26

I?ll let someone else take this one though

tjones

2022-09-15 09:26

Really the question is: why do they think it wouldn't bring value?

matt.fellows

2022-09-15 10:23

You should watch my talk on this, I literally spoke on it yesterday at API Days in Melbourne :laughing:

matt.fellows

2022-09-15 10:24

Schemas are not contracts: https://pactflow.io/blog/schemas-are-not-contracts/ Why gRPC is not inherently safe: https://pactflow.io/blog/the-case-for-contract-testing-protobufs-grpc-avro/

2022-09-15 10:24

https://pactflow.io/blog/schemas-are-not-contracts/

matt.fellows

2022-09-15 10:25

We do have a gRPC and Protobufs plugin (see #protobufs if you?re interested, but it is still in beta support as we iron things out) which should help. It doesn?t currently cover the forwards compatibility case where a provider adds a new required field. But we have some ideas on how to address that too

edouard.lopez

2022-09-15 12:06

@matt.fellows Thanks for the links. What' the title of your conf? seems it's not published yet

matt.fellows

2022-09-15 12:34

Yep should be up the next few days I hope. I'll publish when it is. It's "schemas are not contracts: why contract testing matters in the age of gRPC, Kafka and Graphql"

2022-09-15 12:34

https://pactflow.io/blog/schemas-are-not-contracts/

l.heluszko

2022-09-15 13:12

has joined #general

edouard.lopez

2022-09-15 16:00

I think you have a typo in the article:

alecat88

2022-09-16 10:25

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-09-16 11:45

Ah thanks, I'll look next week when back!

chris.armbrester

2022-09-16 11:45

has joined #general

zohaibse011

2022-09-16 13:28

has joined #general

nvenkataraman

2022-09-16 17:17

has joined #general

zach.davis

2022-09-16 20:18

has joined #general

jorbraken

2022-09-16 20:29

has joined #general

paulorochag

2022-09-16 20:50

Hello everyone, I translated the material to english, enjoy: https://github.com/PauloGoncalvesBH/contract-test-nirvana

paulorochag

2022-09-16 20:51

People, I created a repository demonstrating how it should be the implementation of webhook, pipeline and contract tests of Provider and Consumer applications in order to achieve what is considered Pact's Nirvana. The diagram in README.md can help group members understand the entire architecture of contract testing. https://github.com/PauloGoncalvesBH/contract-test-nirvana

zach.davis

2022-09-16 21:50

Hi, I must be missing something obvious and I'm guessing this has been asked and answered already, but I couldn't find anything specific which answers the following scenario. Using a git feature branch workflow and following the https://docs.pact.io/provider/recommended_configuration on the pact documentation: ``` consumer_version_selectors [ { main_branch: true }, { matching_branch: true }, { deployed_or_released: true } ] enable_pending true include_wip_pacts_since provider_branch == "main" ? "2020-01-01" : nil``` How is the following flow supposed to work? 1. feature B branch created from main branch 2. feature A branch created from main branch 3. feature A builds new API for consumer, satisfies new consumer pact 4. new consumer pact and feature A branch merged back to main 5. main branch verifies new pact, removes pending status 6. feature B runs through CI with the above consumer selectors We are seeing that on step 6, this now fails verification since the new pact was verified on main branch. This branch doesn't have the new api/provider state, so fails the pact. Is this expected?

paul.ologeh

2022-09-16 23:25

has joined #general

tien.xuan.vo

2022-09-19 01:55

Where is the doc for matchers formats located? I think I can't find it. I'm looking for something like this: ? v2: `"name": { "contents": "rover", "json_class": "Pact::SomethingLike" }, "type": { "data": { "generate": "bulldog", "matcher": { "json_class": "Regexp", "o": 0, "s": "bulldog|sheepdog" } }`https://docs.pact.io/slack/pact-message-ruby.html#1522380995.000036 ? v3: `{ value: 123, 'pact:matcher:type': 'type'}`https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/master/src/dsl/matchers.ts I think the `matchers` in https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/tree/version-2 and https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/tree/version-3 is something else different, not related, right? I can't find it here too https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/matching

uglyog

2022-09-19 02:06

Are you asking about the general format of matchers, or the specific fields for a given matcher? A lot is documentation at https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/tree/version-3, but I don't think the V2 format was properly documented

uglyog

2022-09-19 02:07

The V2 format you posted above is a Ruby specific encoding of Ruby classes to JSON

uglyog

2022-09-19 02:11

The V3 example is the integration JSON used between language implementations using Pact FFI

uglyog

2022-09-19 02:13

I don't think we have formally documented that format, but it is the same as what the V3 spec documents with the exception the type of the matcher is encoded in the `pact:matcher:type` attribute.

abubics

2022-09-19 02:39

From a more fundamental level, though, unless you're writing an implementation of a Pact lib, it should be fine for the JSON format to be opaque. Is that what you're doing? :thinking_face:

tien.xuan.vo

2022-09-19 02:46

Yes, I'm working on updating pact-php. I'm looking for doc that help me update this code https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-php/blob/master/src/PhpPact/Consumer/Matcher/Matcher.php to this code https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/master/src/dsl/matchers.ts I can blindly follow pact-js. A doc about `pact:matcher:type` would be nice to have for me.

abubics

2022-09-19 02:46

ah ok, that makes sense, then :sunglasses:

uglyog

2022-09-19 03:06

Yeah, I need to document that format, it came out of the implementation of moving Pact-JS over to the FFI libs. Anyone else using the FFI libs will need to know how to construct those.

purushothamv02

2022-09-19 14:19

has joined #general

lcruz

2022-09-19 23:05

has joined #general

tjones

2022-09-20 05:34

> A doc about pact:matcher:type would be nice to have for me. I would *love* the documentation for this (and the overall pact file format in general). It would be great for building tooling that compares pact files, for instance

tjones

2022-09-20 05:35

For example, you could determine if your contract is a subset of another consumers contract

tjones

2022-09-20 05:36

provider teams could use this (along with their own pact tests) to provide provider contracts that you could verify consumer side: ? Provider writes pact using a mock client, and verifies it ? Consumer writes pact using their real client, and compares their outputted pact file to the verified pact. If it is a subset of the verified pact, you're good

sweiba

2022-09-20 07:26

has joined #general

adam910

2022-09-20 12:32

has joined #general

adam910

2022-09-20 12:44

Hi, I am trying to implement Pact as contract testing for our company. Currently I do not understand following: ? I have got working test on consumer service and verify on provider service ? when consumer service is built and `can-i-deploy` passes new contract is published to pact broker (this is in build pipeline) ? this publishes contract e.g. `consumer 1.0 & provider 1.0` ? when I deploy `consumer 1.1` this will publish contract `consumer 1.1 & provider 1.0` ? when I deploy `consumer 1.2` this will publish contract `consumer 1.2 & provider 1.0` now my question is if I deploy `provider 1.1` how do I publish new contract between consumer and provider? I guess in this case if we follow the above example if `provider 1.1` is deployed then contract between `consumer 1.2 & provider 1.1` should be published? how do I publish this new contract new consumer builds? or am I missing something?

owen.oclee.old

2022-09-20 13:59

Hi, is anyone using Pact to mock out and verify the responses from a document store like ElasticSearch? I have a use case where I?d like to avoid needing to have a running instance of ES when running automated tests locally, but still have the opportunity to verify the expectations are valid, and it seems like Pact might be good for this. Curious to know if this would be feasible and if anyone else has done this before?

p.pommerencke

2022-09-20 14:00

has joined #general

dekkofilms

2022-09-20 20:05

is it possible to watch a recording of this talk? @matt.fellows

anhtvuong

2022-09-21 01:39

has joined #general

abubics

2022-09-21 02:02

You don't get a new contract in that case, the new version of the provider just needs to verify against the same contract :party_parrot:

abubics

2022-09-21 02:03

It gets more fiddly if you need to also verify old contracts, but that's facilitated with version selectors.

abubics

2022-09-21 02:06

This page might answer some bits of that question: https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/what_is_pact_good_for#what-is-it-not-good-for

abubics

2022-09-21 02:09

The rest of the answer is probably best in the form of some extra questions . . . ? Are you using an ElasticSearch client library? If so, you should probably just stub that. ? If you used Pact, would you also be running verifications against ES? ? ES has an https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/cloud/current/ec-openapi-specification.html, so could you get by with a generator for stubs?

timothee.ville

2022-09-21 08:09

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-09-21 11:15

I?d like to clarify the use of language here Adam, as it?s important: > when consumer service is built and can-i-deploy passes new contract is published to pact broker (this is in build pipeline) > this publishes contract e.g. consumer 1.0 & provider 1.0 Publishing should happen _before_ running `can-i-deploy` and deployment of code. You should publish on every build, and use https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/branches and https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/recording_deployments_and_releases to document what you are working on, and when you have deployed. You then use https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/consumer_version_selectors on the provider side, to verify the appropriate contracts. > when I deploy consumer 1.1 this will publish contract consumer 1.1 & provider 1.0 See above. If you deploy a consumer 1.1 that should use the `record-deployment` command. This can only happen _after_ publishing of a contract > when I deploy consumer 1.2 this will publish contract consumer 1.2 & provider 1.0 as per above. > now my question is if I deploy provider 1.1 how do I publish new contract between consumer and provider? > I guess in this case if we follow the above example if provider 1.1 is deployed then contract between consumer 1.2 & provider 1.1 should be published? how do I publish this new contract new consumer builds? or am I missing something? No, you don?t. The contract is published from the consumer always. The provider verifies the contracts. If there is a new version, you just push the code and let it verify any existing contracts. I?d recommend https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana and the https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/workshops#pact-workshops---from-0-to-pact-in-2-hours

matt.fellows

2022-09-21 11:18

The videos don?t look like they?re https://www.youtube.com/c/apidays. I?ll let y?all know when they are :slightly_smiling_face:

dekkofilms

2022-09-21 11:39

Awesome, thanks for keeping us posted! Would very much enjoy to hear your talk specifically and learn more :slightly_smiling_face:

tymoschuk.jane

2022-09-21 12:38

has joined #general

tony.nguyen

2022-09-21 13:41

has joined #general

sashi.kandru

2022-09-21 13:45

has joined #general

khaled.bali

2022-09-21 18:01

has joined #general

m.mertens

2022-09-21 18:41

has joined #general

mforsman

2022-09-22 09:13

has joined #general

shivendra.singh1

2022-09-22 10:04

has joined #general

vaibhav.tiwari

2022-09-22 10:04

has joined #general

akshaythakur2905

2022-09-22 10:06

has joined #general

sukriti.kumari

2022-09-22 10:07

has joined #general

p.kowalska

2022-09-22 10:35

has joined #general

mazin.inaad

2022-09-22 13:21

has joined #general

mazin.inaad

2022-09-22 13:34

Hi all, I am looking into implementing contract testing within a new project. The thing is: we are developing our api's using a contract first approach. And the contracts themselves are part of a separate git repo. I'm looking for any documentation or examples of such projects so that we can determine how we could implement contract testing on this project. If anyone has any tips, please let me know :slightly_smiling_face:

tjones

2022-09-22 16:05

What?s in your contract files?

tjones

2022-09-22 16:05

I would say Pact *is* contact-first. As in, the consumer defines the contract

varnit.garg2424

2022-09-23 08:32

Hello! I need some advise. Let?s say there are two services A and B connected using http and protobuf A -> *monolithic* legacy service which is written in `Ruby` (*Consumer*) B -> *microservice* which is written in `GoLang` (*Producer*) Do I need to use `pact-ruby` and `pact-go` on consumer and producer side respectively? Is there anything in addition I should before introducing the pact contract tests?

matt.fellows

2022-09-23 08:37

If you mean OAS, it's an orthogonal concept to pact. You can use them in parallel but you can't use them to drive pact tests.

matt.fellows

2022-09-23 08:41

One option is to combine Pact (to prevent breaking changes and help safely evolve the ecosystem) and/or use tools like Pactflows bidirectional contract testing (supports OAS) or the https://www.npmjs.com/package/@pactflow/swagger-mock-validator tool to prevent for OAS from drifting from actual usage

megha.t

2022-09-23 09:13

Hi All, What are the best practices for provider versioning? Is it possible to make the versioning dynamic? I went through the docs that recommend appending the commit sha to the version but how do you decide whether it should be v1 or v2 dynamically or does the developer need to update the Provider version on each change to the provider? ref-https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/versioning_in_the_pact_broker Any help will be appreciated!

matt.fellows

2022-09-23 09:15

The version can be really whatever you want, but it definitely needs to be automated. Every single time you change the provider, the version should change. Hence why we recommend the SHA. It also needs to be able to be reproduced (e.g. when you run other commands). The version of the provider must therefore be stable

megha.t

2022-09-23 09:20

Thanks for the speedy response @matt.fellows So I am a bit unclear ...At present, when I verify a contract from the provider end, I manually enter the provider version, update it when it is a major change in the api. (Sample go code for the same) I was thinking of making this version dynamic but how to identify if the change is a major update eg:api update or a minor patch. FYI I am a newbie to pact ```_, err := pact.VerifyProvider( s.T(), types.VerifyRequest{ ProviderBaseURL: providerBaseURL, PactURLs: []string{"http://pactbroker-gamma.comp-tech.net:9292/pacts/provider/agent_template/consumer/gemini/latest"}, CustomProviderHeaders: []string{customHeader}, PublishVerificationResults: true, ProviderVersion: "1.0.0", BrokerUsername: brokerUsername, BrokerPassword: brokerPassword, }, )```

matt.fellows

2022-09-23 09:30

OK cool. This versioning is unrelated to Pact. It?s the version of your code. Some teams like to use versions like `x.y.z` (semver) but this is no use in Pact, because each version could map to different commits - some of which may or may not be compatible with other things. If you?re confused about what to put here, don?t overthink it - just put your git sha in there

matt.fellows

2022-09-23 09:30

At the top the TL;DR is what I?d follow: > To avoid race conditions, the application (pacticipant) version number that is used to publish pacts and verification results should either _be_ or _contain_ the commit (ie. the git SHA or equivalent for your version control system).

mastahfreak

2022-09-23 09:47

has joined #general

tjones

2022-09-23 11:26

https://github.com/absolute-version/absolute-version-js

tjones

2022-09-23 11:26

^ I wrote this tool to solve this problem nicely

kellie.persson

2022-09-23 17:50

has joined #general

tjones

2022-09-25 14:12

I think your question is missing a verb, but it?s also a bit too general to help without more context

tjones

2022-09-25 14:13

you?ll have a better time with pact-ruby and pact-go on each side, but you don?t technically _need_ to

tjones

2022-09-25 14:14

Also it might depend on what you want to do with protobuf. The protobuf plugin isn?t release ready, I think

tjones

2022-09-25 14:15

#protobufs might have what you need

tomknee1

2022-09-25 18:43

Hello, quick question regarding `recording deployments and releases` on the provider side. When we deploy the provider to an environment (e.g. `staging`), it is deployed to multiple `staging` k8s clusters. Should something like `application instances` be considered for deployment of the provider app into each cluster when recording deployment in the pact broker? We were looking at doing the `record-deployment/release` command on provider side as a helm post-install job, but then the command I guess would be run for deployment to every cluster, but I imagine we maybe only need the command called once for the deployment to `staging` environment, rather than for each `staging` cluster ? Would really appreciate any tips on correct approach here. We were looking at this helm post-install hook approach as this better ensures that deployment (to a cluster etc) was actually successful before we run the `record-deployment` command

tjones

2022-09-25 23:10

As I understand it, application instances is more appropriate for things like mobile app releases, where a new deployment doesn?t mean an undeployment of the previous release

tjones

2022-09-25 23:12

It?s hard to know without more information about your setup, but you could consider each staging cluster as its own environment, or you might want to consider deploying to all of them as one deployment (if deployments to individual clusters never happen)

tjones

2022-09-25 23:14

if you have staging-consumer-1 and staging-consumer-2, but they both can connect to staging-provider, then application instances is probably the best approach. But this design sounds like you?d have a bad time with deployment confidence, whether or not you use pact.

matt.fellows

2022-09-26 00:01

Is each k8s cluster serving a different logical environment, or are they all logically the same environment but topologically different (e.g. to support HA)?

matt.fellows

2022-09-26 00:01

If the latter, then `record-deployment` to `staging` is probably all you need. If they are separate environments, you should call `record-deployment` to each logically different environment

matt.fellows

2022-09-26 00:22

:microphone: Talk is up! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICwB_H1nyW4&list=PLmEaqnTJ40OodNzyBYYedoKLZsR9I-nXA&index=27

tomknee1

2022-09-26 08:28

Thanks, they are logically the same environment, just different regions etc in case one goes down

tjones

2022-09-26 08:29

Can you treat deploying to all clusters as one atomic deploy?

matt.fellows

2022-09-26 11:36

That's what I'd do. If they happen relatively quickly I wouldn't be concerned. If the roll out takes enough time that you could reasonably be worried another deployment attempt could happen during the rollout, then you could record releases to each cluster and then unrecord the previous version release after cutover to each cluster is complete.

tomknee1

2022-09-26 11:38

thanks both, they happen pretty much at the same time and relatively quickly too, i'll look into treating it as one atomic deploy as that also matches our understanding of "environments" on consumer side too :+1:

matt.fellows

2022-09-26 11:48

:+1:

kbon

2022-09-26 13:58

has joined #general

tanyaryzhova93

2022-09-26 18:53

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-09-27 01:25

OK looked at the logs - definitely a bug (or at least, currently unsupported). See https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/issues/220 If you can avoid a context path for now that would work around it, otherwise you?ll have to wait for a fix here until it?s supported

varnit.garg2424

2022-09-27 03:12

Hi @tjones Thanks for the response! Sorry for the typo in my question. Actually my question is pretty genetic and I?m confused since there are so many pact plugins available like pact-jvm, ruby, go etc `you'll have a better time with pact-ruby and pact-go on each side, but you don't technically _need_ to` Can you please explain it a bit? Would it be possible to write the pact tests without using pact-ruby since consumer service is written in pretty old version of Ruby ? Also, would contract tests be ideal to have between a monolithic and microservice ?

tjones

2022-09-27 07:02

> Would it be possible to write the pact tests without using pact-ruby since consumer service is written in pretty old version of Ruby ? Apologies, I probably led you a bit astray. It's technically possible, but you'll be much better off using the native framework for your language(s), as then you can easily (eg) call client code, etc.

tjones

2022-09-27 07:02

> Also, would contract tests be ideal to have between a monolithic and microservice ? Yes. Contract tests are useful any time you have a consumer (client) and a provider (server) that are deployed separately.

varnit.garg2424

2022-09-27 08:00

It helps! Thanks a ton. I?ll start on it and will get back in case of any questions:)

tjones

2022-09-27 08:03

Glad to help!

tomknee1

2022-09-27 08:57

did u mean to send this to a different thread?

mvliannoi

2022-09-27 10:12

Hello! Can anyone please tell me if anybody has experience sending requests with Content-Type `"application/octet-stream"` (_pact-js library_) and verification on the provider side with C# language (_pact-net library_)? Because of many of my attempts, the response is 200 on the provider side, but when I try to test HTTP 400 Bad Request, I cannot find a suitable `withRequest` body for that test. ``` test("...", async () => { const badRequestData = { error: { code: "validationError", message: "Validation error(s) has occurred", details: [], }, }; const badRequestResponse = somethingLike({ error: { code: like(badRequestData.error.code), message: like(badRequestData.error.message), details: like(badRequestData.error.details), }, }); const status = 400; await provider.addInteraction({ state: "...", uponReceiving: "...", withRequest: { method, headers, path, body: "\u0000" }, willRespondWith: { status, body: badRequestResponse }, }); expect.assertions(3); try { await testService.sendContent(mailboxId, content); } catch (e) { checkIfHttpError(e, status); expect((e as AxiosError).response?.data).toStrictEqual(badRequestData); } });``` ```[ApiController] [Route("test")] public class TestController : ControllerBase { private readonly ITestService _testService; public TestController(ITestService testService) { _testService = testService; } [HttpPost("...")] [Authorize(...)] [Produces("application/json")] [Consumes("application/octet-stream")] [ProducesResponseType(type: typeof(TestResponse), StatusCodes.Status200OK)] [ProducesResponseType(StatusCodes.Status400BadRequest)] [ProducesResponseType(StatusCodes.Status401Unauthorized)] [ProducesResponseType(StatusCodes.Status500InternalServerError)] public async Task<TestResponse> HandleAsync(string id, [FromQuery(Name = "fileName")] string? fileName) { if (Request.ContentLength == 0) { throw new InvalidArgumentException("Request body should not be empty"); } var messageId = await _testService.HandleAsync(id: id.ToLower().Trim(), fileName, Request.Body); return new TestResponse(messageId); } }```

anand.krishnan

2022-09-27 10:45

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-09-27 11:00

:microphone: Last week I spoke at API Days in Melbourne, about how https://pactflow.io/blog/schemas-are-not-contracts/ and how contract testing is still relevant in the age of gRPC, Kafka and GraphQL! The talk is live here :point_right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICwB_H1nyW4&list=PLmEaqnTJ40OodNzyBYYedoKLZsR9I-nXA&index=27 Part theory, part rant, part signalling what?s to come with Pact - I hope you enjoy and let me know what you think :eyes:

2022-09-27 11:00

https://pactflow.io/blog/schemas-are-not-contracts/

varnit.garg2424

2022-09-27 11:12

Hello, I?ve recently joined a new project and currently *we don?t have anything to test the integration between two services*. We are planning to *introduce the contract testing*, however, I?m curious to know if we add contract tests, do we still need to create another layer in the test pyramid to carry out the functional integration testing? Or is it possible to tweak our contract tests in such a way that just one layer of *contract tests can help with functional testing as well?* (I understand that it will make the tests unnecessary complicated, but just checking about the feasibility of covering functional testing as part of pact testing layer). I would like to know your opinion on this :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2022-09-27 11:14

I absolutely did, very sorry! Not sure?how I did this :man-shrugging:

tomknee1

2022-09-27 11:15

no worries :smile:

matt.fellows

2022-09-27 11:15

What?s the issue with the `400` use case?

matt.fellows

2022-09-27 11:16

Best to keep the functional tests separate. You get a lot of functional test for free as part of pact testing, but you won?t be able to easily test side effects and that will be hard to do with Pact in a way that?s not brittle

tjones

2022-09-27 11:23

I agree with Matt. The way most people write contract tests, there will naturally be some functional _coverage_, but it is incidental / a consequence of the contract test- because some of the functional code happens to be exercised during the test. The primary reason that we don?t recommend functional testing with contract tests is that (especially in consumer driven contract testing) the consumer doesn?t know or define all the provider?s behaviour. Consider username validation- there might be many rules, but the consumer doesn?t necessarily know them.

tjones

2022-09-27 11:24

In that example, the contract test can say ?here is how I expect you to tell me that the username is not valid?, rather than ?here are all the scenarios that the username will not be valid?

estelle.margoutin

2022-09-27 12:00

has joined #general

mvliannoi

2022-09-27 18:34

Sorry for the long time to answer. The issue is more related to the Axios library. It would be great if you, Matt, could help me deal with that. Because for now, it is a real blocking issue for our team. The main problem is sending an empty object with the type ArrayBuffer in the body and "application/octet-stream" as a content type request in the contract test - to get a validation error from the provider. To get such a response from the .NET part - the request content length should be zero. But all of my attempts to send, such as ArrayBuffer(0), don't represent Request with zero content type on the provider side, and as a result - API is trying to do some domain logic with this data returns 200 as well

hazem

2022-09-27 20:46

question about matching arrays. i have a pact that i'd also like to reuse as a stub for testing the consumer ui. my goal is to generate a realistic response that i can reuse as a stub for a ui integration test and also a minimalistic pact definition for the provider to verify, eg atLeastOneLike. is there a matching option that would generate something to support this? pseudo specification ``` { picklists: atLeastOneLike([ {id: 1, name: 'She/Her'}, {id: 2, name: 'He/Him'}, {id: 3, name: 'They/Them'}, {id: 4, name: 'Other'}, ]) }``` so that the generated stub response for the consumer definition is: ``` { picklists: [ {id: 1, name: 'She/Her'}, {id: 2, name: 'He/Him'}, {id: 3, name: 'They/Them'}, {id: 4, name: 'Other'}, ] }``` and the generated matcher for the provider is: ``` "matchingRules": { "body": { "$": { "combine": "AND", "matchers": [ { "match": "type" } ] }, "$.picklists": { "combine": "AND", "matchers": [ { "match": "type", "min": 1 } ] } },```

tjones

2022-09-27 21:19

Pact doesn?t support ?or? on purpose- see the FAQ

matt.fellows

2022-09-28 01:06

No problems. I?m not sure I can give you an answer without detailed exploration on ArrayBuffers. Could you just omit the binary content altogether?

matt.fellows

2022-09-28 01:07

Personally, I don?t think this is a useful test case for Pact though - it feels more of a functional test of the provider. You?re trying to force a `400` on the provider by given them garbage and by knowledge of why it?s causing a `400`. The main thing is that the consumer _can_ handle a `400` . The consumer test should not encode detailed knowledge of how the provider works like this, as it might lead to brittle tests if the provider changes its validation.

mvliannoi

2022-09-28 01:17

Maybe, but it is a part of our actual business logic case, which calls for sending empty files from consumers. Omit from binary content we cannot do because it must be in the protocol of our system. Most possible that I should manually find which is request body sending in UI during that case and pass them in our contract test

matt.fellows

2022-09-28 01:32

I think Hazem is asking about the pact to store all different examples in it that would still comply with the matching rules. The way it works now is you provide a single example e.g. ``` { picklists: eachLike({id: 1, name: 'She/Her'}, 4) }``` and then if you used it as a stub, you?d get back ```[ {id: 1, name: 'She/Her'}, {id: 1, name: 'She/Her'}, {id: 1, name: 'She/Her'}, {id: 1, name: 'She/Her'} ]```

mvliannoi

2022-09-28 02:00

Yeah, it seems we send `ArrayBuffer(0)` to test empty file sending on our UI. But, Pact convert `withRequest` `body` to null if that body is `{}` or `ArrayBuffer(0)` ``` [2022-09-28 01:54:13.419 +0000] ERROR (26056 on ...): pact@9.18.1: error making http request: Request failed with status code 500 FAIL .../__tests__/TestingService.contract.test.ts (5.606 s) ? Console console.error at node_modules/@pact-foundation/src/httpPact.ts:151:17 console.error Pact verification failed! at node_modules/@pact-foundation/src/httpPact.ts:152:17 console.error Actual interactions do not match expected interactions for mock MockService. Incorrect requests: POST /.../004b90d2 (request body did not match) Diff with interaction: "a bad post content request" given "..." Diff -------------------------------------- Key: - is expected + is actual Matching keys and values are not shown { - "body": { - } + "body": null } Description of differences -------------------------------------- * Expected a Hash but got nil at $.body See C:/.../.../.../pact/logs/...-mockserver-interaction-port-9001.log for details. at node_modules/@pact-foundation/src/httpPact.ts:153:17``` ``` await provider.addInteraction({ state: "...", uponReceiving: "a bad post content request", withRequest: { method, headers, path, body: /* new ArrayBuffer(0) or {} */ }, willRespondWith: { status, body: badRequestResponse }, }); expect.assertions(3); try { await keyService.sendContent(mailboxId, new ArrayBuffer(0));```

matt.fellows

2022-09-28 02:17

Well, what is an empty array buffer? It?s 0 bytes of data

matt.fellows

2022-09-28 02:18

JSON has no concept of an array buffer, so it needs to be converted into something expressible in JSON. A 0 byte object is _nothing_

mvliannoi

2022-09-28 02:20

You're right; I didn't even think about that

mvliannoi

2022-09-28 02:25

So, can we conclude that it is a colossal corner case that cannot be tested with contract tests due to JSON limitation for working with binaries, only if our team agrees to do that with functional tests on the provider (API) side?

matt.fellows

2022-09-28 02:45

Yeah, I think the main confidence you want to get here, is that your consumer can handle a `400` . You could do that with provider states, and be agnostic to _how_ the `400` happened (but it?s a bit clunky for the provider). You should definitely functionally test the provider for its validation use cases, but these belong in the provider code base

mvliannoi

2022-09-28 02:55

I understand. Thank you very much, Matt! :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2022-09-28 03:02

You?re welcome!

tjones

2022-09-28 03:09

Right. I think it would be good to extend to: ```eachLike(itemDescriptionWithMatchers, exampleArray?)``` So that you could say: ```eachLike( {id: number(), name: string()}, [ {id: 1, name: 'She/Her'}, {id: 2, name: 'He/Him'}, {id: 3, name: 'They/Them'}, {id: 4, name: 'Other'}, ] )```

tjones

2022-09-28 03:12

Although, if this: > i have a pact that i'd also like to reuse as a stub for testing the consumer ui. is the use case, I think that sounds unnecessarily complex. I think it would be better to stub the business object that you assert on in your pact test. For example, if your pact test looks something like: ```pact.addInteraction(/* whatever */) it("returns the correct object", () => { const businessObject = myApi.getWhatever() expect(businessObject).toEqual(expectedBusinessObject) })``` Then you can use `expectedBusinessObject` in stubs, stubbing out `myApi` completely :raised_hands:

matt.fellows

2022-09-28 03:55

Yep, that would be nice. I think the use case is not for the direct pact unit test, but re-using the generated pact file from the stub server later on in UI tests (e.g. cypress). It?s nice to use the pact file for those, because now you?re certain the APIs you?re faking in your UI tests are valid scenarios the provider supports.

matt.fellows

2022-09-28 03:56

Pact has its limitations for those scenarios, but if you can get by with them it?s a real boon

tjones

2022-09-28 04:41

Yes, we are on the same page about the use case. I think a mock (that you assert using pact) is a better fit than a stub api in that case

tjones

2022-09-28 04:41

It?s the same thing we do in a provider test

criss.trifan

2022-09-28 05:36

has joined #general

dimundo

2022-09-28 11:35

hi! compatibility is verified against latest versions with tag is there a mechanism, to verify against ? latest n versions with tag ? or ? versions having tag within last n months

matt.fellows

2022-09-28 11:46

What?s your use case Dmitry?

matt.fellows

2022-09-28 11:46

Recording releases is probably the best way of managing this. You `release` a version of a consumer and a provider can verify all released versions. When a version is no longer relevant, you un-release it

matt.fellows

2022-09-28 11:47

I?d be concerned about ?last n? or time based, because it is not very specific and could result in more tests running that aren?t relevant, or false positives because we?ve overnight stopped caring about an important version

dimundo

2022-09-28 12:07

we have ios bundle - bunch of JS statics our client gets bundles from all suppliers and makes big app sends to Appstore all this hassle is very time consuming and could last months so how can we track, that bundle we shipped some time ago is compatible

dimundo

2022-09-28 12:08

last n is more scary

dimundo

2022-09-28 12:08

so, lets assume - we must support our stuff for 1/2 year

dimundo

2022-09-28 12:08

with just checkin `live` its not enough

dimundo

2022-09-28 12:09

> When a version is no longer relevant, you un-release it looks like i need google something :slightly_smiling_face:

dimundo

2022-09-28 12:10

looks like this ? > record-undeployment --pacticipant my-retired-service --environment test

dimundo

2022-09-28 12:11

> ```record-support-ended --pacticipant foo-mobile-app --version 6897aa95e --environment production``` >

dimundo

2022-09-28 12:11

much wow

dimundo

2022-09-28 12:13

still this is some manual thing

dimundo

2022-09-28 12:17

like after some time i need to find that `--version 6897aa95e`

dimundo

2022-09-28 12:27

or then there is a need in some webhook/api, which would fetch something and un-release based on something

noor.hashem

2022-09-28 13:07

Hi! I was wondering if it was possible with pact to have the consumer tests run against a live provider instead of just the static contract?

yousafn

2022-09-28 13:24

Hey, Bi-directional contract testing is a consumer pact file compared against a static contract (OAS file is currently the only supported) Consumer driven contract testing with Pact, is performed against a locally running provider https://docs.pact.io/provider This wouldn't be your live provider, as you would get the feedback as to breaking changes post deployment which is too late. There is a case where you may want monitoring on your endpoints post deployment, to ensure they work but that is beyond the scope of a contract test, (more a health check / smoke test / canary test ), although I think there is a use case, where a consumer contract file could be used as the input for a live verification. I would consider this FAQ question around 3rd party systems https://docs.pact.io/faq#why-pact-may-not-be-the-best-tool-for-public-testing-apis as the caveats are the same for testing against a live provider

vipatel

2022-09-28 15:29

has joined #general

olaoluphilip

2022-09-28 15:51

has joined #general

hazem

2022-09-28 16:38

yes - your earlier discussion above is what i was looking for, eg ```eachLike(itemDescriptionWithMatchers, exampleArray?)``` apologies, i may have used _stub_ a little too loosely here. :grin: i was referring to the feature in `pactfoundation/pact-stub-server` where we can start a local stub-server running our pact definitions. so in this case, i was hoping to define a pact basically as suggested in the eachLike example.

vieira.jluiz

2022-09-28 17:20

has joined #general

shuo.yang.2006

2022-09-28 19:48

has joined #general

shuo.yang.2006

2022-09-28 19:53

Hi Pacters, We are moving from monolithic app to the micro-service, and I felt end-2-end testing is not sustainable. I just got to know this open source project. However, though I understand what pact wanted to enable us (doing away with the dependence toward e2e testing yet maintaining the peace of mind of releasing), I did not fully understand how can a provider team?s code commit and trigger consumers? contract testing

shuo.yang.2006

2022-09-28 20:00

Imagine a provider service lives in a repo http://GitHub.com/sean/provider.git (hypothetical), it provides an api of 1+1=2; and now, as the owner of this api, I wanted to change it to 1*1=1 (which breaks the contracts, but I did not know) I?d like to get help to understand how pact can help me to know I am checking in something that is impacting my consumers.

yousafn

2022-09-28 20:31

I'd advise checking out our learning material howtolearn

2022-09-28 20:32

Here are a number of useful hands-on labs that teach all of the key concepts: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops and https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/workshops

yousafn

2022-09-28 20:34

Welcome! Good move, both on breaking up the monolith, and knowing that e2e testing isn't scalable in the traditional way. I've popped a link in your other ask with regards to some resources that can help you understand how Pact can aid you as a provider, in understanding how your consumers interact with your API :+1:

yousafn

2022-09-28 20:35

There is a short in browser tutorial that will help showcase Pact and its breaking change detection in action :+1:

shuo.yang.2006

2022-09-28 21:14

Thanks @yousafn@yousafn@yousafn for sharing the pointers. I did watch the 40 mins videos (4 videos of ~10mins) However, I still did not fully understand how the provider repo?s PR or commit can trigger the consumers? contract verification (which is implied in this slide https://docs.pactflow.io/resources/pactflow-demo-pack_2020.pdf)

yousafn

2022-09-28 21:21

Webhooks are used to trigger builds (provider builds when the consumer contract has changed) https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/webhooks This is the latest webhook event for that purpose https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/webhooks#using-webhooks-with-the-contract_requiring_verification_published-event In regular provider builds, the provider will verify pacts by a set of defined consumer version selectors, to ensure it is compatible - some of our recommended setups are mentioned https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/consumer_version_selectors#recommended https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/consumer_version_selectors Hope this helps a bit

matt.fellows

2022-09-29 00:35

> Imagine a provider service lives in a repo http://GitHub.com/sean/provider.git (hypothetical), it provides an api of 1+1=2; and now, as the owner of this api, I wanted to change it to 1*1=1 (which breaks the contracts, but I did not know) is this a functional change, or an API interface change? That matters, because Pact isn?t a functional testing tool

matt.fellows

2022-09-29 00:35

i.e. it doesn?t check for side effects

matt.fellows

2022-09-29 00:36

shuo.yang.2006

2022-09-29 00:39

I felt it?s contract testing (we want to make sure the contract is what we want to facilitate among teams)

matt.fellows

2022-09-29 00:43

can you be more explicit with your hypothetical example though? is `1+1=2` the body of the code, or the API?

matt.fellows

2022-09-29 00:44

> I did not fully understand how can a provider team?s code commit and trigger consumers? contract testing it doesn?t, it goes the other way around. The consumer publishes a consumer contract (their needs) and that is checked against the provider - the triggering goes this way.

matt.fellows

2022-09-29 00:45

If you need it the other way around and have a provider contract (as an OAS), Pactflow has https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/bi-directional-contract-testing which might be helpful. Or there are OSS tools that can compare the OAS to a pact file and you can create your own workflows around those tools

tjones

2022-09-29 00:53

Yes, that's my understanding of what you're wanting to do with the stub server. My recommendation is to use the test fixtures from your contract test (rather than the contract) to do the stubbing, as it will be simpler, with less moving parts but similar strengths and weaknesses. But, the approach of the stub server is fine too

nirmalcbaral

2022-09-29 15:27

has joined #general

hazem

2022-09-29 15:51

i see your point, however in our case we want to specifically use a stub server to host the api responses as this level of integration testing seems to meet the needs/desires from two separate front-end component teams. is the request above easily doable? ```eachLike(itemDescriptionWithMatchers, exampleArray?)``` we're using pact-js and this would be a great enhancement for our usage there.

ruppel.julian

2022-09-29 20:03

has joined #general

alipala.ist

2022-09-29 20:28

has joined #general

tjones

2022-09-29 23:59

No, I don't believe this is currently supported. @uglyog - can you confirm? You can report this as a feature request against pact-js in this repo: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js

educationextended

2022-09-30 04:59

has joined #general

alan.zhu

2022-09-30 09:31

Hey team I try to find some GraphQL solutions on Pact but find https://docs.pact.io/recipes/graphql, any reference on it ?

matt.fellows

2022-09-30 11:21

There's a GraphQL example in the Pact JS and Pact Go docs.

ross.butler

2022-09-30 11:22

has joined #general

koen.jans

2022-09-30 15:06

has joined #general

hazem

2022-09-30 15:50

thanks for the feedback, i went ahead and logged the https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/955 request since i've already dug around in the code.

lnthai2002

2022-09-30 16:46

Hello, Let say I have 3 applications A, B and C calling each other like this A->B->C within the same API. I understand that the provider test is to check if the provider B implementation complies with the pact generated by the consumer A and since we ae testing implementation, we need the B running with its implementation. However the provider B is also a consumer of provider C. Does it mean the provider test of B also need C running with its implementation?

matt.fellows

2022-10-01 06:48

You should stub C out when you run the B provider test, and then write a separate set of tests for B->C

ksawery.karwacki

2022-10-01 13:12

has joined #general

jesper.nilsson

2022-10-01 13:59

has joined #general

mansillamarcelo90

2022-10-02 22:06

has joined #general

yulia.tekin.86

2022-10-02 22:55

has joined #general

rachel.anderson

2022-10-02 23:39

has joined #general

ashok.pathak

2022-10-03 10:25

Hi Guys, a simple question If consumer contract contains properties not defined in provider contract for this pactflow doesn't throw any error. I want to understand if validation should be there in pactflow for such scenario or not ?

matt.fellows

2022-10-03 10:32

Can you please share an example of what you mean? The answer to this question is complicated, but the general answer is that it should fail if the consumer needs properties that don?t exist (if it sends properties that don?t exist, that?s not an issue)

ashok.pathak

2022-10-03 10:41

Sure, suppose actual data model contains properties A,B,C but as of now only A,B properties have been published in provider contract but consumer sends all A,B,C properties then I am expecting validation error for C as this does not exists for consumer

matt.fellows

2022-10-03 11:52

Sending an additional value is always safe for a provider. It would just ignore the field it doesn?t know about

tomknee1

2022-10-03 13:38

Hello, I just made a sample webhook in my local CLI like this example ```pact-broker create-webhook https://api.github.com/repos/ORG/REPO/dispatches \ > --header=Authorization Bearer $PAT \ > --request=POST \ > --consumer=ConsumerApp \ > --provider=ProviderService \ > --contract-requiring-verification-published``` In my output I got `Webhook "POST http://api.github.com" created` but no UUID, this is using the ruby `pact-cli`... When I try via docker run, I get the same output without any UUID, can anyone help please or know why?

tomknee1

2022-10-03 13:51

ah it looks like i see it in the json response when i go to `/webhooks`

tomknee1

2022-10-03 21:24

Hello, one more question regarding creating webhook with pact broker please, docs say that ?data flag accepts file or string, but when I give a json file path (absolute) it doesn?t work, but passing the json contents as a string does work, is there something I?m missing when trying to use file instead of string? It?s like it reads the file path as a string

jason.stahl

2022-10-03 22:19

has joined #general

sreeragsa

2022-10-04 03:03

has joined #general

ashok.pathak

2022-10-04 06:58

Indeed, incase of actual API I do agree but incase of contract situation is different. In my situation API is already implemented and now we are creating the provider contract which doesn't contain all the properties as this is a very complex single API which is being consumed by lot of calling applications. Now schema varies according to the calling applications so this happens that not all properties are present in the provider contract. So in current situation we are not able to find the gaps as well which doesn't give consumers also the confidence to rely on PactFlow tool as this doesn't identify the gap in this context.

matt.fellows

2022-10-04 07:10

Can you please share the consumer and provider contract?

matt.fellows

2022-10-04 07:10

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, so seeing an example might help

mazin.inaad

2022-10-04 12:11

Hi, thanks for the responses, sorry for my late reply. I was away for a week. We define our contracts ourselves and use OpenApi to generate the endpoints and DTO's. So I am guessing that there is not much added value to use pactflow.

tara.costin

2022-10-04 14:45

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-10-04 20:28

You need to watch https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1662612592380559 then :wink:

matt.fellows

2022-10-04 20:28

_(or read https://pactflow.io/blog/schemas-are-not-contracts/)_

tjones

2022-10-04 21:04

An OpenApi spec isn?t really a contract. It doesn?t define behaviour, and it typically allows lots of requests or responses that wouldn?t actually be acceptable

tjones

2022-10-04 21:05

You don?t *need* contract testing, but without it you will need to be ultra careful about how you test and deploy. How do you know for sure that there are no breaking changes when you update the schema? How do you know that the changes are backwards compatible etc?

matt.fellows

2022-10-04 21:34

How do you know the version of your SDK matches the version of the provider contract that generated the SDK? This was the big problem with SOAP - we generated SDKs from the WSDL, but that just now meant we had to deploy clients and servers at the same time, because the implementation detail was hidden away

yousafn

2022-10-05 13:09

Hey everyone and happy Wednesday. I have a double treat lined up for you. For the past few years, SmartBear has fielded responses from thousands of API practitioners to map out the current state of the industry. From this data, we are able to identify major industry trends and share them back to you and the community in one comprehensive report, you can take a look at the https://smartbear.com/state-of-software-quality/api/ here. We would love your help to make this year's survey our best yet, and because your time is so valuable, by completing the survey (~15 minutes), you will be given an opportunity to direct a donation, given by SmartBear, to your choice of one of the following charities: Make a Wish, http://AnitaB.org, or Clearloop. Helping us with this report will hugely benefit Pact and Pactflow, in shaping our Roadmap for the future (Multi-Protocol Support need in the market === More time spent working on the Pact Plugin ecosystem) , whilst listening to the very heart of what keeps us doing what we are doing - You! Whilst the state of software quality will look forward to the future, we want to show you what we've been up to from product enhancements and future roadmap, news, events, and industry insights in September. You can find it in our Pactflow POST, the attached PDF for perusal at your leisure. That's all for now, but tune in later in the month when the Pactflow Open Source POST will be going out, telling you about all the awesome contributions that have been occurring across the Pact foundation!

oscar.barbamanzano

2022-10-05 14:18

has joined #general

noor.hashem

2022-10-05 18:13

RESOLVED: ~Hey! How can I input my credit card to pactflow so that I can upgrade to payed version?~

varnit.garg2424

2022-10-06 07:09

Hey, Do we have any example on how to define the tests on consumer side if REST API consumes protobuf instead of json?

matt.fellows

2022-10-06 07:35

Not yet. Might be worth joining the #protobufs channel and we can discuss. The protobuf plugin is quite new, and is not yet supported across the full ecosystem.

matt.fellows

2022-10-06 07:37

You may also like the workaround strategy suggested here: https://medium.com/@ivangsa/consumer-driven-contract-testing-for-grpc-pact-io-d60155d21c4c

varnit.garg2424

2022-10-06 07:51

I see the workaround strategy seems to be a bit complicated, I?ll probably take it as last resort. In general, even though the protobuf plugin is pretty much new, does it work for other users? Let me also start a discussion in #protobufs channel :slightly_smiling_face:

mazin.inaad

2022-10-06 08:31

Hahah ok, Thanks for the links. I will dive into them :smile:

yanov.alexander

2022-10-06 08:39

has joined #general

bxbivc

2022-10-06 10:05

has joined #general

curtis.scott

2022-10-06 11:27

has joined #general

riley.lee

2022-10-06 11:30

has joined #general

oliver.smyth

2022-10-06 11:34

has joined #general

kevin.campos

2022-10-06 11:35

has joined #general

pstrnad

2022-10-06 12:04

has joined #general

rachelxelizabethh

2022-10-06 13:20

has joined #general

pratish

2022-10-06 21:08

has joined #general

ilia

2022-10-06 22:18

has joined #general

edudelta

2022-10-07 15:57

has joined #general

olsen.lee.r

2022-10-07 18:29

has joined #general

johndunning

2022-10-08 18:05

has joined #general

kentooooo.1230

2022-10-09 17:49

has joined #general

gpapadakis84

2022-10-10 12:32

has joined #general

daftpunkapi

2022-10-11 09:22

has joined #general

matteo.demasi

2022-10-11 12:08

has joined #general

matteo.demasi

2022-10-11 12:12

Hello guys, i'm working to a PoC with Pact for a company. Any of you with some experience in Event Driven Testing with Pact? Thank you :slightly_smiling_face:

raul.romitan.ext

2022-10-11 12:17

has joined #general

dominikdieter.krichba

2022-10-11 13:23

has joined #general

ulrich.keil

2022-10-11 13:26

has joined #general

mitchell.l.cooper

2022-10-11 13:45

has joined #general

torsten.wiederkehr

2022-10-11 14:24

has joined #general

phillip.lo

2022-10-11 16:21

Hey, I have question about recommendations on handling secret key rotations. We have webhooks set up to call CI jobs as recommended to do verifications when contracts change. However, this is currently making the call using an API key that gets rotated every once in a while. What do people do in these situations? Its not feasible to go and update each webhook every time the key changes so I'm curious what the recommendation is from Pact.

matt.fellows

2022-10-11 21:58

See https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/how_pact_works#how-to-write-message-pact-tests We have some examples too: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/examples/

matt.fellows

2022-10-11 21:59

We currently don?t have any vault integration, so I think automation is the key here (pun not intended :wink: )

matt.fellows

2022-10-11 21:59

the only suggestion I have would be to setup automation to create the webhooks in the first place (can be done via our CLI tools)

matt.fellows

2022-10-11 22:00

And when the secret changes, have the automation update the webhooks with the new secret

phillip.lo

2022-10-11 22:00

ok got it.

phillip.lo

2022-10-11 22:01

is there any existing ticket or planned work for handling this directly from the broker itself?

phillip.lo

2022-10-11 22:01

im wondering if there is a way to do bulk updates if the webhook info was stored in a different way

matt.fellows

2022-10-11 22:09

> is there any existing ticket or planned work for handling this directly from the broker itself? not that I?m aware - what is the actual ask - vault integration?

mikey214

2022-10-11 22:32

has joined #general

phillip.lo

2022-10-11 23:45

vault integration and/or just brainstorming ideas of a way to do updates to multiple webhooks at once without creating an outside automation process that would need to iterate through every webhook to update

matt.fellows

2022-10-12 00:17

In Pactflow, we have secrets. These secrets could be updated, so any webhooks that use them would automatically use the new secret

matt.fellows

2022-10-12 00:17

We have considered vault integration for Pactflow, but it?s lower on the roadmap priority right now

matt.fellows

2022-10-12 00:17

If you do have suggestions (for the OSS broker) please do share at -> http://pact.canny.io

xi.luo

2022-10-12 05:11

has joined #general

kim.crowe

2022-10-12 10:15

has joined #general

stefan.tertan

2022-10-13 09:50

accidentally made a request to install a Slack app in this workspace instead of the one it was meant for...ignore that (http://incident.io)

matt.fellows

2022-10-13 09:53

No probs thanks for letting me know - just cancelled it now. Happens all the time !

suganyamuthukumar03

2022-10-13 11:01

has joined #general

francis.bonneau

2022-10-13 18:30

has joined #general

naf

2022-10-14 10:55

has joined #general

werner.lauterfeld

2022-10-14 11:09

has joined #general

jharms

2022-10-14 15:04

has joined #general

daniel.cronin

2022-10-14 16:15

has joined #general

txomin.sirera

2022-10-14 18:57

has joined #general

2022-10-15 20:48

has joined #general

sasankdts

2022-10-16 08:48

has joined #general

wil.pannell

2022-10-16 16:56

has joined #general

matteo.demasi

2022-10-17 07:44

Hi @matt.fellows, thank you very much! I actually saw this, but it's pretty high level. I would like to know if it could be possible to upload in this case only the JSON. For example, in event driven, i want to publish the contract to pactflow without any test, so basically just the JSON file. Anything about this? Using just the eventdriven JSON, doesn't work ofc

sirisha.kunaparaju

2022-10-17 11:01

has joined #general

gardeepti

2022-10-17 11:02

has joined #general

vedant3620

2022-10-17 11:08

has joined #general

priyanka.bbit

2022-10-17 11:11

has joined #general

nvourlakis

2022-10-17 11:21

has joined #general

alan.zhu

2022-10-17 12:40

Hey http://team.In consumer driven contract test. I was curious to understand what is the benefit of me a consumer testing the producer, instead of the producer making sure they keep their API contract and have test in place to validate that each new release does not brake their API as they agreed to provide it to their consumers?

oliwia.koch

2022-10-17 13:51

has joined #general

bluediamondpc

2022-10-17 14:18

has joined #general

nicholas.difelice

2022-10-17 15:16

has joined #general

remington.otoole

2022-10-17 15:20

has joined #general

matt.lucido

2022-10-17 15:23

has joined #general

molly.mccarthy

2022-10-17 15:28

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-10-18 01:26

Your job is not to _test_ the producer - I think this is a common misconception. It?s a side effect, but not the key goal. Your job is to test the _client_ and make your requirements clear to the producer, so that they can evolve their API without breaking any of its consumers. Testing an API interface and its functionality is a necessary pre-condition, but is often not sufficient to prevent breaking changes (see Hyrum?s law). I think this FAQ helps clarify some of the other key benefits though. https://docs.pact.io/faq/convinceme#but-i-already-have-a-local-mock-server-eg-vcr-mockserver

matt.fellows

2022-10-18 01:30

Are you asking if we support AsyncAPI? We currently only support OAS providers for BDCT at the moment.

slack1211

2022-10-18 07:24

has joined #general

mekala.kalyan

2022-10-18 12:49

has joined #general

jpullifrone

2022-10-18 17:05

has joined #general

jorge.bo

2022-10-18 18:42

has joined #general

orhun

2022-10-18 19:42

has joined #general

phillip.lo

2022-10-18 20:09

Got a question about pacticipant names. I know that there is a built in check to make sure that you dont have similar/duplicate pacticipant names. However, we are running into a situation where we've deleted the "integration" between two services from the broker ui however the broker is still giving us the error of a pacticipant name being too similar. I wanted to know if this is expected behavior and if we have to go in an manually delete the pacticipant in addition to deleting the pact integration itself? I'm curious what the reasoning behind checking against pacticipant names that dont have any current integrations are.

matt.fellows

2022-10-18 20:17

Yes you will need to delete the pacticipant if you've only deleted the pacts. It's perfectly valid to pre create applications before the contracts are there, and the warning is still useful. It could still be confusing to people

phillip.lo

2022-10-18 20:19

Ah. What is the benefit of pre-creating applications? So you can set up a webhook?

matt.fellows

2022-10-18 23:04

that?s one example, yes

matt.fellows

2022-10-18 23:04

A lot of teams like the idea of IaC, and setting properties on the app (e.g. the github URL)

matt.fellows

2022-10-18 23:05

in Pactflow, it could be to assign it to a team so that users will have the right permissions to work with it

matt.fellows

2022-10-18 23:05

there are many

phillip.lo

2022-10-18 23:05

ok, I can see that for pactflow.

soap6gal

2022-10-19 08:11

Hello,

soap6gal

2022-10-19 08:13

I'd like to pass in dynamic path to PathFolder. Does anyone have any workaround?

kwo.ding

2022-10-19 08:24

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-10-19 08:41

What language? Best asking in the language specific channel

soap6gal

2022-10-19 09:51

Posted in #pact-jvm thanks!

ankit.jain

2022-10-19 10:41

has joined #general

edeandre

2022-10-19 12:09

has joined #general

stanlisaus

2022-10-19 12:11

has joined #general

nerea.tamayo

2022-10-19 13:01

Hey team! Do you know if there is any channel for applying pact for Tibco/SAP ?? The case is an integration between a java application with SAP system through Tibco (xml stream). The idea is applying Pact on both sides between SAP - Tibco and Tibco - java system. Do you know if tehre is any channel for this type of technologies?

noor.hashem

2022-10-19 16:11

Hi all, if I remember correctly a few weeks back I saw messages about a pact course coming out soon? Has this course come out yet?

nikolaasrondon

2022-10-19 17:29

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-10-19 20:41

I'm not aware of a new pact course. We already have a few here (howtolearn)

2022-10-19 20:42

Here are a number of useful hands-on labs that teach all of the key concepts: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops and https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/workshops

fquijada

2022-10-19 21:25

has joined #general

tjones

2022-10-19 22:34

I?ve not heard of anyone doing this. I believe pact jvm supports xml

aforeman

2022-10-20 00:34

Hey @noor.hashem you might be asking about the Fullstack Testing Academy course? I believe the latest cohort commenced last week. @pietrucha.bartosz is the brains behind it - do you have any other dates upcoming?

lnthai2002

2022-10-20 02:12

Hello, we are using jacoco to calculate codecoverage at test phase. For our unit tests, it is working correctly, however i dont know if pact test can be count toward code coverage given that consumer test is basically a unit test and our provider test is running with junit 5 although they run in verify phase. Has anyone tried reporting pact test coverage with jacoco?

matt.fellows

2022-10-20 02:50

Might be best asking in #pact-jvm

matt.fellows

2022-10-20 02:50

What's the actual issue though? My understanding is that it simply instruments code run paths

matt.fellows

2022-10-20 02:51

That should be agnostic to pact or any other testing

tjones

2022-10-20 03:39

Yes, there should be no issues.

tjones

2022-10-20 03:39

You would just run your unit tests like normal, and then look at the coverage

kkalan

2022-10-20 03:52

has joined #general

pietrucha.bartosz

2022-10-20 06:55

@noor.hashem hi! are you asking about http://fullstack-testing.com ?

nerea.tamayo

2022-10-20 08:00

Oh nice!!thanks a lot!We will try it!!

dyptorden

2022-10-20 10:24

has joined #general

olawale.akande

2022-10-20 11:52

has joined #general

olawale92.tech

2022-10-20 11:56

has joined #general

noor.hashem

2022-10-20 12:57

Hi, Yes I was asking about http://fullstack-testing.com thank you both! :pray:

calen.pennington

2022-10-20 13:43

has joined #general

muhammud.naseeruddin

2022-10-20 16:04

has joined #general

xuw

2022-10-20 16:38

has joined #general

xuw

2022-10-20 16:41

Hi everyone, had a pretty simple question, how does http://pact.io determine which tests need to pass in order to generate the pact? I haven?t figure this out for scala-pact.

matt.johnson

2022-10-20 17:25

has joined #general

xuw

2022-10-20 19:53

To add more detail, currently we are setting up our contract tests in the same repository as all of our tests for our microservice. My understanding is that we cannot avoid running all of our tests versus just the contract ones. Am I misunderstanding this?

tjones

2022-10-20 20:40

Pact has lifecycle hooks that are called at the end of each pact test. It uses those

matt.fellows

2022-10-20 20:40

I don't know scala pact very well,. But I suspect this is more of a question about the test runner than Pact.

matt.fellows

2022-10-20 20:41

Pact shouldn't know or care about other testing

tjones

2022-10-20 20:41

You don?t *have* to run all your unit tests to generate a pact file. You could just run the pact ones

xuw

2022-10-20 20:44

Yeah, I think I?m running into problems with choosing which unit tests to run to generate a pact file if that makes sense? The documentation on scala-pact just seems to use sbt pactTest but this will run all tests. Is there an argument/parameter I need to set

matt.fellows

2022-10-20 23:50

are you using https://github.com/ITV/scala-pact (outdated) or https://github.com/jbwheatley/pact4s (recommended)

xuw

2022-10-21 00:31

I am using the scala-pact library

matt.fellows

2022-10-21 10:51

Recommended watching from an industry superstar: https://youtu.be/QFCHSEHgqFE (Especially the ~13min mark :wink:)

bhavyashree.r

2022-10-22 06:10

has joined #general

bhavyashree.r

2022-10-22 06:16

Hi Everyone, am new to Pact .. Is it possible to run Provider side verification by directly pointing it to stage or prod URL instead of running service locally.

abubics

2022-10-22 06:29

Short answer: no. That's not really how it's intended to work. Long answer: yes, but you'll still need to be able to change the state in your provider. If you want to set extra infrastructure up to facilitate it, you definitely could. But that feels wasteful and flaky, or at least builds in a lot of latent coupling.

mosesgwenne

2022-10-24 06:10

has joined #general

mosesgwenne

2022-10-24 07:12

Hi @channel, I?m new to Pact and in need of your guidance. I have a running api test harness locally on port 3000. I set my providerBaseUrl to this server but when I run the test I see that provider is listening to a different port. Could someone pls point what I?m missing? ```return new Verifier({ providerBaseUrl: "http://localhost:3000", // <- location of your running provider pactUrls: [ path.resolve( process.cwd(), "./pacts/sampleConsumer-sampleProvider.json" ), ], })``` ```[2022-10-24 06:22:28.693 +0000] TRACE (33504 on xxxxxxx): pact@10.1.4: Verifying pacts with: {"providerStatesSetupUrl":"http://localhost:64042/_pactSetup","provider":"sampleProvider","providerBaseUrl":"http://localhost:64042","pactUrls":["C:\\Users\\gwenne\\Desktop\\Workspace\\pact-sample-test\\pacts\\sampleConsumer-sampleProvider.json"],"logLevel":"TRACE","validateSSL":true,"changeOrigin":false}``` I am receiving failed test but I am not provided with a detailed error. ```[2022-10-24 06:22:29.452 +0000] ERROR (33504 on xxxxxxx): pact-core@13.10.0: Verification unsuccessful [2022-10-24 06:22:29.452 +0000] TRACE (33504 on xxxxxxx): pact@10.1.4: Verification failed(Verfication failed), closing server Pact verification failed :( Error: Verfication failed at C:\Users\d832076\Desktop\Workspace\pact-sample-test\node_modules\@pact-foundation\pact-core\src\verifier\nativeVerifier.ts:50:20```

matt.fellows

2022-10-24 07:21

FYI going forward, best asking in the language specific channel (e.g. #pact-js in this case)

matt.fellows

2022-10-24 07:21

The port in there is a port to a local proxy in Pact JS, nothing to be concerned about. You should be able to see the incoming/outgoing at `trace` level

matt.fellows

2022-10-24 07:22

There should be other logs that explain what is happening, can you please share here?

mosesgwenne

2022-10-24 07:27

thanks for responding, Matt. this is the log returned. ```[2022-10-24 06:22:28.605 +0000] INFO (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact@10.1.4: Verifying provider [2022-10-24 06:22:28.615 +0000] TRACE (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact@10.1.4: Setting up state proxy with path: /_pactSetup [2022-10-24 06:22:28.690 +0000] TRACE (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact@10.1.4: proxy created, waiting for startup [2022-10-24 06:22:28.691 +0000] TRACE (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact@10.1.4: Proxy is ready at :: [2022-10-24 06:22:28.693 +0000] TRACE (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact@10.1.4: Verifying pacts with: {"providerStatesSetupUrl":"http://localhost:64042/_pactSetup","provider":"sampleProvider","providerBaseUrl":"http://localhost:64042","pactUrls":["C:\\Users\\gwenne\\Desktop\\Workspace\\pact-sample-test\\pacts\\sampleConsumer-sampleProvider.json"],"logLevel":"TRACE","validateSSL":true,"changeOrigin":false} [2022-10-24 06:22:28.693 +0000] INFO (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact-core@13.10.0: Verifying Pacts. [2022-10-24 06:22:28.694 +0000] INFO (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact-core@13.10.0: Verifying Pact Files [2022-10-24 06:22:28.696 +0000] TRACE (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact-core@13.10.0: Initiliasing ffi for the first time [2022-10-24 06:22:28.696 +0000] DEBUG (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact-core@13.10.0: Initalising native core at log level 'TRACE' [2022-10-24 06:22:28.707 +0000] DEBUG (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact-core@13.10.0: the optional ffi function 'pactffiVerifierSetFilterInfo' was not executed as it had non-fatal validation errors: [2022-10-24 06:22:28.708 +0000] DEBUG (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact-core@13.10.0: the optional ffi function 'pactffiVerifierSetPublishOptions' was not executed as it had non-fatal validation errors: [2022-10-24 06:22:28.709 +0000] DEBUG (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact-core@13.10.0: the optional ffi function 'pactffiVerifierSetConsumerFilters' was not executed as it had non-fatal validation errors: [2022-10-24 06:22:28.710 +0000] DEBUG (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact-core@13.10.0: the optional ffi function 'pactffiVerifierSetFailIfNoPactsFound' was not executed as it had non-fatal validation errors: [2022-10-24 06:22:28.711 +0000] DEBUG (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact-core@13.10.0: the optional ffi function 'pactffiVerifierAddCustomHeader' was not executed as it had non-fatal validation errors: [2022-10-24 06:22:28.712 +0000] DEBUG (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact-core@13.10.0: checking source type of given pactUrl: C:\Users\gwenne\Desktop\Workspace\pact-sample-test\pacts\sampleConsumer-sampleProvider.json [2022-10-24 06:22:28.720 +0000] DEBUG (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact-core@13.10.0: adding C:\Users\gwenne\Desktop\Workspace\pact-sample-test\pacts\sampleConsumer-sampleProvider.json as File source [2022-10-24 06:22:28.721 +0000] DEBUG (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact-core@13.10.0: the optional ffi function 'pactffiVerifierBrokerSourceWithSelectors' was not executed as it had non-fatal validation errors: [2022-10-24 06:22:29.452 +0000] DEBUG (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact-core@13.10.0: shutting down verifier with handle 0 [2022-10-24 06:22:29.452 +0000] DEBUG (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact-core@13.10.0: response from verifier: null, 1 [2022-10-24 06:22:29.452 +0000] ERROR (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact-core@13.10.0: Verification unsuccessful [2022-10-24 06:22:29.452 +0000] TRACE (33504 on xxxxxxxxxx): pact@10.1.4: Verification failed(Verfication failed), closing server Pact verification failed :( Error: Verfication failed at C:\Users\gwenne\Desktop\Workspace\pact-sample-test\node_modules\@pact-foundation\pact-core\src\verifier\nativeVerifier.ts:50:20```

dyptorden

2022-10-24 09:47

Hi guys. Having the pact broker deployed via-docker compose, can I create somehow the webhooks automatically when I bring the infrastructure up (by running the docker compose?)

matt.fellows

2022-10-24 09:58

You could run the CLI commands (there is a `create-or-update` one for webhooks) or the terraform.

matt.fellows

2022-10-24 09:59

I?ve never _really_ heard of people actually using docker compose in production - what are you using it for? Can you elaborate what you?re trying to do here - IaC?

matt.fellows

2022-10-24 09:59

There is also a terraform provider, that is probably better suited in that mode

mosesgwenne

2022-10-24 10:06

```'pactffi*' was not executed as it had non-fatal validation errors:``` I don?t understand what these logs mean

dyptorden

2022-10-24 10:16

Thanks for the answer @matt.fellows. I am working on a POC. What I achieved so far is to create and publish a contract in the broker from a consumer (via a Jenkins Job) and also to get results published from the broker (different Jenkins job). As I am working on understanding the webhooks, this question came to my mind... If I need to recreate the broker at some point, can I also have the webhooks automatically created at the same time? I went for the docker way as most of our infrastructure is build on dockers and I am familiar with that approach.

matt.fellows

2022-10-24 10:21

they should probably be `trace` logs actually. I?ll make a bug for that

matt.fellows

2022-10-24 10:21

(they aren?t intended for you, is what that means)

matt.fellows

2022-10-24 10:22

That?s unfortunately not very helpful. If you could please provide your test setup or even a repro, that would be really helpful

glenn

2022-10-24 11:08

Can Pact be used with Financial Information eXchange (FIX) protocol connections?

matt.fellows

2022-10-24 11:12

Pact is usually standard agnostic. Is it just a REST API?

glenn

2022-10-24 11:14

No. I think it?s directly over TCP, e.g. at an equivalent layer to HTTP.

matt.fellows

2022-10-24 11:19

You could look to create a new plugin for it

matt.fellows

2022-10-24 11:20

We haven't published docs yet but could point you in the right direction?

glenn

2022-10-24 11:20

Yes please. It may not be me who does it but would be useful to be able to point the way.

glenn

2022-10-24 11:24

I suspect it?s the same situation for Redis. *RESP (REdis Serialization Protocol)*

lnthai2002

2022-10-24 13:50

my bad, the test result actually reported by jacoco, however since i am using Feign to call provider, there is no implementation code, only an interface class thus jacoco did not see any code get covered when running consumer test. On the provider side, it does report controller, and some services classes get tested, however, due to my jacoco merge config, the result was not merged to the report generated at test phase. I still need to adjust my jacoco config.

xuw

2022-10-24 14:20

Hi! Was looking into overriding the pactTest default command to only run tests with a certain tag. Is there any examples on how to do this?

james.perepiczka

2022-10-24 15:15

Hi, I had a question around approach. We have a service (Service A) that sends a message to another service (Service B) via Kafka. Service B packages up the request and then forwards onto another service (Service C). Service A and Service C have a relationship in that the data that gets send from Service A is only read by Service C and an action is performed based upon the contents of that message. My question is whether we ignore Service B and say there is a *contract between A & C* (where the intent of an action is understood) or I say there is a *contract between A&B and then B&C* (because the message is generated by one and received by another) or whether there is a *contract between A&B and A&C.* What would be the suggested approach in this instance? The concern is that because there is a relationship between what is sent by Service A and what is processed by Service C that the importance of the message content would be lost as Service B does not care or know about what it sends to Service C (If I was to adopt the traditional direct service to service approach)

j.watkins12

2022-10-24 21:13

has joined #general

mosesgwenne

2022-10-24 23:10

I have a running api test harness on localhost:3000. My provider test script is

tjones

2022-10-25 00:32

The request / response logging is actually at `debug` level, or at least it used to be

matt.fellows

2022-10-25 01:04

Tricky. It sounds a bit like the https://docs.pact.io/recipes/apigateway use case. You might be able to extrapolate the guidance from that here

matt.fellows

2022-10-25 01:05

Does the structure of the message from A matter to service B? Or does it blindly find it and carry it to Service C? Does it transform the message at all?

matt.fellows

2022-10-25 01:06

If it doesn?t modify things, in that case, you might choose to ignore B altogether (ensuring you have appropriate coverage to ensure that if service B goes out of commission, the scenarios are appropriately tested)

tjones

2022-10-25 01:12

Yep. This sounds like a jacoco problem rather than a pact problem

tony.odonnell

2022-10-25 07:56

has joined #general

martin.schlegel

2022-10-25 11:24

has joined #general

stefan.zivkovic

2022-10-25 12:35

has joined #general

alexander.friesen

2022-10-25 14:07

has joined #general

mspector

2022-10-25 14:45

has joined #general

thomas.peyregne

2022-10-25 14:53

has joined #general

james.perepiczka

2022-10-25 15:47

> Does the structure of the message from A matter to service B? Or does it blindly find it and carry it to Service C? Does it transform the message at all? (edited) Not really, it just takes the payload and puts a Cloud events wrapper around it and decides where to route it to

tomknee1

2022-10-25 15:57

Hello, im trying to pinpoint an issue and wondering if anyone might have any ideas please... we've created a webhook for `contract-requiring-verification-published` but when we `pact-broker test-webhook` the `pactbroker.providerVersionBranch` and `pactbroker.providerVersionNumber` is the very latest HEAD rather than the version on `main` branch. The provider (as well as consumer) correctly has `mainBranch` property set etc, any ideas please?

jsirju

2022-10-25 20:22

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-10-25 22:10

Is it possible that version does require a verification and that version is deployed to an environment?

a.emmanuelmendoza

2022-10-25 23:42

has joined #general

tomknee1

2022-10-26 07:41

The provider version is not deployed to an environment, it?s the latest PR branch before it?s merged to main

matt.fellows

2022-10-26 08:26

I?m not super familiar with the details of the webhook itself and the test feature. I?m currently wondering if during the ?test? it just grabs the latest version, instead of what would happen in ?real life?

matt.fellows

2022-10-26 08:27

Have you tried just enabling it and publishing a new contract, to see if does indeed trigger correctly with real data?

tomknee1

2022-10-26 08:47

Hm thanks, we are about to merge the PR on provider side and then tests the webhook with the GHA repository_dispatch workflow properly

tomknee1

2022-10-26 08:47

so yeah we think it might actually be fine and going to test it more e2e shortly :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2022-10-26 09:04

:panic_button:

emma.colleran

2022-10-26 13:05

has joined #general

aaron.swerlein

2022-10-26 15:10

has joined #general

jeronimo

2022-10-26 17:50

has joined #general

anhtvuong

2022-10-26 19:00

I have similar issue with @PactVerifyProvider(CONSUMER_INTERFACE) String verifyMessageForInterface() that somehow reduces curremt jacoco ratio. I'm looking at jacoco pom.xml configuration to exclude PactVerificationTest.class in provider and no luck yet. Just wonder if somebody knew the solution.

lnthai2002

2022-10-26 19:38

I named my provider tests as *.PPT so that they are not pickup by surefire. Then i make a profile to run only provider tests and generate jacoco report for them. Here is my profile: <profile> <id>provider-pact-test</id> <build> <plugins> <plugin> <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId> <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId> <version>3.0.0-M4</version> <executions> <execution> <id>default-test</id> <phase>test</phase> <goals> <goal>test</goal> </goals> <configuration>  <excludes> <exclude>**/Test*.java</exclude> <exclude>**/*Test.java</exclude> <exclude>**/*Tests.java</exclude> <exclude>**/*TestCase.java</exclude> </excludes> </configuration> </execution> <execution> <id>integration-test</id> <phase>integration-test</phase> <goals> <goal>test</goal> </goals> <configuration> <excludes> <exclude>**/Test*</exclude> <exclude>**/*Test</exclude> <exclude>**/*Tests</exclude> <exclude>**/*TestCase</exclude> </excludes> <includes> <include>**/*PPT</include> </includes> </configuration> </execution> </executions> </plugin> <plugin> <groupId>org.jacoco</groupId> <artifactId>jacoco-maven-plugin</artifactId> <version>0.8.6</version> <executions> <execution> <id>pre-integration-test</id> <phase>pre-integration-test</phase> <goals> <goal>prepare-agent</goal> </goals> <configuration> <destFile>${project.build.directory}/jacoco-output/provider-pact-test.exec</destFile> <propertyName>surefireArgLine</propertyName> </configuration> </execution> <execution> <id>post-integration-test</id> <phase>post-integration-test</phase> <goals> <goal>report</goal> </goals> <configuration> <dataFile>${project.build.directory}/jacoco-output/provider-pact-test.exec</dataFile> <outputDirectory>${project.build.directory}/jacoco-provider-pact-test-coverage-report</outputDirectory> </configuration> </execution> </executions> </plugin> </plugins> </build> </profile>

lnthai2002

2022-10-26 19:44

by pasting it here i just realized, i can just put skipTest in the test phase instead of excluding :smile: *Test.

matthew.beattie

2022-10-26 20:14

has joined #general

anhtvuong

2022-10-26 20:33

Thanks to @lnthai2002 for sharing. I realized the suggestion from @matt.fellows therefore I added my non-UT standalone provider PactVerifyProvider to an existing UT which helps. My actual issue is surefire version 3.0.0-M4 which can see my pact tests but not other existing UT which reduces CC ratio to 0.0.

lnthai2002

2022-10-26 21:11

i am running build on CI/CD and i have 4 different jobs which runs 4 different kinds of test: unit tests, db integration tests, pact consumer tests and pact provider tests. Each job compiles and runs the tests in a separated docker container. Thus I have to use a different profile (the one I shared is for provider test) for each job to run only one kind of test. At the end of each job, there is one .exec file generated so I gather them and the compiled classes and run the jacoco:merge (in a different job). I have 3 profiles (integration, consumer-pact-test and provider-pact-test) that are similar to the one i shared, the default is the unit test that i configure in the build section: <plugin> <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId> <artifactId>maven-surefire-plugin</artifactId> <version>3.0.0-M4</version> <configuration> <argLine>${surefireArgLine}</argLine> <redirectTestOutputToFile>true</redirectTestOutputToFile> <reportsDirectory>${project.build.directory}/test-reports</reportsDirectory> </configuration> </plugin>  <plugin> <groupId>org.jacoco</groupId> <artifactId>jacoco-maven-plugin</artifactId> <version>0.8.6</version> <executions> <execution> <id>pre-unit-test</id> <goals> <goal>prepare-agent</goal> </goals> <configuration> <destFile>${project.build.directory}/jacoco-output/unit-test.exec</destFile> <propertyName>surefireArgLine</propertyName> </configuration> </execution> <execution> <id>post-unit-test</id> <phase>test</phase> <goals> <goal>report</goal> </goals> <configuration> <dataFile>${project.build.directory}/jacoco-output/unit-test.exec</dataFile> <outputDirectory>${project.build.directory}/jacoco-unit-test-coverage-report</outputDirectory> </configuration> </execution> <execution> <id>pre-integration-test</id> <phase>pre-integration-test</phase> <goals> <goal>prepare-agent</goal> </goals> <configuration> <destFile>${project.build.directory}/jacoco-output/integration-test.exec</destFile> <propertyName>surefireArgLine</propertyName> </configuration> </execution> <execution> <id>post-integration-test</id> <phase>post-integration-test</phase> <goals> <goal>report</goal> </goals> <configuration> <dataFile>${project.build.directory}/jacoco-output/integration-test.exec</dataFile> <outputDirectory>${project.build.directory}/jacoco-integration-test-coverage-report</outputDirectory> </configuration> </execution> <execution> <id>merge-all-test-coverage</id> <goals> <goal>merge</goal> </goals> <configuration> <fileSets> <fileSet> <directory>${project.build.directory}/jacoco-output/</directory> <includes> <include>*.exec</include> </includes> </fileSet> </fileSets> <destFile>${project.build.directory}/jacoco-merged.exec</destFile> </configuration> </execution> </executions> </plugin>

lnthai2002

2022-10-26 21:12

hope it helps

harrison.le

2022-10-26 21:47

has joined #general

amandasstecz

2022-10-26 21:57

has joined #general

christianoliver.table

2022-10-27 06:15

has joined #general

zehra.lichtenberg

2022-10-27 08:08

has joined #general

dawoud.sheraz

2022-10-27 09:42

Hello there, how are you doing? A general question; Is consumer driven contract testing similar to API Testing? What are similarities and differences as a whole? I was recently talking about Pact with someone and they said that the contract testing is just API testing. I have explored some answers on Google but hoping to get better answers from here. Thanks

yousafn

2022-10-27 10:27

Hey buddy, welcome I would recommend reading this home page and two respective pages which should answer your questions or provide further discussion points https://docs.pact.io https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/comparisons https://docs.pact.io/consumer/contract_tests_not_functional_tests

vzviaruha

2022-10-27 11:29

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-10-27 11:32

Welcome to the October Pact Open Source update! I?ve got some great things to share this month ? As always, we have a focus on our community heroes, this time we have @paulorochag, https://twitter.com/holly_cummins, @edeandre & @liran.tal https://docs.pact.io/blog/2022/10/25/pact-open-source-update-october-2022 Plus a sneak peak of our upcoming Pact Plugin Framework launch which you can sign up to here https://docs.pact.io/events/plugins-framework-launch This the culmination of several years of work, and we believe it's going to be a game changer for organisations who love contract testing but can't apply it to various aspects of their organisation because a particular technology isn't supported. Plugins will enable you to extend the capabilities of Pact, without having to make changes to the Pact framework itself. For example, you could create a plugin to handle the Avro or GraphQL content types, or create a websockets transport. You can even test out gRPC with one of our first plugins, we would love you to try it out. Also whilst I have you, you can checkout the state of API quality 2021 here https://smartbear.com/state-of-software-quality/api/ and participate in our 2022 survey, it will take around 15 mins and as a thank you, SmartBear will make a donation to a charity for each survey completed! https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/QF2C6M7 Whichever way you want to get involved, don't hesitate to reach out! Thanks all <3 - Saf

michael.laird

2022-10-27 13:38

has joined #general

pedropho18

2022-10-27 21:33

has joined #general

juancesarvillalba

2022-10-27 21:43

has joined #general

angad.singh

2022-10-28 11:07

has joined #general

xuw

2022-10-28 13:57

Hi Had a question on this page: https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/matching Are the `Pact::SomethingLike` functions, for example `Pact.like(73)`, available in all versions of the pact specification? I haven?t been able to find an example for scala-pact, but I know that it only supports up to v2

yousafn

2022-10-28 14:34

Yes they should do as a type matcher https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/tree/version-2#supported-matchers Scala-pact docs. http://io.itv.com/scala-pact/advanced/matching-rules.html#type-rules-considered-dangerous- Usage https://github.com/ITV/scala-pact/search?q=Option%28%22type%22%29

yousafn

2022-10-28 14:34

We also have a pact-scala-itv channel https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9W94RTBQ

oroceo.ian

2022-10-28 20:04

has joined #general

benjamin

2022-10-28 21:09

has joined #general

emailpankaj.agarwal

2022-10-29 13:26

has joined #general

pavithz

2022-10-30 22:52

Hello Team, I have a generic question w.r.t pact consumer. Does pact support letting the consumer to generate the pact json file by hitting the real provider service instead of hitting the provider using pact mock server ? We are starting the contract testing newly in our org and our stakeholders are interested to use the live service at the first place to generate the contract (as we have 1000+ micro services already up in production) and for those existing ones - preferring to use live rather than mock at the consumer end. Really looking forward for your response !

krishnakanth219

2022-10-30 22:59

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-10-30 23:50

> Hello Team, I have a generic question w.r.t pact consumer. Does pact support letting the consumer to generate the pact json file by hitting the real provider service instead of hitting the provider using pact mock server ? Pact doesn?t no. It?s best thinking of Pact as a unit testing tool. Whilst you could definitely use a record/replay style tool to capture the requests, what you will lose out on is what fields in the response the consumer actually uses - this is an important part of the contract test. Usually, you only use a subset of them. Assuming you need the full suite, means that it will be harder for the provider to evolve. But, you might like to try it as a starting point, and then manually pare the tests back

matt.fellows

2022-10-30 23:51

If Pact is a bit of a hurdle to jump, you could look at https://pactflow.io/bi-directional-contract-testing/ (BDCT) to start with and then transition to Pact as you mature. BDCT is more schema based and might be an option to consider if you want to scale the tests more quickly.

pavithz

2022-10-31 00:51

Thanks Matt for the quick response. Yes that makes sense as the purpose of contract testing!

tjones

2022-10-31 00:52

> Does pact support letting the consumer to generate the pact json file by hitting the real provider service instead of hitting the provider using pact mock server ? The point of pact is that you _don't_ have to do this, but you get the same value as if you had.

joshua.mclatchie

2022-10-31 02:21

has joined #general

pavithz

2022-10-31 03:23

Also have a follow up question. Hope pact supports running against the provider real service at the provider end (I mean without mocking the data layer) and running against the real service running say on dev common environment ?

matt.fellows

2022-10-31 03:39

Yes, you run against a real service. But it's best practice to do it in a unit test-like environment

matt.fellows

2022-10-31 03:39

This allows you to exert very specific control over how the tests run, and importantly, stub out external systems to make them reliable

pavithz

2022-10-31 04:18

Cool ! Thanks Matt

tjones

2022-10-31 04:30

Have a read of https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/how_pact_works

pavithz

2022-10-31 04:51

Yes have read it through and did spike based on pact jvm and mocks on both consumer provider ends. While trying to implement for POC we had this requirements from stakeholders. We explored and couldn?t find any examples at consuming end hitting real service. Hence this post for :100: % confirmation from pact community :blush:

tjones

2022-10-31 05:57

Awesome, makes sense. The people asking the question might be interested in that page too.

jayeshguru81

2022-10-31 12:11

Hello Team, Need help with Pact matching for response body. I have a big response body json of 2000 lines where we have array of templates object. I just want to match 1 object out of 100 templates. I am getting error with failure in matching when I tried this ```asset_classifier_pact.given( "mpid and brand catalog id to retrieve templates" ).upon_receiving("return all templates for mpid").with_request( method="GET", path=api_path, query=req_query_param, headers=req_headers, ).will_respond_with( status=200, body={ "templates_are_approved_for_auto_select": None, "templates": EachLike( { "id": 1, "asset_id": "<any-uuid>", "factory_source_id": 1, "factory_id": "1", "is_manual_selection": False, "status_id": 3, "associations": [ { "association_id": 1, "association_source": 1, "imagery_template_id": 1, "id": 1, } ], "manufacturer_part_id": 1, "class_id": 1, "bounding_box": { "minimum_width": 34.0, "minimum_height": 35.0, "minimum_depth": 1.0, "maximum_width": 40.0, "maximum_height": 40.0, "maximum_depth": 3.0, }, "gs_type_name": "WallMirrorLargeRound", "optimized_for_automation": "No", } ), }, )```

jayeshguru81

2022-10-31 12:11

templates is an array of templates

jayeshguru81

2022-10-31 12:12

I want to just match 1 template

tomknee1

2022-10-31 13:25

Hello :wave: I am trying to do a `pact-broker describe-version` command for a latest pacticipant in environment `prod`, but am having trouble as it looks like you can only use a `--tag` in the command, but we instead use branches and environments so when i do something like ```pact-broker describe-version -a ProviderService --l prod``` I get `Pacticipant version not found` any ideas please?? :pray:

jason.taylor2

2022-10-31 13:55

has joined #general

kedar.ghate

2022-10-31 14:02

has joined #general

tomknee1

2022-10-31 14:18

Context: We want to `record-support-ended` for previous release on provider side when we `record-release` for new version, but getting the previous image tag (previous provider version in prod) is proving difficult due to our setup. Is it possible we could just do `record-deployment` for prod environment here instead as that would auto `undeploy` the previous version? would that work ok once we get to the next steps of `can-i-deploy` etc ??

tony.nguyen

2022-10-31 15:43

Hi, has anyone seen this issue when contract publishing in pact CLI using pactflow version 1.21.0? ```Exception: ArgumentError: comparison of Integer with nil failed```

yousafn

2022-10-31 17:06

that is a very old version from 2017 https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases/tag/v1.21.0 is that the correct version, and can you provide reproduction steps, the pacts you are publishing, and command executing

tony.nguyen

2022-10-31 17:10

We are using the paid Pactflow version of 1.21.0 with the Pact CLI docker with the latest tag.

yousafn

2022-10-31 17:33

Ok thanks for that, If you can add more detail, it would be helpful :+1: https://docs.pact.io/help/how_to_ask_for_help#4-ask-a-good-question

yousafn

2022-10-31 17:40

Just tested cross platform against ubuntu/windows/macos (although in GH there are no docker available in macos/windows) so that is using on those platforms the standalone binary https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases/tag/v1.91.0 and the latest pact broker ruby gem. could you try dropping back a docker tag, and check if that solves it https://hub.docker.com/r/pactfoundation/pact-cli/tags publishing provider contracts https://github.com/pactflow/example-bi-directional-provider-postman/actions/runs/3363396234/jobs/5576478237 publishing consumer contracts https://github.com/pactflow/example-bi-directional-consumer-cypress/actions/runs/3363395811/jobs/5576479432 (failures are due to can-i-deploy not having a registered provider :+1:)

tony.nguyen

2022-10-31 18:13

dropping pactflow back to 1.20.0 worked for us. Was there any major changes in 1.21.0? https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/on-premises/releases/1.21.0

jwheatley

2022-10-31 18:17

General question here after feedback from my dev team. We have a proof of concept implemented with Pact right now in our CI pipeline across 2 teams. One complaint I am hearing is that since Pact does not test data changes, only changes to the endpoint structure, we aren't really catching anything important. We usually do not encounter changes to our endpoint structure. What are peoples' thoughts on this critique?

tony.nguyen

2022-10-31 18:36

@yousafn is the publication of the above pacts against the 1.21.0 Pactflow?

yousafn

2022-10-31 19:40

It's against the SaaS version not the onprem Changelog for the Broker changes are part of the OSS Broker, so all the commits are visible https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md I would raise a support message at , someone may raise the issue against the open source broker, if they can recreate it

yousafn

2022-10-31 19:45

What do you mean by data change? do you have an example scenario that isn't passing? If you remove a field from a provider, that a consumer relies on, or change the fields type, it would fail verification. depending on your type of matchers setup on the response. if the data change, isn't due to structure, but due to actual identifiers (you require a book with a specific id to exist) you would use provider states for the provider to setup the required state prior to running the test in a decoupled fashion. Otherwise the alternative in an integrated environment is setting up external state which could be affected outside of your test (which is bad)

yousafn

2022-10-31 19:48

It isn't a replacement for other types of testing, but rather compliments it and provides quicker feedback and enhanced visibility, some teams may decide they want to use alternative methods, they may have really good channels of communications, endpoints and payload structures don't change often, or systems aren't that critical. Systems that don't change now, will invariably change in the future, either intentionally or accidentally. Having safety blankets helps :slightly_smiling_face: people in teams move on, people come in with new ideas.

jwheatley

2022-10-31 19:54

Thanks for responding, @yousafn! Things we see change are changes in business logic, like...someone changes what types of data an endpoint can accept...but didn't realize that impacts another team. For example, changes like having data in a certain state, like 'finalized,' that causes issues downstream.

yousafn

2022-10-31 19:55

oh interesting question, I haven't tried if `record-deployment` also unmarks `released` versions. You could try in the Broker UI and filter by environment and pacticipant name in the matrix view. It should be listed in the matrix, as to which version is in the environment :slightly_smiling_face:

jwheatley

2022-10-31 19:56

we use cypress to test our individual services, but need to mock out the downstream services in the CI pipeline. We still then have this issue where business logic changes are causing uncaught bugs.

yousafn

2022-10-31 19:56

I don't think its available via the CLI but should be available via the Broker API, you can view the HAL client in the broker UI to check all the link relations for particular pacts, and make auth calls. The Aus team should be able to help out later when they are up :slightly_smiling_face:

yousafn

2022-10-31 20:00

where are you testing with Pact? through Cypress, or at a unit test level directly with Pact? You can restrict values by enums, with a regex matcher. if the data needs to be different for a particular state `finalized` vs `pending` then you can setup tests for that, but only if they are because of specific client logic, otherwise you can just have one test. You don't want to be looking to functionally cover all cases for the provider.

tomknee1

2022-10-31 20:23

thanks, so I?m looking at parsing this previous version in a CI job that records provider release in prod, ideally in something like a bash script step in our CI workflow or similar so I can then `record-support-ended` for it. Currently we only have access to `.Values.image.tag` and not the previous one unless we do some refactoring. Our consumer side is fine as we support all releases basically forever. Provider service is backend though and we only ever support one version at a time, whatever the latest release in prod is. Was thinking a potential easy solution/workaround is if we just `record-deployment` to prod for provider instead of `record-release` , then the previous version will get automatically undeployed by Pact and it saves us the hassle of figuring out how to retrieve and parse the previous image tag/provider version in prod, unless like u mention there is a relatively easy way via Broker API or similar.

tomknee1

2022-10-31 20:57

looking at HAL browser now struggling a bit to see how i can easily get latest provider version on branch `main` and environment `prod` :thinking_face:

yousafn

2022-10-31 21:04

You could run a local provider verification with consumer version selectors set to released, and the providers name, set publish results to false and it will pull back the versions matching that selector, might be quicker than navigating the APi

tomknee1

2022-10-31 21:05

hmm, is the only difference between `record-release` and `record-deployment` that `record-release` doesnt automatically unrelease previous version? Are there any other differences that might affect `can-i-deploy` for example?

yousafn

2022-10-31 21:06

is your provider using `record-release` although it only ever has one live?

tomknee1

yes

yousafn

if you run `can-i-deploy` for consumer, it should list the all provider application versions deployed or released in the environment

tomknee1

and were thinking of changing it to record-deployment

yousafn

so there should only be one provider version returned, if only one is released

yousafn

2022-10-31 21:08

I believe they are separate, as there are seperate consumer version selectors, deployed, released, and deployedOrReleased. Sounds like you want `record-deployment` on provider for sure and `record-release` on consumer side if the consumers are indefinitely supported :slightly_smiling_face:

tomknee1

2022-10-31 21:09

right, i guess the issue I?m actually having is i added a `contract_requiring_verification_published` webhook and when it kicks off the provider side verification, its verifying against versions I don?t need to due to not doing `record-support-ended` on previous provider releases to prod

tomknee1

2022-10-31 21:10

ah yeah ok great, thats what i was thinking, if i can leave `record-release` on consumer side which we have already and then change to `record-deployment` on provider side that might work

yousafn

2022-10-31 21:13

contract_requiring_verification_published webhook should trigger once for each build (head of main branch) and any deployed or released versions. and provide a seperate SHA for the provider to checkout, and the pact url that has changed. you can add into the webhook template, the provider version number, so when the webhook is kicked off, you have the data of the version number, but can i deploy consumer into env, will list back the version number of the provider that is recorded in prod (as a release) If you want a way to cross over, once you find out the version number of the current prod that was marked as released, you can mark that application version as deployed. unrecord the release, and then you are happy to move on forward.

tomknee1

2022-10-31 21:17

> If you want a way to cross over, once you find out the version number of the current prod that was marked as released, you can mark that application version as deployed. > > unrecord the release, and then you are happy to move on forward. sorry im a bit confused, i still need to record the provider version in prod as a release, and then mark it as deployed? i cant just do `record-deployment` in prod for provider release?

yousafn

2022-10-31 21:18

I would need to test it out, but I don't believe. 1. recording a deployment, will do anything to the released version

yousafn

2022-10-31 21:19

so if you do record-deployment you will have a released version as well. (which I assume you want to unrecord) but you don't want to do it before you have a provider version `deployed` to production, You can test it out easily with a fresh pact broker on your local machine you get yourself in the same state :+1:

tomknee1

2022-10-31 21:21

i guess im wondering why i need a release too then, cant i just simply only do `record-deployment` for prod provider?

yousafn

Only because you said you have already recorded a release for the provider but you don't know the version number

tomknee1

i know the current version, just not the previous

yousafn

if you have never marked a provider version as deployed or released, then there is no issue, or nothing to test. What is your current state on both sides exactly

tomknee1

https://stackoverflow.com/help/minimal-reproducible-example

as when we `record-release` we would want to stop supporting previous

tomknee1

2022-10-31 21:23

earlier i manually unsupported older releases when cleaning things up

yousafn

2022-10-31 21:23

record-deployment will undeploy deployed versions only, not released versions is my assumption

tomknee1

2022-10-31 21:24

ooh i see so id need to move current recorded release to recorded deployment

tomknee1

2022-10-31 21:24

but then going forwards, simply `record-deployment` should suffice ?

yousafn

2022-10-31 21:25

yes if you only have one current recorded release for the provider. to get parity now, I would record-deployment of provider, with the current released application version. then you can unrecord-release and just stick with record-deployment on the provider side, to support only 1 live application version in an environment

tomknee1

2022-10-31 21:25

thank you so much that makes sense now :smile:

yousafn

2022-10-31 21:27

consumer side will want every version that goes into an environment marking with record-release. :+1: sounds good matey! Good luck. You should test out my assumptions before you proceed if you want to be doubley sure. Quick broker you can spin up here to test :slightly_smiling_face: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-broker-docker/blob/master/docker-compose.yml

tomknee1

2022-11-01 17:32

Hello, anyone possibly have any ideas why I occasionally get this error in CI doing a Docker run command for publishing pacts? (In thread as on phone so can?t format properly)

tomknee1

2022-11-01 17:33

Status: Downloaded newer image for pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/json-2.6.2/lib/json/common.rb:216:in `parse': 859: unexpected token at 'JleHAiOjQ3NjMwNTkyMDAsImlzcyI6ImxvbmctbGl2ZWQtand0LXNpZ25lci1zZXJ2aWNlLWFjY291bnQiLCJuYmYiOjE2MDk0NTkyMDAsInN1YiI6IjQxMTAwMDM3In0.TEXRtG4YB3WeYeINiIU-ycdAV-0AlHGG3o5T9EZoxDig4QgkSA0leahQatiTONedX5X13DyZ-jyoiFu_aqe4a-NA6DUTGaj_LGt_6YFUBgTP2DjWdND-8sXsW6wu32w4STcY7LFvrIiliXe1iIeMKoE1D7gSvS533yUcCaeSdNpjwKYHH5iPFTAJjE1Sd-yh9s-wjphiv-NXdxCOGomN-xWpnQPPgZRaXKhH34GrGgnfiLhTos1Et1v_d2zXckOePEFiunYaoZKe_lnowIb7g7waseF2hmRQUy--XeoQq_g0lmkk-EkCpmFEMOJlVBODWtm4mbjc4qUNnT2frbeNsg" (JSON::ParserError) }, "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json; charset=UTF-8" }, "matchingRules": { "$.body.token": { "match": "regex", "regex": "^[A-Za-z0-9\\\\-_=]+\\\\.[A-Za-z0-9\\\\-_=]+\\\\.?[A-Za-z0-9\\\\-_=]*$" }, "$.headers.Content-Type": { "match": "regex", "regex": "application/json(;\\\\s?charset=[\\\\w\\\\-]+)?" } }, "status": 200 } } ], "metadata": { "pact-jvm": { "version": "4.3.5" }, "pactSpecification": { "version": "2.0.0" } }, "provider": { "name": "OtacProviderService" } } ' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/json-2.6.2/lib/json/common.rb:216:in `parse' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.65.0/lib/pact_broker/client/pact_file.rb:28:in `pact_hash' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.65.0/lib/pact_broker/client/pact_file.rb:20:in `consumer_name' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/rake-13.0.6/lib/rake/file_list.rb:70:in `collect' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/rake-13.0.6/lib/rake/file_list.rb:70:in `collect' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.65.0/lib/pact_broker/client/publish_pacts.rb:145:in `consumer_names' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.65.0/lib/pact_broker/client/publish_pacts.rb:60:in `publish_pacts' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.65.0/lib/pact_broker/client/publish_pacts.rb:33:in `call' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.65.0/lib/pact_broker/client/publish_pacts.rb:15:in `call' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.65.0/lib/pact_broker/client/cli/pact_commands.rb:66:in `publish_pacts' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.65.0/lib/pact_broker/client/cli/pact_commands.rb:29:in `publish' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in `run' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/invocation.rb:127:in `invoke_command' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor.rb:392:in `dispatch' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/base.rb:485:in `start' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.65.0/lib/pact_broker/client/cli/custom_thor.rb:23:in `start' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.65.0/bin/pact-broker:10:in `<top (required)>' from /usr/bin/pact-broker:25:in `load' from /usr/bin/pact-broker:25:in `<main>' |

daviseago

2022-11-02 05:57

Hi, does pact test helps only when both consumer and provider use it? what if I want to test my system?s contract with 3rd party system, but the other side doesn?t use pact?

abubics

2022-11-02 06:01

There's a whole FAQ about that :wink: https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/what_is_pact_good_for#what-is-it-not-good-for But, short answer, yes (that doesn't give you the best value).

daviseago

2022-11-02 06:07

I see. Thanks. Then I?ll reconsider using it internally where both sides are under our control.

matt.fellows

2022-11-02 06:58

I think we have an AMA on that: https://docs.pact.io/help/amas

matt.fellows

2022-11-02 06:58

yep:

tjones

2022-11-02 07:17

I usually still write a pact test even if I'm not going to verify the contract. However, when you do that, pact is no better than any other mocking tool (and you get very little confidence out of the test, since you are marking your own exam). The reason I do it is so that I have the pact file in case I ever _can_ verify it.

usama.mumtaz

2022-11-02 09:45

has joined #general

tomknee1

2022-11-02 11:02

Hello, we have successfully added the `contract_requiring_verification_published` webhook, but I am now wondering if we need to add a webhook to trigger consumer build when provider verification is published or not, I see it in the diagram but its not clear if I actually need it or not, as once I add `can-i-deploy` I can use the `--retry-while-unknown` parameter? Or am I missing something obvious here? Thanks

matt.fellows

2022-11-02 11:06

WOOT!

matt.fellows

2022-11-02 11:06

I?d hold off adding that webhook until you have a need, personally

tomknee1

2022-11-02 11:06

ok thanks so i guess i should do `can-i-deploy` as next step in my pact journey then?

tomknee1

2022-11-02 11:07

what is normally the need for that webhook?

matt.fellows

2022-11-02 11:44

> what is normally the need for that webhook? (edited) There are probably some use cases that are now no longer required because of newer functionality (e.g. pending, wip etc.). In most cases, there shouldn?t be any ?gaps? with what?s described in the Nirvana guide/workshop

tomknee1

2022-11-02 11:47

ok thanks :slightly_smiling_face:

jayeshguru81

2022-11-02 13:27

Bumping this

gsouza

2022-11-02 14:29

has joined #general

gsouza

2022-11-02 14:32

:wave: Hi everyone! I'm using http://pact.io to create an poc in my company and ai have have follow the steps and here is the output after run the test: ```[2022-11-02 14:26:59.845 +0000] ERROR (23344 on Ghsouza): pact-core@13.11.0: !!!!!!!!! PACT CRASHED !!!!!!!!! The pact consumer core returned false at 'withResponseBody'. This should only happen if the core methods were invoked out of order This is almost certainly a bug in pact-js-core. It would be great if you could open a bug report at: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js-core/issues so that we can fix it. There is additional debugging information above. If you open a bug report,``` is there anything that i can do it to avoid this message?!

tomknee1

2022-11-02 15:42

Hello again, one last question on `can-i-deploy` please? We have one consumer app `Foo` that consumes let?s say 2 different providers We have all our provider verification tests etc in place for only one of those providers. For the other provider, those verification tests have not been added yet and we only have the consumer side expectations/tests done. This thus fails in `can-i-deploy` step because one of the providers hasnt got any verification tests/results, and we are using the same consumer name pacticipant `Foo` in all cases, as its all the same single consumer app. I can see a way around this would be to use different consumer pacticipant names for our contracts between provider `A` and our contracts between provider `B`, but is this the correct approach? Shouldn?t we just have one consumer pacticipant? But then what do we do in the situation where we are still waiting on provider tests to be added for a provider? Thanks.

yousafn

2022-11-02 16:14

Hey, I would raise an issue on the repo suggested in the link, and provide some repro steps as the message is indicating something is wrong. It may be erroneous but it is worth checking out. Are your pacts being generated correctly?

yousafn

2022-11-02 16:15

Hey buddy. I would create a minimal reproducible example on GitHub so it?s easy for a volunteer to pick up the codebase and see if they can provide an answer by experimentation, as a source of being able to help assist them, to assist you :the_horns::skin-tone-4:

2022-11-02 16:15

jayeshguru81

2022-11-02 16:19

ok got it thanks will tty to do

yousafn

2022-11-02 16:26

Running cid with retry is good. You publish your pact, if it needs verification, an event is emitted and a webhook kicks off the provider build for a contract requiring validation ( by pact url ) this reports a successful verification Consumer can I deploy will return a result after the provider has performed their verifications based on the builds The retry mechanism is nice here as the consumer can deploy straight after all the necessary verifications are complete. The diagrams and flow on the path to nirvana need updating at the moment to reflect the new ci/cd workshop. I think there will be less steps, and as it will no longer be using tags, both for environments and branches, and uses the new webhook which ensures changed pacts are verified on the latest of the main branch, and any deployed or released versions There are alternative means. The consumer for whatever reason may mechanisms and purposes for webhooks. A provider verification successful result, you may want to report back in a GitHub pull request status check, or trigger the consumers build to run. If you can provide a diagram of your pipeline setup we can help advise on or discuss a suitable workflow.

tomknee1

2022-11-02 16:54

Yep thanks the retry mechanism in can-I-deploy works well but have another question now that I posted separately :)

gsouza

2022-11-02 16:57

Will do, thanks @yousafn

tjones

2022-11-02 21:07

There's a good second reason that is worth calling out - I already know how to use pact. So if I _just_ use it for mocking without verification, I don't have to learn a tool that is explicitly for that

tjones

2022-11-02 22:44

As a workaround, you can ask can-i-deploy about the specific consumer and provider, rather than the environment

tjones

2022-11-02 22:45

That way you don't have to use different consumer names, but you do have to remember to change it back when the other provider has tests

tomknee1

2022-11-02 23:32

Sorry do u have an example please?

tjones

2022-11-02 23:32

I don?t, but I think you can give can-I-deploy the consumer and provider names (it allows you to specify multiple)

tomknee1

2022-11-02 23:34

Hmm I?ll check the docs again in the morning but I?m currently unsure how I could provide two pacticipants in one command

tjones

2022-11-02 23:34

just specify twice

tjones

2022-11-02 23:34

it supports repeat parameters

tomknee1

2022-11-02 23:35

Right but I wouldn?t want to check can I deploy for provider from consumer pipeline ?

tjones

2022-11-02 23:35

`pact-broker can-i-deploy --pacticipant Foo --pacticipant Bar`

tomknee1

2022-11-02 23:35

Bit confused now

tjones

2022-11-02 23:36

Yes, usually you wouldn?t. This is a workaround for the problem of wanting to exclude the provider that has no tests

tomknee1

2022-11-02 23:36

Hm thanks so u would recommend this over different consumer participant names ?

tjones

2022-11-02 23:36

From the docs: > Can I deploy the latest version of Foo with tag ?master? and the latest version of Bar with tag ?master? together? ```$ pact-broker can-i-deploy --pacticipant Foo --latest master \ --pacticipant Bar --latest master```

tjones

yes

tjones

> different consumer participant names ? This will live for a long time

tjones

it will be hard to undo

tjones

changing the can-I-deploy check will be easy

tomknee1

2022-11-02 23:38

That makes sense ye

tomknee1

2022-11-02 23:38

Thanks

tjones

2022-11-02 23:39

you?re welcome! Let us know how you go

tomknee1

2022-11-02 23:41

Ah wait using ?latest is for the legacy tagging way, I don?t use tags would I have to now for this workaround?

tjones

2022-11-02 23:42

I think it works with other methods

tomknee1

2022-11-02 23:43

zhangjingqiang

2022-11-02 23:49

has joined #general

bmorton

2022-11-02 23:58

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-11-03 01:52

The fact your tests are passing leads me to think there is an issue with your setup. It shouldn?t be possible for your expectations to pass, but that specific explosion to happen. So there is at least two bugs - one with Pact and one in your tests

andrew.brindle

2022-11-03 10:44

has joined #general

gsouza

2022-11-03 14:08

just to be sure, how can i check this: *`pacts being generated correctly`* *tks!*

vladislav.ledniov

2022-11-03 14:13

has joined #general

jonathan

2022-11-03 16:43

has joined #general

jwheatley

2022-11-03 18:33

We are testing Pact at the unit test level directly with Pact. Is testing client logic like this recommended for Pact?

jwheatley

2022-11-03 18:35

Do folks commonly do this sort of thing with Pact?

yousafn

2022-11-03 18:36

yes, that is the ideal scenario https://docs.pact.io/5-minute-getting-started-guide#scope-of-a-consumer-pact-test

ldicesaro.scvsoft

2022-11-03 20:55

has joined #general

jwheatley

2022-11-03 20:57

@ldicesaro.scvsoft is the dev from my team. I invited him to the thread :slightly_smiling_face:

ldicesaro.scvsoft

2022-11-03 20:58

Thanks Jane, hey Yousaf! I'll read the thread.

ldicesaro.scvsoft

2022-11-03 21:21

I have a question, Yousaf. Pact will validate only the communication between the services. (I mean endpoints). So if we want to emulate an E2E we need work together with the unit tests. Pact for communication and unit tests for functionality, right?

ldicesaro.scvsoft

2022-11-03 21:31

Technical questions: ? We are using the `webmock` gem (see https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/comparisons#how-does-pact-differ-from-webmock) in our unit tests (ruby specs). If we want a client (consumer side) to be validated with Pact we should make a copy of that client to point it to the Pact mock service. What is the best practice here? Should we make a copy, or should we replace `webmock` for that client? ? When we define specs on the Consumer side, and we want to generate a pact file, we need to define the request body/response body/headers and finally, execute the code. That's fine. The thing is that we need to code trivial expectations (https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/ruby/readme#4-write-a-failing-spec-for-the-animal-service-client) too. I understand the expectation on functional tests. But in these cases, there is no a complex logic in the middle, we are testing the Pact tool itself. What is the purpose to create expectations of something we defined a few lines above? I await your responses. Thanks

matt.fellows

2022-11-03 22:18

When the tests run, it should write a pact file to a folder somewhere (usually `./pacts`

matt.fellows

2022-11-03 22:18

I?d like to see your code if we can, so we can help diagnose

gsouza

2022-11-04 00:30

@matt.fellows can i share the repo and also a video overview ?

carlosmarange

2022-11-04 06:09

has joined #general

stevet

2022-11-04 06:31

has joined #general

seikyo.cho

2022-11-04 08:58

has joined #general

poornimakrishnarajan

2022-11-04 13:56

has joined #general

jwheatley

2022-11-04 16:18

@yousafn does this seem like something you have knowledge about?

ldicesaro.scvsoft

2022-11-04 16:51

Should we post it in a new thread maybe? :thinking_face:

tanyaryzhova93

2022-11-04 18:38

Hello, could you please tell me if Pact can be used for non-HTTP protocols? Can it be used in AWS, for example for eventhubs? If you have a documentation, please share :pray:

jwheatley

2022-11-04 19:13

i think so :slightly_smiling_face:

ldicesaro.scvsoft

2022-11-04 20:55

I'm new in this group, I mean I'm not an expert but maybe you should read this Pact documentation about https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/how_pact_works#non-http-testing-message-pact

tanyaryzhova93

2022-11-04 21:47

Nice, thanks a lot! I missed this one :+1:

ldicesaro.scvsoft

2022-11-04 22:23

Hey people. I have a few questions. Please, let me know if I should post them on a specific channel. Thanks :thread:

ldicesaro.scvsoft

2022-11-04 22:23

We are working with Ruby on Rails. We implemented Pact until thehttps://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana/step_5. The questions are: ? We are using the https://github.com/bblimke/webmock gem (see https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/comparisons#how-does-pact-differ-from-webmock) in our unit tests. We chose an existing HTTP client (on the consumer side) to be validated with Pact. We made a copy of that client to point it to the Pact mock service, and we could successfully generate the Pact file and validate the provider. The pro is that we didn't change the existing code, and the con is that we need to maintain two mock definitions: one for Pact and one for webmock. What is the best practice here? Should we replace every HTTP client occurrence? ? When we want to generate a Pact file, we need to define the request body/response body/headers, create a spec, and finally to execute the code. That's fine. The thing is that we need to code trivial expectations (https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/ruby/readme#4-write-a-failing-spec-for-the-animal-service-client) too. I understand the expectation on functional tests. But in these cases, there is no complex logic in the middle. We are testing the Pact tool itself. What is the purpose creating expectations of something we defined a few lines above?

michalkras

2022-11-05 01:05

has joined #general

abubics

2022-11-06 23:37

Since you're on Rails, you might be interested in #pact-ruby, but these questions are more general philosophy, so here makes sense :thumbsup:

abubics

2022-11-06 23:38

When you say "make a copy of that client", do you just mean "instantiate it with different parameters"? Because that's exactly how it's intended, so it sounds like you're on track.

abubics

2022-11-06 23:41

You can use whatever tools you like together, the maintenance burden is a tradeoff to consider. Pact has done helpers for stripping matchers out of its mocks, in case you want to use those to reduce duplication. I think there's also a stub server (which I haven't used), if you're thinking of replacing wiremock completely.

abubics

2022-11-06 23:43

When you say "should we replace every HTTP client occurrence", I'm a bit confused. If you have an API client that encapsulates all the interactions, you shouldn't need to be replacing anything :thinking_face:

abubics

2022-11-06 23:48

On the "coding trivial expectations" part, if you're just writing things that are exactly represented by the Pact response, you don't need to add any assertions in your unit testing framework. The rest of the answer depends on how much logic you want to test around the edges. For example, on the consumer side, I parse the responses into domain classes, so there's a validation translation that happens, and I usually want to assert that the JSON is correctly converted.

ldicesaro.scvsoft

2022-11-06 23:57

Thanks for your answers, Boris. I'll think about this and ask again if there are any more questions.

abubics

2022-11-07 00:05

np, good luck :party_parrot: reach out any time :sunglasses:

maria.botnari

2022-11-07 12:07

has joined #general

tomasz.sosnowski

2022-11-07 13:52

has joined #general

bpadhalni

2022-11-07 15:26

has joined #general

jonathan

2022-11-07 16:38

Hi all - I'm investigating using Pact on a project and have read through all the docs, but could use help better understanding what sort of test cases to use pact for. A few questions: - Is contract testing mainly about catching breaking structural API changes? If it goes beyond that, how do you determine where to draw the line between functional tests? - If there are several ways we can populate an update (PUT) request which lead to different values in the response, would we want to test several of those, or just one overall test for an update? - We have some large requests that encompass several smaller components. Do we want to have tests that cover the entire large object in addition to tests for the smaller components?

tjones

2022-11-07 18:04

> Is contract testing mainly about catching breaking structural API changes? It depends. I would say contract testing is about confirming whether two systems are able to communicate - in some system designs, this will mainly be about catching breaking structural API changes. > would we want to test several of those, or just one overall test for an update? Test each communication scenario - each time you would be exercising a different meaning or a different code path, add a test for that. Think of it as contract-by-example. > large requests that encompass several smaller components. I don't think I understand this question. Could you elaborate on what you mean by component?

tjones

2022-11-07 18:09

> how do you determine where to draw the line between functional tests? The reason we don't recommend functional tests driven by pact is because the pact is defined at the consumer side, but you would be testing the functionality of the provider. The consumer doesn't (necessarily) know what the functionality of the provider is. Consider a "create this user" request - the provider will know what the valid username rules are (eg, you're not allowed that character, or this user already exists). The consumer will want to be able to understand several different types of response (say "that user was created", "that username isn't valid" and "that username is taken"). You'd want to have a test for each type of response that you care about, but it's not convenient to have a test for each scenario that might create that response - because if you did you would tightly couple the consumer's tests to the provider behaviour.

tjones

2022-11-07 18:09

I would recommend not using pact to drive functional tests, but I also wouldn't _avoid_ functional coverage. As in, it's ok if a pact test happens to exercise some functional code.

tjones

2022-11-07 18:12

> Is contract testing mainly about catching breaking structural API changes? There's another subtlety that might be worth pointing out there- because Pact is consumer-driven, you're not describing the whole API surface, or even necessarily the whole response payload. You're describing the parts of the API or payload that you're actually using. Removing a part of the payload that no consumer is using wouldn't be a breaking contract change, even if it might be a breaking structural change.

tjones

2022-11-07 18:17

The responsibility of contract testing is to test the communication boundary. You can think of it as a unit test that covers the "unit" made of the API code in both services For functional tests, those are more the responsibility of the unit tests on the provider side.

jonathan

2022-11-07 18:49

Thanks for the responses! > Test each communication scenario - each time you would be exercising a different meaning or a different code path, add a test for that. Think of it as contract-by-example. Hmm, that sounds a bit like functional testing to me. Maybe a bit more about my situation would be helpful. My domain involves managing clustered "deployments" of services. We have one request/resource representing a deployment that you can update in different ways, which somewhat represents different use cases. For example, updating a deployment's version causes it to be upgraded. Upgrading a deployment's node count causes it to be scaled out. These are different use cases, but are accomplished via the same "update deployment" request/API. Would it be appropriate to contract test each of these since the structure of the request is the same, and only the contents of the requests and responses differ?

jonathan

2022-11-07 18:54

Somewhat related to the above, when we write a contract test, what is it exactly that we're trying to exercise? Is it the serialization/deserialization logic that ensures compatibility between requests and responses, along with validation of a request? Or are we trying to test all the ways that different values in some request can lead to different values in a response? The former seems more related to the API contracts and the latter seems more related to functionality.

tjones

2022-11-07 18:58

Ah, I see what you're asking. I would say that the contract test covers the serialisers and the API calling / receiving code. In the case of multiple different responses but with similar structure, it can be helpful to add a case for different responses - for example, say you could have a response that is: ```{ "status": "deployed"}``` and ```{ "status": "updating"}``` then it's useful to explicitly cover those: "given some service exists, then a request to update that service, responds with the status: updating"

tjones

2022-11-07 18:59

For me, the difference here is that the contract test is saying "I understand `{ "status": "updating" }` to mean that the service is updating", but you're not actually checking whether it is

tjones

2022-11-07 19:00

Having explicit tests for this, over: ```{ "status": <any string> }``` means that you would catch a case where say the provider responds with `UPDATING` and the client doesn't understand it

jonathan

2022-11-07 19:15

Thanks. Another example that might help clarify things for me, say I have a request that looks like this: ```{ "applicationCount": 3, "applicationConfig": ... }``` and leads to a response like this: ```{ "applications": [ { "endpoint": ... "credentials": ... }, { "endpoint": ... "credentials": ... }, { "endpoint": ... "credentials": ... }, ] }``` I imagine it would make sense to assert that _some_ value for applicationCount and applicationConfig leads to the appropriate response, but not necessarily that various different values do. Does that seem right?

tjones

2022-11-07 19:23

Yes, that?s right. To determine where I stop enumerating scenarios like that, I would think about what risk the test is reducing, if that makes sense?

tjones

2022-11-07 19:23

So you might want to ensure that the different kinds of config can be specified

jonathan

2022-11-07 19:26

Thanks, yea, there are use cases we certainly want to test, I'm just trying to figure out how we draw the line between making something an end-to-end or integration test vs a contract test. For example, the difference between an "upgrade" vs an "upscale" use case for us is just changing one field vs another in the same request document. How that impacts the API response is minimal, but how that impacts the rest of our system is big.

jonathan

2022-11-07 19:27

In that case, maybe we'd want a contract test, but we'd still want some other forms of testing to make sure that what happens afterwards is functionally correct.

tjones

2022-11-07 19:27

Right, yes. Contract testing is about understanding - can service A understand service B. This is important because it?s cheaper to test that with a contract test than an integration test, and that can give you deployment confidence

tjones

2022-11-07 19:27

100%, yes

jonathan

2022-11-07 19:28

Cool, yea so is it fair to say that contract tests can replace e2e or integration tests to the extent that they're asserting API compatibilities, but that asserting correct functionality is still needed separately?

tjones

2022-11-07 19:28

To get the same confidence with an integration test you would need to deploy exactly the same version of all of your dependencies as you have in prod. For most ecosystems this is not practical

tjones

2022-11-07 19:28

Yes, exactly

tjones

2022-11-07 19:29

It is possible to almost completely replace e2e tests this way- as then your functional tests can be within each service

tjones

2022-11-07 19:30

I usually then just do light touch e2e to confirm that the configuration and combination of services is correct (eg urls and so on)

jonathan

2022-11-07 19:31

Re: one of the other questions above: > Do we want to have tests that cover the entire large object in addition to tests for the smaller components? > I don't think I understand this question. Could you elaborate on what you mean by component? Sure, for example, say we have a "create deployment" request that has a few different sections in it: ```{ "databaseConfig": { "nodeCount": 3, "nodeSize": "4G", "partitions": 24 }, "proxyConfig": { "nodeCount": 3, "nodeSize": "4G", "loadBalancing": true } }``` Would we want to create separate test cases to assert that the `databaseConfig` or `proxyConfig` are individually valid, or a single test case for the entire request?

jonathan

2022-11-07 19:32

The challenge is that our API might require both of those sections in the request.

tjones

2022-11-07 19:33

Ah, I understand. To answer that it might depend a bit on how many combinations you have. I had a similar case with a document description that had several different possible section types in arbitrary combinations- so I had contract tests for each type of section, and then one ?here?s an example complex doc?

tjones

2022-11-07 19:34

Right, for ?I require these to be together? it?s good to have an example with them together

matt.fellows

2022-11-07 22:48

I think @tjones deserves a whole meal, and not just a :taco: for this thread! :clap:

jonathan

2022-11-07 23:09

Yes, thanks Timothy!

tjones

2022-11-08 00:17

You're so welcome! Let us know how you go

jonathan

2022-11-08 04:36

Should a consumer test assert that the contents of a response correspond to the contents of a request?

jeroen.vandijk

2022-11-08 08:57

I appreciate your effort in all your thoughtful answers @jonathan (this one, and many others) I've learned a lot from them!

ajay.chinnam

2022-11-08 10:08

has joined #general

sprengo

2022-11-08 10:57

has joined #general

james.ferguson

2022-11-08 12:33

has joined #general

james.ferguson

2022-11-08 12:36

Hi team, I am setting up pactflow for our business and it seems that we've merged two accounts into one. Depending on who's screen you look at (all admins in the same org) we get different information about our subscription, billing, etc. Can you please provide support to ensure we're all on the same 'instance' of pact? Thanks

matt.fellows

2022-11-08 12:38

Hi James, just FYI this is best asked in #pactflow

matt.fellows

2022-11-08 12:38

but for now, your best bet is to drop a ticket to so the team can look into your case and fix it

james.ferguson

2022-11-08 12:38

Ok, thanks Matt

matt.fellows

2022-11-08 12:39

it _sounds_ like you might be logged into different URLs?

james.ferguson

2022-11-08 12:39

Same URLs...

james.ferguson

2022-11-08 12:44

Same Org, both logging in with Google Auth. Everything is the same except our subscription & billing :hmm:

matt.fellows

2022-11-08 12:50

I?ll DM you

gururaghavendrar98

2022-11-08 13:04

has joined #general

gsouza

2022-11-08 18:41

@matt.fellows here is the link for the repo that i said earlier: ? https://github.com/Ghsouza1/poc-contract-testing ? also some loom videos that i did: ? https://www.loom.com/share/1f35a2e0471940b493b21fb1c4ff6d7b ? https://www.loom.com/share/57a22f37cbf14c87b6dac1c010ca67fa let me know if you need something or even better schedule some huddle, tks!

tjones

2022-11-08 18:51

> Should a consumer test assert that the contents of a response correspond to the contents of a request? I'm not 100% on what you're asking here - I think there are two interpretations, so I'll answer both: If you're asking about what to put in the contract (whether to be specific `"status": "deployed"`, or general with a matcher `"status": any string`), then it depends. If it's part of the expectation of the consumer, then yes. For example, if you say "I'd like to change the status of this object to 'deployed'" and the resulting object is returned in the response, then yes, it should be in the contract. Another yes scenario might be where the consumer relies on it being a specific value (eg, if you're switching display logic on `deployed` vs `not-deployed` or something). If you're just displaying it, then no, it doesn't matter. A good guide for "should I use a matcher here" is to realise that using a matcher isn't a description of the response schema, it's a promise that all responses that pass the matcher are covered by the test that you've written.

tjones

2022-11-08 18:54

If you're asking whether you should assert in your test that the response you asked for was returned, then yes, you should do this. The reason is because you're testing that your unmarshaller is built correctly. In some languages (eg js) this is usually a no-brainer, because you often just unmarshall the payload into an object with `JSON.parse()`. But, the test is "does the response I am expecting unmarshall into the business object I am expecting", which is worth including in your test for completeness even if that's a 1:1 mapping.

jonathan

2022-11-08 18:57

Thanks - yea I noticed some of the example consumer tests basically just assert that a response deserializes successfully, but others assert the contents of the response either using a matcher or an exact match. Here's an example consumer test where an exact match is being performed: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/examples/messages/consumer/message_pact_consumer_test.go#L36 It sounds like that kind of thing is ok if the value being exactly matched is meaningful for the test.

tjones

2022-11-08 18:59

That?s right. The matchers really are a convenience thing for the provider team (so they don?t have to have identical test data)

tjones

2022-11-08 18:59

This is especially useful on eg, get requests

jonathan

2022-11-08 19:00

The downside of that test above is that the provider team has to ensure that the StateHandler they use for that test populates "name": "Baz" in the provided object?

tjones

2022-11-08 19:00

Like ?get a user has a username field, which I promise I will understand if it is a string?

tjones

2022-11-08 19:01

Right! That example is a great one. That should (in best practice) be a matcher, not a specific string

jonathan

2022-11-08 19:28

(Starting a new thread since this is a somewhat different topic) - I have a messaging use case where a service consumes a message and emits one or more messages in response, which are in turn consumer by other services. I can use pact to assert that the consumed message is as expected, but I'd also like to assert that the emitted messages are as expected, based on the consumed message, similar to how pact works with Http request/response tests. Here's a diagram to illustrate what I mean. The labels on the left indicate how each service emits messages that are derived from the message it consumes. But really, this is similar to a request/response flow, which the labels on the right illustrate. I'd like to be able to verify this type of situation by asserting the incoming messages (requests) and the emitted messages (responses) for each service. Any thoughts on this? Is there a way to accomplish this?

gsouza

2022-11-08 20:48

opened a BUG for this: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js-core/issues/415

matt.fellows

2022-11-08 21:00

Thanks!

steven

2022-11-08 23:09

has joined #general

alan.barr

2022-11-09 03:14

has joined #general

bas

2022-11-09 12:43

I'm working with a client on their contract testing implementation, and we're currently doing CDCT with Pact. I could use some views on how and where to make the consumer and provider test steps part of the respective pipelines. Services deploy to a DEV environment multiple times a day through a PR build process. At some point, a release candidate is put together for deployment into a QA environment. Not every PR leads to a new artefact version, hell, most of them don't (i.e., the version in the pom.xml), and I'm not even entirely sure that every RC does (but I'm checking that at the moment). I would love to see both consumer contract generation and publishing tests, as well as provider verification tests, run as often as possible, i.e., on every PR build, no matter what the change is. The earlier we can catch integration issues, the better.. However, I'm not sure if it is possible to publish changes to a contract without an artefact version bump? If that's not possible, I think we need to start having a serious talk with the various dev teams to get their versioning in order.. I'd love to hear some experiences from others about the frequency with which they run their contract tests, what that brought them and what things they had to keep in mind. How much do you really shift to the left with your contract tests?

wojciech.bachur

2022-11-09 13:55

has joined #general

arek92

2022-11-09 13:58

has joined #general

dariusz.duleba

2022-11-09 14:00

has joined #general

tjones

2022-11-09 18:51

Pact doesn't do this, but I think it should. You might be able to put something together that does it by wrapping the message pact interfaces, but it would be custom. I'm working on an alternative framework that will support this (and ideally be pact-compatible), but it's not ready for use yet.

tjones

2022-11-09 18:55

This versioning problem is actually exactly the use case that I wrote https://github.com/absolute-version/absolute-version-js to solve - it allows you to get between-release version numbers that are both human readable and correct. (some teams just use the git sha, but I found that less nice because they're not really human readable)

tjones

2022-11-09 18:55

It currently works off git tags, but it would be easy to extend it to read pom.xml, especially if that would be useful to you.

tjones

2022-11-09 18:57

What I usually do is: ? Generate version numbers with absolute-version ? Every commit is contract tested ? Every commit is deployed to dev ? Every release is tagged and deployed to <other environments>, assuming that the can-i-deploy passes

jonathan

2022-11-09 19:12

Interesting, can you ping me when there's something to share? Either here or .

jonathan

2022-11-09 19:14

As I thought more about this, I think it's fair to want to test this type of use case, but I'm not sure if a contract test is the appropriate place to do it. Because when service A sends a message to service B, it's true that service B emits a "response", but that response flows down to service C rather than back up to service A. So who/where would the assertion of that response live?

tjones

2022-11-09 19:16

It depends. There's an analogy to DB requests, like an http request to get a resource might. result in a request to a DB. You'd have a contract where you say: http request -> http response and you could have another contract where you say DB request -> DB response (for example - we don't actually have DB contract tests). You wouldn't want: http request -> DB request

tjones

2022-11-09 19:16

But, you might have a different case, where eg a translation layer for messages - where you might say: some message -> http request

tjones

2022-11-09 19:17

For me, this comes back to the contract test is for "can these two services talk to each other"

jonathan

2022-11-09 19:18

Yea that's a good point, though I did read in the guidelines that the DB example gets into the realm of functional testing, where shouldn't care about whether a DB is involved. That makes sense to me.

tjones

2022-11-09 19:18

I think the general case that you're hitting here is: some request -> some response But sometimes that's asynchronous

jonathan

2022-11-09 19:19

Yea, it's asynchronous, and the "response" flows down to another service rather than back to the originator of the first message (which makes it more of a reaction than a response).

tjones

2022-11-09 19:19

So, the contract of "can my http client talk to the http server" doesn't include "did the http server make the right DB call"

tjones

2022-11-09 19:20

Similarly, "can Service A understand the message it gets" won't include "did it send a message to Service B", for _most_ cases

tjones

2022-11-09 19:21

Translation layers are a really good counterexample here - like: ```Client -> BFF -> Backend request``` where say the BFF does passthrough, or a slight payload refactor

tjones

2022-11-09 19:22

In that case "did I send the right request further down" is actually part of the contract, I think

tjones

2022-11-09 19:23

"Can the client and the BFF understand each other" can't really be answered by the BFF - it depends on whether the BFF and the backend can understand each other

tjones

2022-11-09 19:23

pact doesn't handle this especially comfortably at the moment

jonathan

2022-11-09 19:24

The catch is that we don't want Service A to know anything about what Service B might emit. But we do want to assert that Service B emits something appropriate when it consumes a message from Service A.

jonathan

2022-11-09 19:25

Which is why I wasn't sure if that particular assertion should be part of a contract test. Maybe it's just a unit test inside Service B.

jonathan

2022-11-09 19:27

So a unit test would assert that an input results in some outputs as expected, and contract tests would assert that those outputs are compatible with the next service(s) down the line.

tjones

2022-11-09 19:28

> But we do want to assert that Service B emits something appropriate when it consumes a message from Service A. Right! I wouldn't do this with the contract test from service A, unless it's part of the communication with service A

jonathan

2022-11-09 19:28

...we just wouldn't be able to contract test anything across more than 2 services at a time.

tjones

2022-11-09 19:28

like, it's probably an expectation of service A (eg, hey service B, please save this in your storage)

tjones

2022-11-09 19:30

In most cases, I would do: ? Contract test on Service A with the message it receives, confirming that it unmarshals into the expected business object ? Unit test in Service A that confirms that the expected business object would be processed into a request for Service B (probably I mock the service B message sending client completely at this point) ? Contract test in Service A that covers the code that was mocked in the previous step

tjones

2022-11-09 19:31

Not sure how clear that description is, sorry :confused:

jonathan

2022-11-09 19:32

Yea that makes sense.

tjones

2022-11-09 19:34

> So a unit test would assert that an input results in some outputs as expected, and contract tests would assert that those outputs are compatible with the next service(s) down the line. Yes. You could equivalently say that a contract test asserts that an input (the call to the client code & the actual request on the wire) produces the expected output (returned business object from unmarshalling the actual response on the wire). That is, a contract test is a unit test that crosses service boundaries.

matt.fellows

2022-11-09 23:13

> However, I?m not sure if it is possible to publish changes to a contract without an artefact version bump? If that?s not possible, I think we need to start having a serious talk with the various dev teams to get their versioning in order.. :laughing:

matt.fellows

2022-11-09 23:14

Using the git commit SHA as the contract version is definitely the easiest first step, but Tim?s absolute version utility is a big improvement.

matt.fellows

2022-11-09 23:16

The issue here is the usual POM versioning strategy is semver or ?this is the thing we are working on and then will release? version vs what Pact needs - which is a unique identifier per code change (which is why the git SHA is a good default).

matt.fellows

2022-11-09 23:19

> I?d love to hear some experiences from others about the frequency with which they run their contract tests, what that brought them and what things they had to keep in mind. How much do you really shift to the left with your contract tests? it should really be every single build, and also run on dev machines prior to commit. In the case of the provider, it should be tested against a locally running version of the software with external dependencies stubbed out (i.e. a so called ?hermetic server?) (image taken from https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/testing-scope)

matt.fellows

2022-11-09 23:21

In some organisations, the provider API is run on technology stacks that can?t be run locally for various reasons (e.g. vintage technology like IBM WebSphere or large runtimes that are just not practical). In those instances, you?ll need to run the Pact tests against a test environment - this is a bit harder to manage and provide general advice for, but the general rule would be ?as often as you can? :)

bas

2022-11-10 07:45

Thanks @matt.fellows and @tjones, really appreciate your input. Running the tests (both consumer and provider parts) locally isn't the issue, we're doing that already (yay for Spring and mocking external dependencies). The versioning is the biggest challenge here. I'll bring that input back to the teams. Thanks again!

matt.fellows

2022-11-10 09:44

Ah perfect! then you've already solved the hard technical problems, this should be the easy bit (famous last words)

bas

2022-11-10 12:35

Yeah, because convincing others to change their ways of working has always been the easy part of consulting :wink: I'll keep you posted.

matt.fellows

2022-11-10 14:00

*Your favourite contract testing solution is now Pact with more power* :zap:*?* We?ve been tempting you for some time... and now we officially launch the Pact Plugin Framework - the missing piece to help you add contract testing to _all_ your applications. If you?ve been held up applying contract testing to a specific use case ? protocols like Protobufs, GraphQL, transports such as gRPC, Websockets and MQTT, Event Driven Architectures and data pipelines or emerging standards such as AsyncAPI and CloudEvent ? consider the blockers abolished! Developers can now build plugins for their custom needs, whether they open source the plugin or keep it closed source for in house only usage. Members of this channel will know this is a substantial innovation. By having a single generic interface, the Plugin Framework side steps the problems of requiring the input of core maintainers to support a new feature and its constituent concepts that must be built into each client language. *What to get started?* ? :computer: Join the launch webinar with @yousafn and me on Wed 30 Nov & Thurs 1 Dec (https://docs.pact.io/events/plugins-framework-launch) ? :books: Get stuck into https://docs.pact.io/blog/2022/11/11/pact-plugin-framework-launch

tjones

2022-11-10 17:57

My original plan was to have absolute-version available natively for the JVM too - so if you would find it useful, but don't want a node tool, let me know what the needs are and I'm happy to build it (it's not a substantial amount of work)

jayeshguru81

2022-11-10 17:58

Is session recorded and sent on channel or to the only people attending?

gsouza

2022-11-10 18:55

would you know what is the reason for that error message below: ```Test failed for the following reasons: Mock server failed with the following mismatches: 0) The following request was expected but not received:```

tjones

2022-11-10 18:59

It means you told pact to expect that request, but it didn't receive it.

tjones

2022-11-10 19:00

Usually one of: 1) You're not sending that request 2) You are sending that request, but not to Pact

gsouza

2022-11-10 19:01

got it, i did exactly the same as https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/javascript/docs/consumer but using my own endpoint! is there any link or steps to check those points that you said?

tjones

2022-11-10 19:02

I'm not sure what you're asking. Check that you're sending that request, and check that you're sending it to the pact mock server

gsouza

2022-11-10 19:03

just asking how to check if i'm sending the request and also sending to pact

tjones

2022-11-10 19:04

Read your code, and if it looks right, then run it through a debugger

cgodsey

2022-11-10 19:45

has joined #general

aforeman

2022-11-10 22:44

Hey @jayeshguru81 we will record the webinars and share with registered attendees :slightly_smiling_face: so please register for either session.

bas

2022-11-11 12:08

Thanks @tjones for the offer, I really appreciate it. You're right in that I prefer not to introduce a NodeJS tool (or rather, the runtime itself), but I'm going to try and let them use commit hashes first to make them feel the pain of that, hopefully that'll lead to them doing better on their versioning :slightly_smiling_face:

bas

2022-11-11 12:09

I might ask you again about this at some point, though!

tomknee1

2022-11-11 22:13

really awesome stuff :slightly_smiling_face:

saweniger

2022-11-14 17:29

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-11-15 07:50

Interesting in seeing a plugin get created, or perhaps want to contribute? Here is a https://pact.canny.io/feature-requests?category=plugins&sort=top of some of the most popular protocols/transports we see come up often in our chats with users - please vote :white_check_mark:

miguel.roldan

2022-11-15 11:06

has joined #general

robin.lungwitz

2022-11-15 13:32

has joined #general

laith

2022-11-15 16:15

has joined #general

elluru.kri.mohan

2022-11-15 18:14

has joined #general

rmartine

2022-11-15 20:35

has joined #general

sameena9010

2022-11-16 06:49

has joined #general

leon.luu2

2022-11-16 16:32

Hi! I wonder if it is possible for the provider in bi-directional testing to publish the openapi spec without any provider test?

yousafn

2022-11-16 16:43

hey, yes you can, just upload the api def as the test result file, or just use a text file with any text in. as the `verification-results` the results of the provider self verficiation of compliance with the api spec, is defined by the `verification-exit-code` or `verification-success` / `no-verification-success` once uploaded, it is compared to any registered consumers pact file

leon.luu2

2022-11-16 16:51

I manage to upload but got failed error as "Your Provider Contract Is Not Compatible With The Provider Codebase" as provider verification result. How can it be pass?

leon.luu2

2022-11-16 16:57

nvm, it was the flag verification-success which controlls it, I understand it now. Thanks!

ryanthomas840310

2022-11-16 20:52

has joined #general

mike.hideaki

2022-11-16 21:48

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-11-16 21:52

Got a treat for you if you are a https://www.ministryoftesting.com/ member, the wonderful @jaswanth.ooty created some material that might be right up your alley. https://www.ministryoftesting.com/dojo/lessons/api-challenge-jaswanth-manigundan-using-pact?s_id=13789307 https://www.ministryoftesting.com/dojo/lessons/building-and-implementing-an-api-test-solution-strategy-across-a-scaling-organisation-a-journey?s_id=13789309

vwaters

2022-11-16 22:31

has joined #general

ryanthomas840310

2022-11-16 23:33

Hi. I have a question about the pact broker can-i-deploy behavior. It's a fairly easy use case to work around and I'm not sure if this is specific to the pactflow broker I was using or if the behavior is the same in the open source pact broker. When testing a proof-of-concept bi-directional contract testing setup I found that the `can-i-deploy --to-environment <environmentname>` behavior for the api provider is somewhat unexpected when no environment deploys/releases have happened to the environment yet. In this scenario I would expect that the `can-i-deploy` behavior would not select any pacts for verification because none are in that environment. Instead I found that the behavior was selecting all of the pacts. i.e. 1. Consumer creates first test and uploads pact contract .json (version abcdef1) [from local machine] 2. Provider uploads open api schema (version xzy1) [from local machine] 3. Looking at the pactflow UI we see there are inconsistencies and fix them. 4. Consumer uploads pact contract .json (version abcdef2) [from local machine] 5. Setup proof-of-concept CICD for consumer 5a. Consumer CICD uploads pact contract version (abcdef3) 5b. Consumer CICD calls `can-i-deploy --to-environment production` and gets a 'No' response because no api deployment to production has been recorded. ^ This is the behavior I would expect 6. Setup proof-of-concept CICD for provider 6a. Provider CICD uploads open api schema version (xyz2) 6b. Provider CICD calls `can-i-deploy --to-environment production` and gets a 'No' response. The response shows all 3 consumer contracts (abcdef1, abcdef2, abcdef3) despite none of them being in production. And because abcdef1 is not valid is returns a no. ^ I would expect this to select none of the contracts in scenarios where no consumer version has been deployed to production yet.

matt.fellows

2022-11-17 03:17

Awesome work @jaswanth.ooty!

matt.fellows

2022-11-17 03:20

> 6b. Provider CICD calls `can-i-deploy --to-environment production` and gets a ?No? response. this behaviour is unexpected to me also. Are you able to share a view of what Pactflow sees (e.g. screen grab from UI matrix page for the provider) so we can understand why? Also, there is a can i deploy page in Pactflow. A screengrab of a populated version of that screen would be helpful too (if not for you, for us to help understand) P.S. this is also a #pactflow specific feature, might best ask there next time.

bas

2022-11-17 09:59

Hey @matt.fellows coming back to this, how can I easily add the commit hash to the contract version number? It looks like that's the way to go for now.. But I can't find how to in the docs. Also, can you confirm that the hash performed to see if a contract has been updated in the broker does not include the version number? I.e., the contract isn't actually seen as 'new' unless some expectation changes?

bas

2022-11-17 10:12

Keep in mind we're using the `pact-jvm-provider-maven` plugin to publish consumer contracts

tjones

2022-11-17 10:16

The version number isn?t in the contract file, so it?s not considered for the hash

tjones

2022-11-17 10:17

I don?t know the answer to the other part of your question though, sorry

bas

2022-11-17 10:17

Ah I think I got it... `<projectVersion>${project.version}-${git.shorthash}</projectVersion>`

tjones

That? looks like maven, yes :sweat_smile:

bas

From https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/jvm/provider/maven#1-add-the-pact-jvm-provider-maven-plugin-to-your-build-section-of-your-pom-file

bas

Thanks @tjones!

tjones

https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/bi-directional-contract-testing

Welcome!

bas

2022-11-17 10:19

Now to test if it actually works but for that I need to wait until the ops people provide me with a working broker :slightly_smiling_face:

tjones

2022-11-17 10:19

The contract hash in the broker is a straight up hash of the contract file. The broker is actually pact agnostic- you could use it for any other file

bas

2022-11-17 10:19

Oh that's nice to know!

tjones

2022-11-17 10:20

I can recommend pactflow for that in good conscience, because I don?t work for them. But my experience is that it is definitely easier than maintaining your own.

tjones

2022-11-17 10:20

(Of course, your situation may be different)

bas

2022-11-17 10:24

I'd be 100% in favour of Pactflow, too, I recommended my client using that but for reasons we're going the OSS route for now

bas

2022-11-17 10:24

(long story)

bas

2022-11-17 10:59

Hmm.. `${git.shorthash}`isn't resolved so that is appended to the contract version literally.. Not exactly what I was looking for!

bas

2022-11-17 10:59

Is that a plugin thing?

bas

2022-11-17 11:04

I've found this but the shortcodes are different: https://github.com/git-commit-id/git-commit-id-maven-plugin

bas

2022-11-17 13:38

@matt.fellows do you happen to know how I can get Pact to recognize that `${git.shorthash}` shortcode as seen here (under Publishing Pact files to a Pact broker)?

yousafn

2022-11-17 18:27

A lot happens in 10 years. We?ve seen it all here at Pact, from the proliferation of micro services, to ever increasing protocols like Protobufs, GraphQL, transports such as gRPC, Websockets and MQTT, EventDrivenArchitectures and data pipelines or emerging standards such as OpenAPI, AsyncAPI and CloudEvents. As we launch our Pact Plugin Framework bringing you new possibilities to the Pact eco-system, I?d like to invite you to try an interactive history lesson of Pact, from past, to present and beyond! http://docs.pact.io/blog/2022/11/17/pact-facts-a-history-lesson

juergen.unfried

2022-11-17 20:43

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-11-18 03:37

I have no idea sorry Bas, but I reckon @uglyog might. Ron, any ideas? That being said, I like to encourage use of the Pact CLI if you can: https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/cli#pact-broker-cli Maven is?.not fun

uglyog

2022-11-18 03:46

Just reading the comments. I think either Maven doesn't replace the expression if the system property is not defined, or it does not support expressions in that form. The best thing to do would be pass it on the command line (i.e. add `-Dpact.projectVersion=...`)

uglyog

2022-11-18 03:47

Oh, I see your issue. You've copied the example. That assumes something is setting `git.shorthash` system property. That is not the default Maven behaviour (Maven knows nothing about Git)

uglyog

2022-11-18 03:48

Try adding `-Dgit.shorthash=...` to your command line (replacing the `...` with the actual Git SHA, of course)

matt.fellows

2022-11-18 04:01

Ah! That makes sense! Thanks Ron. So basically, define outside of maven however you wish (Bash, Powershell, scripts) and pass as a system property. Does Maven support environment variables in the same places as system props?

uglyog

2022-11-18 04:03

> Does Maven support environment variables in the same places as system props? Please refer any Maven questions to the Maven people

tjones

2022-11-18 05:24

https://github.com/git-commit-id/git-commit-id-maven-plugin <-- you can use this to get `git describe` output, which is very similar to what absolute-version does (the main difference is that absolute-version is semver compatible)

bas

2022-11-18 08:05

Cheers folks! I thought it maybe was a feature I didn't know of. Looks like I'll have to take a closer look at that plugin (or see how to pass it through the CLI). I'd like to stick to Maven (yes, I said that) because so much is managed through Maven in this org I'm working with, probably easier to educate people that way.

nicholas.simons

2022-11-18 10:29

Good morning! The pact nirvana doc set (which is great, by the way!) describes how to use the broker in CI/CD pipelines. I'm wondering: are the tests designed to be run locally also (alongside unit tests)? I see value in running the consumer-side tests, as they can fail if they can't generate a pact. But to run the provider-side tests, the machine on which I'm running the tests needs to be connected to a network over which pacts can be pulled from the broker. Is the preference not to run provider-side tests locally, or to fall back to reading pacts out of a folder, or to ensure everyone has access to the broker?

bas

2022-11-18 10:46

Hey @nicholas.simons, I'd definitely prefer using a broker, that's (in my opinion) the only fail-safe way to make sure you always have the latest contracts and versions. By all means run your provider-side tests locally, too (I think that's a great idea) but you'll need that network connection to the broker (running either 'in the cloud' or somewhere within your company network)

bas

2022-11-18 10:47

Let's put it this way: is there another way to make sure, without human intervention, that you have the latest contracts in your local pact folder?

nicholas.simons

2022-11-18 11:00

Hi, As you imply, there is no way to ensure I have the latest pacts in my local folder: a system of caching pacts into a folder so that locally I'm at least testing against a relatively new pact seems complicated and of little value because as soon as I push code to my CI tool, the pipeline would run and test against a pact from the broker anyway. If it's convenient enough for the devs on my team, I'll go with fetching from the broker locally; the second-best option looks like disabling the provider test locally, and only running after pushing code to the CI tool (or on a webhook trigger). Thanks for your reply!

jose.anastacio

2022-11-18 13:34

has joined #general

shawn305

2022-11-18 13:42

has joined #general

tronghuy

2022-11-19 01:38

has joined #general

tjones

2022-11-19 05:21

> I'd like to stick to Maven (yes, I said that) You don't have to explain yourself to us :wink:

matt.fellows

2022-11-21 07:02

> Cheers folks! I thought it maybe was a feature I didn?t know of. Looks like I?ll have to take a closer look at that plugin (or see how to pass it through the CLI). I?d like to stick to Maven (yes, I said that) because so much is managed through Maven in this org I?m working with, probably easier to educate people that way. No judgement :grimacing:

glauco.carvalho

2022-11-21 15:47

has joined #general

soner.ay

2022-11-21 16:57

has joined #general

gsouza

2022-11-21 18:52

@tjones how can i run through a debugger?

flafla.mattos

2022-11-22 19:10

has joined #general

jordan.nazemi

2022-11-22 20:10

In the situation where we have an API provider and an API consumer, are there any recommendations for which tool to use to generate pact files? Most of the workshops seems to be focused on a web app consumer. While we could theoretically just use Cypress to do the API testing and use the cypress-pact adapter to generate the pact file I'm just curious what others have used in the past with success.

matt.fellows

2022-11-22 20:32

Normally you?d just use Pact. The Cypress pact adapter is really only best suited when using Pactflow?s BDCT workflow, because it doesn?t use matchers etc. So it will result in brittle tests if you use Pact to verify them. Does this help or did I misunderstand the question?

jordan.nazemi

2022-11-22 20:39

Nope that answers it! I did forget to specify were specifically using the bi-directional testing model, which is why I suggested the Cypress-pact adapter as one of our tooling solutions.

jordan.nazemi

2022-11-22 20:40

With that in mind, is Pact still preferable to use over Cypress for BDCT? Do any workshops exist for using bi-directional between APIs providers/consumers?

matt.fellows

2022-11-22 22:07

matt.fellows

2022-11-22 22:07

There are a few examples, e.g. https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/examples/bi-directional/consumer/mountebank/

chrisjburnscg

2022-11-22 22:11

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-11-22 22:15

> With that in mind, is Pact still preferable to use over Cypress for BDCT? The answer is always ?it depends?. BDCT is faster/easier, Pact has better guarantees

jordan.nazemi

2022-11-23 14:53

Ill take a look at these, thanks!

imer.muhovic

2022-11-24 08:57

has joined #general

mohitsoni

2022-11-24 10:19

has joined #general

celia

2022-11-24 14:32

has joined #general

alan.zhu

2022-11-25 02:31

Hey team I have one question, probably silly, about how to do a contain check in the response array in Pact. below is a sample, if I want to check id 995 in sections seems I have to check the whole exact array or use some thing like regular expressions, is there an easier way to check this?(if sections is a object I can just check id 955 and leave other object I don't want to check) ```{"sections": [ ... { "facilities": [ { "id": 433, "key": "Swimming Pool (2019 format)", "name": "Swimming Pool" } ], "id": 999, "key": "Top Facilities", "name": "Top facilities" }, { "facilities": [], "id": 995, "key": "Meals", "name": "Price for meals" }, { "facilities": [], "id": 997, "key": "Languages Spoken", "name": "Languages spoken" } ... ] }```

aaron.m.williams24

2022-11-25 03:32

Have you checked the arrayContaining function? That may help you if I'm not mistaken!

matt.fellows

2022-11-25 03:52

:dizzy_face:

matt.fellows

2022-11-25 03:53

Can you please explain what you want to test Alan? I?m not sure I understand the question. Do you want to check that an object in the list of arrays exists, that has the id `995`? Or do you want to check that each object in the list has an `id`?

matt.fellows

2022-11-25 03:53

(or something else)

alan.zhu

2022-11-25 04:14

Sure, first thanks Aaron's suggestion. arrayContaining could be helpful in this scenario but I didn't find this function in pact-python which I'm using now:disappointed_relieved:. The sections is an array and may contain hundreds of different objects. I want to check some of specific objects returned with correct name, key and facilities(exp?sections should contain object with id 995 with name "Price for meals", key "Meals" ...) I found it tough to describe my expect because pact will strictly check each index of object in an array and regular expressions(Term) seems much complex for this case

harald.bittermann

2022-11-25 10:01

has joined #general

harald.bittermann

2022-11-25 10:19

Hey Team, I read that pact is not the tool for testing proxies. Now we are currently checking out if pact would work nicely to contract test our microservices and I think we have a special case here. Eager to know your opinion. We have 4 services. Let's call them Consumer, Proxy, MasterProvider and DetailProvider. Proxy is, as the name suggests, a proxy and simply forwards all calls to masterprovider. Proxy does not know (much) about the requests it forwards. But it knows a bit. E.g. it knows that there has to be an auth header, if present it will be checked, if not the request will be rejected. But more importantly, it knows about a query parameter "detail". If set to true the response of masterprovider will be parsed. Again we do not care about how this response looks in detail we are only looking for one defined attribute in the json that contains an ID which will then be used to invoke DetailProvider. The results of this call will be embedded in the original response of Master within a metadata section. Our problem here is: ? How can our client be sure that the his request will be understood by Masterservice ? But without Proxy having any more knowledge about requests that he already has The strange situation here is that proxy is not the owner of the api, but howere he does have logic. Is this an example about "what not to test with pact". How would you make sure (with or without pact) that client test fails when MasterProvider changes its API

matt.fellows

2022-11-25 10:35

yeah, arrayContaining is unfortunately not supported in Python yet

matt.fellows

2022-11-25 10:35

The idea is usually to use provider states, and to limit the responses from the provider for that state, so that you don?t have to do these checks. But that is sometimes easier said than done

matt.fellows

2022-11-25 10:36

i.e. the state might be `given a facility with meals exists` and then when the provider verification happens, this state reduces the responses from the endpoint to the shapes expected

2022-11-25 13:23

has joined #general

sree

2022-11-25 14:22

has joined #general

mwilso29

2022-11-25 14:42

Hi All, When I'm running `pact-broker create-webhook` in the pipeline I don't seem to get a UUID in response. Do you know how I can obtain it?

2022-11-26 12:18

Hello. Is pact-php still supported? I waiting since March 2022 of a reply to an issue... https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-php/issues/234

tomknee1

2022-11-27 14:04

hello, does anyone please know if it is possible via api or cli etc to get the latest version of a pacticipant within a given environment? (using environments rather than the legacy tagging way)

tomknee1

2022-11-27 14:09

hello, sorry to revive this thread but this has proven to be a bigger problem for us? as we use environments and not the legacy tagging, i don?t know a way that we can get the specific provider pacticipant versions within a given environment, and using `--to` or `--to-environment` still checks against all provider services (even ones not ready for can-i-deploy) the only command ive gotten working as a temp workaround, but is still less than ideal is ```pact-broker can-i-deploy --pacticipant ConsumerApp \ --version "$GIT_COMMIT" \ --pacticipant ProviderService \ --branch main``` which checks against the latest version on that `main` branch but not the versions in the environments. I don?t really want to have to refactor and add in legacy tagging just to be able to get the specific versions within environments either. Any ideas here please? :pray:

soumya.aithal

2022-11-27 17:15

has joined #general

sumitsg004

2022-11-27 18:39

Hello , I am starting with Contract test for my project. Is there any documentation on best practices and do's and don'ts that I can follow? If I can get any doc link or in general best practices to follow would be big help. Thanks

aaron.m.williams24

2022-11-27 22:49

I assume you've read these? https://docs.pact.io/consumer https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/testing-scope https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/matching

nathan.pine

2022-11-28 09:19

has joined #general

sumitsg004

2022-11-28 09:36

thanks :+1:, went through couple of them. This would be good to start

sanmicad

2022-11-28 12:20

has joined #general

2022-11-28 14:03

... an answer please :pleading_face: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1669465115353379

yousafn

2022-11-28 14:17

Hey Anton, Pact-PHP is community supported, but the main author has been very busy for the last couple of years, so it gets occasional maintainence. Looking at your issue, appreciate the snippets you have provided, it might be worth seeing if you can fork the repository and create a test case that demonstrates the issue, to help aid others in their investigations. You may also be interested in reviewing the PR for the migration to the rust core, as help from the community in reviewing and testing that, would be advantageous as your issue could be caused by the ruby core used in pact-php

tomknee1

2022-11-28 14:23

To follow up on this, I have decided to go the route of creating a version tag right after we record deployment/release, this allows us to then do something like `pact-broker describe-version -a ProviderService -l $TAG -o json | jq '.number'` to get the needed provider version number, something i cant do without the legacy tagging currently, would be good if we could get provider version based on the new `environment` instead (maybe a feature request for future :slightly_smiling_face: )

tjones

2022-11-28 14:33

I would put feature requests here https://pact.canny.io/feature-requests or directly in #general to ensure that a maintainer sees it. Maybe ask in #pact-broker, too, if you haven?t already

tomknee1

2022-11-28 14:34

thanks will add it to canny :slightly_smiling_face:

2022-11-28 14:42

Hey Yousaf, thank you for your reply. Do you know when should the Rust version would be released?

alan.zhu

2022-11-29 06:22

Hey team I have another question, about the execution orders of different states in Pact during verification. I met this scenario: saving the object by POST first, and then reading back the values from the appropriate GET request. I just ordered them with 'save' first then 'query'.It seems works in Pact But I still want a double check with you guys: are the use cases executed in strict accordance with the order in the pact?

matt.fellows

2022-11-29 06:27

No, you should not rely upon execution ordering

matt.fellows

2022-11-29 06:28

I?m sure it?s documented on http://docs.pact.io, but a quick search doesn?t show it

matt.fellows

2022-11-29 06:28

probably under best practices

matt.fellows

2022-11-29 06:28

This is the reason why though: https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/provider_states

sumitsg004

2022-11-29 06:44

Hello Team, I have a doubt regarding Provider state. As a consumer I want certain specific value to be returned from provider. Say I am consuming a field "RuleId" and I want provider to return "Rule-123". As a provider - I am supposed to hit the real running service and match the response with pact response. But to achieve my scenario, should I use Provider state and mock the response to return "Rule-123" ? Similarly for error scenarios - should I create mock response for each error scenario ? I might be wrong here, but I am confused like if I mock any response, then I am not validating real response but mock response. Kindly help to understand how provider side should be setup to achieve these scenarios mentioned above

tjones

2022-11-29 08:20

You should use provider states to mock something deeper in your service (like the data / repository layer), so that your response is really what your provider will return

tjones

2022-11-29 08:22

> But to achieve my scenario, should I use Provider state and mock the response to return ?Rule-123? ? This is partly what the matchers are for. You might have a request for a rule with `ruleId: "Rule-123"`. You could alleviate the requirement on mock data with: ```{ ruleId: "Rule-123", title: Matchers.string("Rule title") }``` This says the `ruleId` must be `Rule-123`, but you?ll accept any string for the title during verification.

tjones

2022-11-29 08:24

Basically you use the matchers to say ?I promise you anything that passes this matcher is covered by this test case?.

tjones

2022-11-29 08:31

You might find this page helpful: https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/testing-scope#scope-of-a-provider-pact-test

marcin.nawrocki

2022-11-29 09:25

has joined #general

sumitsg004

2022-11-29 09:29

Thanks Timothy for response. "You should use provider states to mock something deeper in your service (like the data / repository layer)" - Can you elaborate a bit on this one? If say "Rule-123" is coming from DB, I should insert that data beforehand in the DB and clear it after the test ? Or I can use Mokito and based on condition reply with appropriate response?

ringo

2022-11-29 11:58

Quick question: where can I download the standalone pact mock server (for Intel MacOS) mentioned in https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/rust/pact_mock_server_cli?

yousafn

2022-11-29 12:05

Hey bud https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases?q=standalone&expanded=true

tjones

2022-11-29 13:34

It?s definitely easier to use the language specific DSLs though (unless there isn?t one for your language)

ringo

2022-11-29 13:34

I `start` the main mock server. After that, I `create` a new mock server from a pact file. The debug output of the main server shows this: ```13:29:03 [DEBUG] (18) pact_mock_server_cli::server: Starting mock server with id 49c8834c-661f-4b65-94ce-03d9384bb330 13:29:03 [DEBUG] (18) pact_mock_server::mock_server: Started mock server on 0.0.0.0:51714 13:29:03 [DEBUG] (18) pact_mock_server_cli::server: mock server started on port 51714 13:29:03 [DEBUG] (18) pact_mock_server_cli::server: Result of starting mock server: Ok(true) 13:29:03 [DEBUG] (4) pact_mock_server_cli::server: Result of thread: Ok(true)``` When I run `./pact_mock_server_cli list` after that, the `list` call hangs. This is the only debug info shown on the main server: ```13:29:30 [DEBUG] (11) hyper::proto::h1::io: parsed 3 headers 13:29:30 [DEBUG] (11) hyper::proto::h1::conn: incoming body is empty 13:29:30 [DEBUG] (11) pact_mock_server_cli::server: main_resource -> resource_exists 13:29:30 [DEBUG] (11) pact_mock_server_cli::server: main_resource -> render_response``` Am I doing something wrong? Any known issues with this?

tjones

2022-11-29 13:36

I don?t know - in most use cases, you don?t need to interact directly with the mock server like this. What are you trying to do?

tjones

2022-11-29 13:37

I agree with your steps, though - the docs suggest that what you?re doing is right.

ringo

2022-11-29 13:37

@tjones I understand, but I?m not using the mock server for the typical contract test setup. I?m using it to reproduce a bug in an existing CLI tool. The mock server substitutes a service we don?t have access to. Our customer provided what their setup returned, so I?m mimicking the CLI tool connecting to the service, returning the content as is.

ringo

2022-11-29 13:37

@tjones see the other thread on what I?m trying to do.

tjones

2022-11-29 13:38

Interesting!

tjones

2022-11-29 13:38

I assume it doesn?t work without the `list` command? What happens if you just start the server, and then try to use it?

tjones

2022-11-29 13:39

Have you tried not doing `start`?

tjones

2022-11-29 13:40

Ah, wait, that won?t help, according to the docs.

ringo

2022-11-29 13:40

The `list` command was already to debug the fact that my created mock server wasn?t responding at all.

tjones

2022-11-29 13:41

Yeah, I thought that might be the case.

tjones

2022-11-29 13:42

If your pact file is spec V2 or lower (or can be generated as such), you could try the Ruby mock server

tjones

2022-11-29 13:43

The Ruby CLI can be found here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases/tag/v1.91.0

tjones

2022-11-29 13:43

Otherwise you might have to wait for a rust core maintainer to come online (probably best to open an issue https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/issues)

tjones

2022-11-29 13:44

The team is in Australia, so they?re probably asleep now

ringo

2022-11-29 13:45

Thanks for the suggestion, but I?m going to stop investigating this way for now. I already have to debug our customer problem. Not going to debug the pact tooling on top of that. No offence.

tjones

2022-11-29 13:45

That?s very reasonable.

tjones

2022-11-29 13:46

The Ruby CLI has been around for a long time, so it?s likely to work for you - but it doesn?t support the more recent Pact spec versions.

tjones

2022-11-29 13:47

Are you able to share the pact file? I?d be happy to make the issue from there.

tjones

2022-11-29 13:48

understand if this is not possible, of course

yousafn

2022-11-29 13:48

If I read this correctly you are using the pact tooling, in your tool for your customer. I think it is completely reasonable that you raise debug steps for us to follow up. We don't expect you to debug it, but if you are asking for help here, and we are openly providing it, it would be kind to share a repro back

yousafn

2022-11-29 13:49

That way volunteers help is going back into helping the community if that makes sense :slightly_smiling_face:

ringo

2022-11-29 13:50

This is a small handwritten pact file, which I want to return the `body` when a `GET` is done on the given `path`: ```{ "provider": { "name": "PulumiService" }, "consumer": { "name": "PulumiCLI" }, "interactions": [ { "description": "History request", "request": { "method": "GET", "path": "/api/stacks/redacted_customer_name/redacted_project_name/dev/updates?output-type=service&pageSize=1&page=28", "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json" }, "body": {}, "matchingRules": {} }, "response": { "status": 200, "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json; charset=UTF-8" }, "body": {"updates":[{"info":{"kind":"import","startTime":1669315256,"message":"","environment":{},"config":{},"result":"succeeded","endTime":1669315256,"version":139,"resourceChanges":{"create":0,"delete":0,"same":58,"update":0}},"updateID":"3b1f14e2-bc4e-4b5a-8875-2a56c5fd0217","version":139,"latestVersion":139,"requestedBy":{"name":"","githubLogin":"redacted-user","avatarUrl":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com"}}], "itemsPerPage":10,"total":139}, "matchingRules": { } } } ], "metadata": { "pact-specification": { "version": "3.0.0" }, "pact-jvm": { "version": "3.5.6" } } }```

ringo

2022-11-29 13:50

I only redacted some customer and user info.

tjones

2022-11-29 13:51

Awesome, thanks. It being hand-written is a good bit of info - I don?t know if much validation is done, as it expects the Pacts to be generated by Pact.

ringo

@yousafn fair point. I?m only under time pressure to follow up on this Pact based setup. Need to find another way to get to the bottom of my customer issue first.

tjones

Although at a glance it looks ok

tjones

I appreciate that you?re a few layers deep, and not excited to debug the tool you?re using to debug a different thing. Thanks for the pact file!

yousafn

No rush @ringo :yellow_heart: in your own time, we are here all the time :sweat_smile: Hope you get a happy customer in the end

yousafn

2022-11-29 13:55

> I appreciate that you?re a few layers deep, and not excited to debug the tool you?re using to debug a different thing. Thanks for the pact file! Can totally appreciate those frustrations budd. that is my everyday life - yak shaving :party-yak: :razor:

ringo

2022-11-29 13:55

FYI: I?m mocking our Pulumi Service REST API here: https://www.pulumi.com/docs/reference/service-rest-api/

ringo

2022-11-29 13:56

More specifically this call: https://www.pulumi.com/docs/reference/service-rest-api/#list-stack-updates

yousafn

2022-11-29 13:58

Oh very cool, your companies name came up recently in conversation, I can't remember with whom, as something to checkout. I'm definitely interested in helping you get to the bottom of it eventually and learning a bit more about Pulumi on my journey. Your docs look fabulous

ringo

2022-11-29 13:58

I know. Matt contacted me recently.

yousafn

2022-11-29 14:01

Ah I see you are using Pact-JVM. AFAIK, the pact-jvm doesn't use the Rust reference implementation and has its own core. (or this pact was created with pact-jvm)?

tjones

2022-11-29 14:05

I don?t think your Pact file is the problem - I experience the same issue with a different pact file written by Pact-JS

tjones

2022-11-29 14:05

You aren?t using any V3 features, though - so you could just change the spec version and use the ruby standalone

tjones

2022-11-29 14:07

You would want the `pact-stub-service` binary

tjones

2022-11-29 14:10

Ah, your hand written pact file isn?t right - the query string should be separate to the `path`

tjones

2022-11-29 14:14

```{ "provider": { "name": "PulumiService" }, "consumer": { "name": "PulumiCLI" }, "interactions": [ { "description": "History request", "request": { "method": "GET", "path": "/api/stacks/redacted_customer_name/redacted_project_name/dev/updates", "query": "output-type=service&pageSize=1&page=28", "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json" } }, "response": { "status": 200, "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json; charset=UTF-8" }, "body": { "updates": [ { "info": { "kind": "import", "startTime": 1669315256, "message": "", "environment": {}, "config": {}, "result": "succeeded", "endTime": 1669315256, "version": 139, "resourceChanges": { "create": 0, "delete": 0, "same": 58, "update": 0 } }, "updateID": "3b1f14e2-bc4e-4b5a-8875-2a56c5fd0217", "version": 139, "latestVersion": 139, "requestedBy": { "name": "", "githubLogin": "redacted-user", "avatarUrl": "https://avatars.githubusercontent.com" } } ], "itemsPerPage": 10, "total": 139 } } } ], "metadata": { "pact-specification": { "version": "2.0.0" }, "hand-written": { "version": "na" } } }```

tjones

2022-11-29 14:14

@ringo Here is a working pact file

tjones

2022-11-29 14:15

It works with the Ruby CLI at https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases/tag/v1.91.0

tjones

2022-11-29 14:15

```pact-stub-service example.json```

tjones

2022-11-29 14:18

Then ```export PORT= <whatever was in the output of pact-stub-service> curl -H "Content-Type: application/json" "http://localhost:${PORT}/api/stacks/redacted_customer_name/redacted_project_name/dev/updates?output-type=service&pageSize=1&page=28"```

tjones

2022-11-29 14:19

Side point - I don?t think a GET request should have a Content-Type, but since that?s in the linked docs, I left it as is. I did remove the empty body from the Pact, as that wasn?t in the docs.

tjones

2022-11-29 14:20

Anyway, there?s a solution if you want to use pact tooling for this :raised_hands:

yousafn

2022-11-29 15:32

Hey, that hinges on this PR being reviewed and accepted. We do not currently have maintainer capacity (there is a single maintainer - original author, who has a busy day job), so bar me learning PHP on the fly (I've given a bit of a review), and those collaborators having the time, or energy to revisit the answer is, it depends. You could either ? Help review the PR ? Help test the PR ? Help finish up the PR ? Help raise awareness to other PHP Developers who would like the feature set to get involved either in the PR or getting involved in regular maintenance, contributions and reviews

ringo

2022-11-29 16:42

@tjones sorry I was silent until now, but I had a few customer calls. Will see if I can get it working. Thanks for your help already! :pray:

sergewar

2022-11-30 08:54

has joined #general

diego

2022-11-30 09:50

has joined #general

surya.sidharthan

2022-11-30 11:13

has joined #general

nicolas.chara

2022-11-30 13:16

has joined #general

sumitsg004

2022-11-30 13:21

Hi Team, I need some advise on writing contract test for negative (error) scenarios Is it necessary to contract test 5XX error responses ? or only 4XX should be done ? Any guidelines on this? 500 error response would be difficult to setup on provider side, is there a way to achieve that ? or should be mocked on provider side?

yousafn

2022-11-30 13:55

Always ask does my client care about this type of request I am encoding into a pact file, in your test. If your consumer code makes no distinguish between a 4xx/5xx or just bails on a non 2xx you would probably only want to test for a generic error. If you care a specific response code in your client code, then you can encode it. Otherwise you can just test that your api client doesn?t explode for consumers when it does get a 500, in your regular unit tests. It would maybe be nice if you could choose to exclude pacts from being serialised but still run selective tests, so you could do that functional testing of your consumer using pact as your mock, but without serialising all those cases into the pact and functionally testing the provider

yousafn

2022-11-30 13:58

howdy everyone! We are live in a few hours, come and join us, if you haven?t already signed up and check out some of coolest news in almost a decade of Pact :electric_plug:

sumitsg004

2022-11-30 14:16

okay. How about response header validation? I am new to Pact and contract test so please pardon my basic questions.

yousafn

2022-11-30 14:38

I would start with reading our pact docs and going through the cicd course and the pact workshop which is available in a few languages. It teaches about basic Pact concepts and moves onto matchers and authorisation

sumitsg004

2022-11-30 17:40

sure thanks

daniel

2022-11-30 18:30

has joined #general

denis

2022-11-30 22:07

has joined #general

dbarne24

2022-12-01 11:35

has joined #general

min.zaw.mra

2022-12-01 11:36

has joined #general

kevin.lau

2022-12-01 11:41

has joined #general

bojanmarjanovic1980

2022-12-01 13:09

has joined #general

ivona.sovic

2022-12-01 13:13

has joined #general

orbit

2022-12-01 15:45

has joined #general

david.dudley

2022-12-01 19:55

has joined #general

brian.coan

2022-12-01 20:22

has joined #general

j3rry.wan9

2022-12-01 21:22

Unfortunately I missed this webinar, is there a recording that can be shared?

shuying.lin

2022-12-01 21:34

:busts_in_silhouette: *Pact Open Source Community Annual Survey - 2022* :busts_in_silhouette: :blob-wave: Hello here, https://forms.office.com/r/ccxYTMxhJm is now open! The purpose of this survey is a pulse check on the community. In order to serve you best way, we'd like to understand how you use Pact and engage in our ecosystem. The data collected in this survey is anonymous. We intend to use the data to better serve you and to promote the Pact community. This survey has been compiled by @yousafn and myself. If you have any questions regarding the survey, feel free to send a direct message to us or leave your comments. We're looking forward to hearing your experience with Pact Open Source projects and the community. Cheers!

matt.fellows

2022-12-01 23:16

We?ll be sharing it through various channels next week, stay tuned :slightly_smiling_face:

manishmitraba

2022-12-02 02:16

has joined #general

lepdiana01

2022-12-02 03:53

has joined #general

dimundo

2022-12-02 08:03

hi! we are moving to `deployedOrReleased` and i want to clarify some stuff ? `record-deployment` will do same as getting latest from env tag ? like only latest matters in pact verification ? `record-release` - all marked matters in verifications until `record-support-ended` made for version ?

bethskurrie

2022-12-02 08:06

Yes

arpan.agr

2022-12-02 08:06

has joined #general

dimundo

2022-12-02 08:06

yay, thank you :slightly_smiling_face:

arpan.agr

2022-12-02 08:08

Hi Team, do you have any plan to integrate AsyncAPI format for pact based testing. The latest I could get was that the plugin framework has been released through which one can write their own plugin and make it open source in case they want to.

matt.fellows

2022-12-02 10:09

There are no plans to integrate Pact with AsyncAPI at this moment. AsyncAPI is a description format, just like OpenAPI which Pact doesn?t support either. See also https://docs.pact.io/faq#can-i-generate-my-pact-file-from-something-like-swagger. How would you see Pact + AsyncAPI working together? We are looking at integrating to AsyncAPI for Pactflow?s bi-directional contract testing feature, similar to what we have done with OAS if that?s what you?re asking https://github.com/pactflow/roadmap/projects/1?

arpan.agr

2022-12-02 12:25

Yes, my question was pretty similar to "Can I generate my pact file from something like Swagger". As a team I want to maintain the async api schema at a central place and then want to generate pact file against it. I know the limitation would be either random generated values or generating values from example given in the specification. And yes, the other part you mentioned for bi directional testing would also be helpful

goksel00

2022-12-02 17:41

has joined #general

rmartine

2022-12-02 19:17

Very informative webinar, thank you!

aibosun900614

2022-12-04 02:18

has joined #general

tomknee1

2022-12-04 14:32

Hello, does anyone know (or have examples) if its possible to have consumer tests generate pacts without using a `mockServer` and instead using something like `MockK` ? I have tried but get `PactMismatchesException` saying the request was not received

tomknee1

2022-12-04 16:50

I was looking at this example https://technology.lastminute.com/contract-testing-asynchronous-messaging-pact-junit-mockk/ but I cant get it working without using `mockServer`

matt.fellows

2022-12-04 22:31

As a general rule, you need to hit the Pact mock server. Otherwise it complains it can?t be use that your code did what it said and can?t serialise a reliable contract. Not sure how the lastminute folks are using it, maybe they are just mocking out other parts of the method call? Also the lastminute example is a message based example, which doesn?t have a mock server in the same way the HTTP one does

tjones

2022-12-05 02:43

Why would you want to do this?

tjones

2022-12-05 02:46

> `PactMismatchesException` This means the mock server did not receive the request ?. which isn?t surprising. The pact mock server is the thing that checks that your request looks like you said it would. It looks like the lastminute example is mocking out the repository layer of the service during pact verification - which is normal.

matt.fellows

2022-12-05 02:55

Yeah I think so too

matt.fellows

2022-12-05 02:55

What a lot of people want is a mocking experience like `MockK` but with the benefits of contract testing.

matt.fellows

2022-12-05 02:56

I understand that want, but we don?t have an ergonomic way of doing that right now.

tjones

2022-12-05 02:56

What does MockK do that Pact doesn?t?

tjones

2022-12-05 02:57

I guess I?m saying ? I don?t understand the want :sweat_smile:

matt.fellows

2022-12-05 02:58

For one, they don?t require the actual network call to be made.

matt.fellows

2022-12-05 02:58

That _could_ be done of course

tjones

2022-12-05 02:58

Oh, right - but, that doesn?t make sense

tjones

2022-12-05 02:59

> That could be done of course :thinking_face: ?but then you lose the advantage of Pact, which is to check that you *actually* are sending the thing.

tjones

2022-12-05 02:59

(or that you actually receive it)

matt.fellows

2022-12-05 03:00

> Oh, right - but, that doesn?t make sense Yes. Sort of. Obviously, the code should execute. In the sense that it needs to actually go through the whole network cycle is a separate thing. e.g. `nock` mocks the network layer and can do it in a way that?s pretty safe. The related thing is that you don?t need to configure your API client to point at the mock server, because the runtime can intercept it etc.

tjones

2022-12-05 03:00

if you mocked the API of some underlying system (eg a popular HTTP client or whatever), then you?re back in mock land, and the answer stops being ?yes, these two systems can communicate properly? and starts becoming ?maaaaybe these two systems can communicate?

matt.fellows

2022-12-05 03:01

yes, it?s mostly a trade off of those guarantees, against ergonomics and speed

tjones

2022-12-05 03:01

I don?t really see it being less ergonomic

tjones

2022-12-05 03:01

I think it would be more ergonomic to write bad tests, which is not ideal

tjones

2022-12-05 03:02

At the moment, yes, you have to be able to inject your API client?s configuration

tjones

2022-12-05 03:02

but that just encourages good practice

matt.fellows

2022-12-05 03:04

Agree. I?m keen to hear from our actual customer (Thomas - sorry mate :laughing: ), but the complaint that Pact tests are wordy and non-intuitive comes up _a lot_.

tomknee1

2022-12-05 08:31

Thanks guys, interesting discussion. Yeah, I?ve only got it to work with `mockServer` for now, which is ok for our needs.

tomknee1

2022-12-05 08:31

But the existing unit tests all just use `MockK` instead so thought it would?ve been nice if I can simply use `MockK` and still get the consumer expectations generated

tjones

2022-12-05 08:32

I don?t think I understand the need

tomknee1

2022-12-05 08:32

but using mockServer isnt too bad

tjones

2022-12-05 08:32

for example, you wouldn?t say ?these methods return strings, but the other tests are all using numerical assertions, so I was hoping we could use numerical assertions here too?

tjones

MockK and Pact are for testing different things

tomknee1

so it was more a question of using the two together instead of pact and mockServer

tjones

(Unless I am missing something, which is quite possible)

tomknee1

where u can mock the response without sending the network call to a mock server

tjones

As I understand it - MockK would let you assert on object method calls

tjones

2022-12-05 08:34

whereas Pact lets you assert on actual http calls

tjones

2022-12-05 08:34

tjones

2022-12-05 08:34

right, but then you wouldn?t be testing the network calls?

tjones

2022-12-05 08:35

Usually what I do is use (something like) mockK to test the API invocation, and Pact to test the actual API

tjones

2022-12-05 08:35

that is, say there?s some method like: `api.getUser(userId)`

tjones

2022-12-05 08:36

I would do something like: ```val testUser = User(...some details here..) api.getUser(1) <-- mock this to return testUser```

tjones

2022-12-05 08:36

^ I would do this for all the unit tests

tjones

2022-12-05 08:37

then, in a Pact test, I would test that (when not mocked) `api.getUser(1)` fires the request that I am expecting, and I would confirm that the object that I get back is indeed the same as `testUser`

tomknee1

thanks that makes sense, thats actually what we currently do for our unit tests and pact tests

tomknee1

so i guess ill keep it that way

tjones

In this way, you can think of Pact as kind of a unit test for the API code

tjones

Where the ?unit? is the pair of the client code and the network server code.

tjones

2022-12-05 08:39

Ok, that?s good. We?re on the same page. What I?m confused about (and interested to understand ) is how it would be easier if you could write the pact tests with mocks

tjones

2022-12-05 08:39

what would that look like?

tomknee1

2022-12-05 08:41

So right now I have a separate pact test class to the unit test class mainly due to using slightly different things like mockServer etc

tomknee1

2022-12-05 08:41

if it used `MockK` as we already have very similar unit tests, I would group it more with that

tjones

2022-12-05 08:42

As an example, could you write up a pact test in the way that you?d like to use it? Like, just assume the API/DSL you want actually existed - I think that would be helpful for me to see what you?re getting at

tomknee1

2022-12-05 08:42

sure can do later and will share here

tjones

2022-12-05 08:42

> So right now I have a separate pact test class to the unit test class mainly due to using slightly different things like mockServer etc This sounds normal to me

tjones

2022-12-05 08:43

One nice way we could improve pact is to reduce the repetition - at the moment, there?s often a repeated request when there are several possible responses to an API call (there?s usually at least two for every call - one for success, and one for failure)

tjones

2022-12-05 08:44

You can reduce some of that pain with nested tests, but I don?t know how well that would work with the JVM ecosystem

tomknee1

2022-12-05 08:45

yeah we?re not a fan of nested tests really in JVM as it can get messy real quick

tjones

2022-12-05 08:45

https://gist.github.com/TimothyJones/d138bf765509d41e0ce8a4bfb777a31d You might be interested in this (although it is largely obsolete now, and also about Pact-JS) - it has some of the things we were thinking about when we made Jest-Pact to improve the boilerplate on the JS side

tjones

2022-12-05 08:46

I agree. Every time I have tried it I?ve felt ?this seems worse, but now I?m not keen to change it back?

tjones

2022-12-05 08:48

Is the pain the DSL, the test time, or both?

tomknee1

2022-12-05 08:49

the dsl and test time arent too bad to be fair, its more having to setup the retrofit interface to use the mockServer etc

tomknee1

2022-12-05 08:49

id say its more a want than a need though to be honest

tomknee1

2022-12-05 08:49

like everything is fine as it is now

tjones

2022-12-05 08:50

Gotcha. That?s good news :sweat_smile:

tomknee1

2022-12-05 08:50

i kinda just saw that lastminute article and was like how?

tomknee1

2022-12-05 08:50

:smile:

tjones

I?d be keen to see the hypothetical DSL if you get a chance though. In the worst case, it would generate an interesting discussion, and that?s a great worst-case

tjones

haha! Yeah. I think it?s a bit confusing. I think as Matt said, they?re doing: Pact verification -> Their service -> some mocks

tomknee1

sure will try to send something tonight, just woken up here in UK

tjones

but it?s confusing because in Pact Message, the ?consumer test? is more like a verification

tjones

2022-12-05 08:52

No rush at all

tomknee1

2022-12-05 08:52

i see that kinda makes sense

mayank.mahajan04

2022-12-05 10:51

has joined #general

mailtoshinu

2022-12-06 07:42

has joined #general

sameena9010

2022-12-06 11:23

Hi, I would need to automate the grpc, events like kafka. Can someone point to me the right docs through which i can get started. Few open questions i have 1. Is it only through plugins ? 2. Is there any language limitation (looking mostly to use it with C#) ?

matt.fellows

2022-12-06 11:38

Best to join #pact-plugins my friend!

yousafn

2022-12-06 12:19

Happy Tuesday everyone, from wherever you are in the world. We would love your responses on this, as we want to make sure Pact is working for you. We are a small but passionate team in the open source, and we serve so many awesome people, it would be great to collect that real world feedback. Maybe you are an advocate of Pact? We can help raise your profile, and give you a soapbox. Maybe you are just plain confused or stuck? It?s okay, we were all there at some point. Help us make the journey frictionless for future users. After all, making quality software shouldn?t be that difficult, right?

dyptorden

2022-12-06 13:24

hi guys, trying to follow the example from the https://hub.docker.com/r/pactfoundation/pact-cli I get the following err: ```docker run --rm -w ${PWD} -v ${PWD}:${PWD} -e PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL -e PACT_BROKER_USERNAME -e PACT_BROKER_PASSWORD pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest publish ${PWD}/example/pacts --consumer-app-version fake-git-sha-for-demo-$(date +%s) --tag-with-git-branch fatal: detected dubious ownership in repository at '/home/myuser/workspace/pact-ruby-cli' To add an exception for this directory, call: git config --global --add safe.directory /home/myuser/workspace/pact-ruby-cli PactBroker::Client::Error - Command `git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD` didn't return anything that could be identified as the current branch.``` ---------- running ```git config --global --add safe.directory /home/myuser/workspace/pact-ruby-cli``` doesn't fix the err ---------- running ```git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD``` returns `master`

dyptorden

2022-12-06 13:24

any ideeas pretty please?

yousafn

2022-12-06 13:28

you probably aren't loading a git repo, try removing `--tag-with-git-branch` into the volume mount in docker.

yousafn

2022-12-06 13:30

is `${PWD}` your directory with a `.git` folder in it? `-v ${PWD}:${PWD}`

dyptorden

removing the --tag-with-git-branch made it work

yousafn

did you clone the pact-ruby-cli repo?

dyptorden

yes

yousafn

and cd into it,

dyptorden

https://stackoverflow.com/help/minimal-reproducible-example

just cloned it and ran the command

yousafn

2022-12-06 13:32

checking now buddy :slightly_smiling_face: on my mac

dyptorden

2022-12-06 13:32

yes, cd-ed in it and ran it

dyptorden

2022-12-06 13:33

```myuser@myuser-laptop:~/workspace/pact-ruby-cli(master)$ pwd /home/myuser/workspace/pact-ruby-cli```

yousafn

2022-12-06 13:36

Hmm so that worked for me, the only thing that I changed was to use the PACT_BROKER_TOKEN, rather than username and password as using a Pactflow broker

dyptorden

2022-12-06 13:36

I am using pact broker (stored on a company machine) and using user\pass

yousafn

2022-12-06 13:37

do you have the latest version of the cli? `docker pull pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest` user/pass shouldn't make a diff at all

dyptorden

2022-12-06 13:38

hah - that did the trick

yousafn

2022-12-06 13:38

I saw the issue as part of our GitHub actions runs https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-cli/pull/79 and put a change out for this

dyptorden

2022-12-06 13:38

grabbed the latest and ran it

yousafn

2022-12-06 13:39

Sweet, my fix above sorted it then, I was worried I had caused it :sweat_smile:

dyptorden

2022-12-06 13:40

thanks so much for the help Yousaf

dyptorden

2022-12-06 13:40

I would dare to go for a second question then... close to the case above

dyptorden

2022-12-06 13:41

running the same command but for a local project (that is the pact POC) to publish in the broker, throws a timeout after ~2 min

dyptorden

2022-12-06 13:41

```bundler: failed to load command: /pact/bin/pact (/pact/bin/pact) /usr/lib/ruby/3.0.0/net/http.rb:987:in `initialize': execution expired (Net::OpenTimeout) from /usr/lib/ruby/3.0.0/net/http.rb:987:in `open' from /usr/lib/ruby/3.0.0/net/http.rb:987:in `block in connect' from /usr/lib/ruby/3.0.0/timeout.rb:107:in `timeout' from /usr/lib/ruby/3.0.0/net/http.rb:985:in `connect' from /usr/lib/ruby/3.0.0/net/http.rb:970:in `do_start' from /usr/lib/ruby/3.0.0/net/http.rb:959:in `start' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/hal/http_client.rb:79:in `block in perform_request' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/hal/http_client.rb:93:in `until_truthy_or_max_times' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/hal/http_client.rb:64:in `perform_request' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/hal/http_client.rb:35:in `post' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/hal/link.rb:57:in `post' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/publish_pacts.rb:61:in `block in publish_pacts' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/rake-13.0.6/lib/rake/file_list.rb:70:in `collect' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/rake-13.0.6/lib/rake/file_list.rb:70:in `collect' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/publish_pacts.rb:60:in `publish_pacts' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/publish_pacts.rb:33:in `call' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/publish_pacts.rb:15:in `call' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/cli/pact_commands.rb:66:in `publish_pacts' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/cli/pact_commands.rb:29:in `publish' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in `run' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/invocation.rb:127:in `invoke_command' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor.rb:392:in `dispatch' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/base.rb:485:in `start' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/cli/custom_thor.rb:23:in `start' from /pact/lib/pact/cli.rb:71:in `publish' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in `run' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/invocation.rb:127:in `invoke_command' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor.rb:392:in `dispatch' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/base.rb:485:in `start' from /pact/bin/pact:15:in `<top (required)>' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/cli/exec.rb:58:in `load' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/cli/exec.rb:58:in `kernel_load' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/cli/exec.rb:23:in `run' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/cli.rb:483:in `exec' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/vendor/thor/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in `run' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/vendor/thor/lib/thor/invocation.rb:127:in `invoke_command' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/vendor/thor/lib/thor.rb:392:in `dispatch' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/cli.rb:31:in `dispatch' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/vendor/thor/lib/thor/base.rb:485:in `start' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/cli.rb:25:in `start' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/exe/bundle:48:in `block in <top (required)>' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/friendly_errors.rb:103:in `with_friendly_errors' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/exe/bundle:36:in `<top (required)>' from /usr/bin/bundle:25:in `load' from /usr/bin/bundle:25:in `<main>'```

yousafn

2022-12-06 13:44

Could be any number of reasons, including your broker setup, I would probably try and create a minimal reproducible example or a set of reproduction steps including commands run, and where you pacts are located, and run in.

2022-12-06 13:44

yousafn

Did the first command publish Okay to your broker?

yousafn

just your own pacts in your project aren't?

dyptorden

the one in the recently cloned project that you provide as example worked well

dyptorden

my pacts won't go in my broker using the CLI

yousafn

https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/recording_deployments_and_releases

that pact is baked into the image, you will need to ensure the path to the pacts directory is correct in the volume mount

yousafn

2022-12-06 13:46

if you can't publish to your broker with either the issue is with your connection to the broker

yousafn

2022-12-06 13:46

if the issue is just with publishing from your own project, you probably haven't loaded a volume with the pacts in, and provided a path for the pacts directory/file

dyptorden

2022-12-06 13:47

connectivity shouldn't be an issue as `docker run --rm -e PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL -e PACT_BROKER_USERNAME=pactuser -e PACT_BROKER_PASSWORD pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest pact-broker can-i-deploy --pacticipant ......` works well

dyptorden

2022-12-06 13:48

thanks for the hint, I will play a bit with the paths

dyptorden

2022-12-06 16:38

@yousafn hoping to not become too annoying... I tried to go down to the safest case, which was to publish the same contract (that was successfully published to your broker) to our broker (by replacing the 3 params - url\user\pass). Essentially I ran the exact same command again. The result is the same error. Any suggestion on what else can I check pretty please? running the `can-i-deploy` works fine against the same broker.

dyptorden

2022-12-06 16:39

In terms of logs, nothing is recorded in pact-broker container's logs

dyptorden

2022-12-06 16:59

P.S.: sh-ing in the local pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest container (that is stopped after running the publish command), I see that the pact is successfully copied inside - found it under `/home/myuser/workspace/pact-ruby-cli # cat example/pacts/pact.json` so the problem is somhow... sending it from the cli to the broker

dyptorden

2022-12-06 17:22

one difference between the brokers is that yours is https while ours is http - should it matter?

yousafn

2022-12-06 20:55

The file is pre loaded into the docker image anyway. You can use the pact cli tool directory by downloading it as a standalone, or installing it as a ruby gem and that might save you some issues. It isn?t clear if you?ve ever published a pact to your broker. ( nor how your broker is set up ) You can spin up a pact broker with docker composer easily to test. I would strongly advise making a concise list of steps and ideally a reproducible example or share as much code as you can. It is very difficult to hypothesise at what the problem may be. You may wish to raise it in a GitHub issue if it is easier to format. If I am getting the gist, the example pact in the repo will load into your broker, your own pact won?t? Have you check the contents of your pact to see if it is valid. Can you share it. Is your broker on the latest version, if not can you share which version.

yousafn

2022-12-06 20:58

https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/bi-directional-contract-testing/contracts/oas#installation Although this is from the Pactflow docs it offers the various ways you can download and use the CLI tools. Just in case using docker is adding an extra layer of complexity here

dyptorden

2022-12-06 21:26

? pact broker is dockerized and is started with a docker compose. ? pact broker is the latest version (docker pull pactfoundation/pact-broker:latest) ? it also has a contract that is published with a mvn test command in the consumer from the already existing project - so publishing works, but not with the CLI.

dyptorden

2022-12-06 21:32

"Have you check the contents of your pact to see if it is valid." I tried to publish in our broker the same contract that I published in your broker, without changing it (it's the pact.json that's present in the `pact-ruby-cli` project that I cloned a bit earlier) . The only change I did was to replace the following variables ? export PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL=... ? export PACT_BROKER_USERNAME=... ? export PACT_BROKER_PASSWORD=... with the values that point to our broker. When I run the publish command, I get the error. If I set the variables PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL etc. back to your broker's values, the command will be successful again and the contract will be published in your broker

dyptorden

2022-12-06 21:44

So the issue I need to fix, is to publish your contract to our broker, by using the docker run. Fixing this will also fix the publishing of our contracts as the error is the same. The only thing I can change is basically the docker-compose file. Would it help if I share it?

youri.thielen

2022-12-07 07:52

has joined #general

youri.thielen

2022-12-07 08:09

Hi all, question: we have a monilitihic API (documented in open api) that we use internally and is available to our customers. We don't have a microservices architecture and don't plan to. What advantages does bi-directional testing bring over say testing with Postman only?

cpopovici

2022-12-07 09:02

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-12-07 10:18

have you tried adding the `--verbose` flag to the command? That should print out additional HTTP level logs, so we can see what is trying to be sent and to where

matt.fellows

2022-12-07 10:22

bi-directional is a #pactflow feature (so best to ask specific Pactflow product features over there) I?m going to answer from the perspective of contract testing in general though. The short answer is that Postman doesn?t take into consideration what a consumer actually does with it, and so we can?t use that information to evolve the API safely in ways that traditionally are backwards incompatible. For instance, if we know all of the consumers of the API don?t use a particular endpoint, or even a particular header or field, we should be safe to remove them without resorting to cumbersome API versioning. You should still do functional testing (we can further discuss if postman is the best tool for that job), that is a necessary condition of a well tested API.

dyptorden

2022-12-07 10:42

thanks for answering @matt.fellows. After adding the `--verbose` I do get some extra info:

dyptorden

2022-12-07 10:42

```................. from /usr/bin/bundle:25:in `<main>' opening connection to 10.34.133.12:9292... opened <- "GET /? HTTP/1.1\r\nAccept-Encoding: gzip;q=1.0,deflate;q=0.6,identity;q=0.3\r\nAccept: application/hal+json\r\nUser-Agent: Ruby\r\nAuthorization: [redacted]\r\n" -> "HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n" -> "Vary: Accept\r\n" -> "Content-Type: application/hal+json;charset=utf-8\r\n" -> "Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2022 10:33:42 GMT\r\n" -> "Server: Webmachine-Ruby/1.6.0 Rack/1.3\r\n" -> "X-Pact-Broker-Version: 2.105.0\r\n" -> "X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff\r\n" -> "Content-Length: 4384\r\n" -> "\r\n" reading 4384 bytes... -> "{\"_links\":{\"self\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292\",\"title\":\"Index\",\"templated\":false},\"pb:publish-pact\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/pacts/provider/{provider}/consumer/{consumer}/version/{consumerApplicationVersion}\",\"title\":\"Publish a pact\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:publish-contracts\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/contracts/publish\",\"title\":\"Publish contracts\",\"templated\":false},\"pb:latest-pact-versions\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/pacts/latest\",\"title\":\"Latest pact versions\",\"templated\":false},\"pb:tagged-pact-versions\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/pacts/provider/{provider}/consumer/{consumer}/tag/{tag}\",\"title\":\"All versions of a pact for a given consumer, provider and consumer version tag\",\"templated\":false},\"pb:pacticipants\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/pacticipants\",\"title\":\"Pacticipants\",\"templated\":false},\"pb:pacticipant\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/pacticipants/{pacticipant}\",\"title\":\"Fetch pacticipant by name\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:latest-provider-pacts\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/pacts/provider/{provider}/latest\",\"title\":\"Latest pacts by provider\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:latest-provider-pacts-with-tag\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/pacts/provider/{provider}/latest/{tag}\",\"title\":\"Latest pacts for provider with the specified tag\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:provider-pacts-with-tag\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/pacts/provider/{provider}/tag/{tag}\",\"title\":\"All pact versions for the provider with the specified consumer version tag\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:provider-pacts\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/pacts/provider/{provider}\",\"title\":\"All pact versions for the specified provider\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:latest-version\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/pacticipants/{pacticipant}/latest-version\",\"title\":\"Latest pacticipant version\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:latest-tagged-version\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/pacticipants/{pacticipant}/latest-version/{tag}\",\"title\":\"Latest pacticipant version with the specified tag\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:webhooks\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/webhooks\",\"title\":\"Webhooks\",\"templated\":false},\"pb:webhook\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/webhooks/{uuid}\",\"title\":\"Webhook\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:integrations\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/integrations\",\"title\":\"Integrations\",\"templated\":false},\"pb:pacticipant-version-tag\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/pacticipants/{pacticipant}/versions/{version}/tags" -> "/{tag}\",\"title\":\"Get, create or delete a tag for a pacticipant version\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:pacticipant-branch-version\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/pacticipants/{pacticipant}/branches/{branch}/versions/{version}\",\"title\":\"Get or add/create a pacticipant version for a branch\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:pacticipant-version\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/pacticipants/{pacticipant}/versions/{version}\",\"title\":\"Get, create or delete a pacticipant version\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:metrics\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/metrics\",\"title\":\"Get Pact Broker metrics\"},\"pb:can-i-deploy-pacticipant-version-to-tag\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/can-i-deploy?pacticipant={pacticipant}&version={version}&to={tag}\",\"title\":\"Determine if an application version can be safely deployed to an environment identified by the given tag\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:can-i-deploy-pacticipant-version-to-environment\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/can-i-deploy?pacticipant={pacticipant}&version={version}&environment={environment}\",\"title\":\"Determine if an application version can be safely deployed to an environment\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:provider-pacts-for-verification\":{\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/pacts/provider/{provider}/for-verification\",\"title\":\"Pact versions to be verified for the specified provider\",\"templated\":true},\"beta:provider-pacts-for-verification\":{\"name\":\"beta\",\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/pacts/provider/{provider}/for-verification\",\"title\":\"DEPRECATED - please use pb:provider-pacts-for-verification\",\"templated\":true},\"curies\":[{\"name\":\"pb\",\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/doc/{rel}?context=index\",\"templated\":true},{\"name\":\"beta\",\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/doc/{rel}?context=index\",\"templated\":true}],\"pb:environments\":{\"title\":\"Environments\",\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/environments\",\"templated\":false},\"pb:environment\":{\"title\":\"Environment\",\"href\":\"http://10.33.132.13:9292/environments/{uuid}\",\"templated\":true}}}" read 4384 bytes Conn keep-alive opening connection to 10.33.132.13:9292...```

matt.fellows

2022-12-07 10:56

The IP address in the second request looks different.

matt.fellows

2022-12-07 10:57

Note the 2nd octet

dyptorden

2022-12-07 10:58

typo - merged the new part to some of the previous one

dyptorden

2022-12-07 10:58

wanted it to make sense :slightly_smiling_face:

dyptorden

2022-12-07 10:58

I played a bit with the ec2

dyptorden

2022-12-07 10:59

```docker run --rm -w ${PWD} -v ${PWD}:${PWD} -e PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL -e PACT_BROKER_USERNAME -e PACT_BROKER_PASSWORD pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest publish ${PWD}/example/pacts --consumer-app-version fake-git-sha-for-demo-$(date +%s) --tag-with-git-branch --verbose bundler: failed to load command: /pact/bin/pact (/pact/bin/pact) /usr/lib/ruby/3.0.0/net/http.rb:987:in `initialize': execution expired (Net::OpenTimeout) from /usr/lib/ruby/3.0.0/net/http.rb:987:in `open' from /usr/lib/ruby/3.0.0/net/http.rb:987:in `block in connect' from /usr/lib/ruby/3.0.0/timeout.rb:107:in `timeout' from /usr/lib/ruby/3.0.0/net/http.rb:985:in `connect' from /usr/lib/ruby/3.0.0/net/http.rb:970:in `do_start' from /usr/lib/ruby/3.0.0/net/http.rb:959:in `start' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/hal/http_client.rb:79:in `block in perform_request' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/hal/http_client.rb:93:in `until_truthy_or_max_times' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/hal/http_client.rb:64:in `perform_request' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/hal/http_client.rb:35:in `post' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/hal/link.rb:57:in `post' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/publish_pacts.rb:61:in `block in publish_pacts' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/rake-13.0.6/lib/rake/file_list.rb:70:in `collect' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/rake-13.0.6/lib/rake/file_list.rb:70:in `collect' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/publish_pacts.rb:60:in `publish_pacts' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/publish_pacts.rb:33:in `call' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/publish_pacts.rb:15:in `call' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/cli/pact_commands.rb:66:in `publish_pacts' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/cli/pact_commands.rb:29:in `publish' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in `run' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/invocation.rb:127:in `invoke_command' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor.rb:392:in `dispatch' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/base.rb:485:in `start' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/cli/custom_thor.rb:23:in `start' from /pact/lib/pact/cli.rb:71:in `publish' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in `run' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/invocation.rb:127:in `invoke_command' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor.rb:392:in `dispatch' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/base.rb:485:in `start' from /pact/bin/pact:15:in `<top (required)>' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/cli/exec.rb:58:in `load' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/cli/exec.rb:58:in `kernel_load' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/cli/exec.rb:23:in `run' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/cli.rb:483:in `exec' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/vendor/thor/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in `run' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/vendor/thor/lib/thor/invocation.rb:127:in `invoke_command' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/vendor/thor/lib/thor.rb:392:in `dispatch' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/cli.rb:31:in `dispatch' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/vendor/thor/lib/thor/base.rb:485:in `start' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/cli.rb:25:in `start' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/exe/bundle:48:in `block in <top (required)>' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/lib/bundler/friendly_errors.rb:103:in `with_friendly_errors' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/bundler-2.3.13/exe/bundle:36:in `<top (required)>' from /usr/bin/bundle:25:in `load' from /usr/bin/bundle:25:in `<main>' opening connection to 10.34.133.12:9292... opened <- "GET /? HTTP/1.1\r\nAccept-Encoding: gzip;q=1.0,deflate;q=0.6,identity;q=0.3\r\nAccept: application/hal+json\r\nUser-Agent: Ruby\r\nAuthorization: [redacted]\r\n" -> "HTTP/1.1 200 OK\r\n" -> "Vary: Accept\r\n" -> "Content-Type: application/hal+json;charset=utf-8\r\n" -> "Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2022 10:33:42 GMT\r\n" -> "Server: Webmachine-Ruby/1.6.0 Rack/1.3\r\n" -> "X-Pact-Broker-Version: 2.105.0\r\n" -> "X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff\r\n" -> "Content-Length: 4384\r\n" -> "\r\n" reading 4384 bytes... -> "{\"_links\":{\"self\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292\",\"title\":\"Index\",\"templated\":false},\"pb:publish-pact\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/pacts/provider/{provider}/consumer/{consumer}/version/{consumerApplicationVersion}\",\"title\":\"Publish a pact\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:publish-contracts\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/contracts/publish\",\"title\":\"Publish contracts\",\"templated\":false},\"pb:latest-pact-versions\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/pacts/latest\",\"title\":\"Latest pact versions\",\"templated\":false},\"pb:tagged-pact-versions\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/pacts/provider/{provider}/consumer/{consumer}/tag/{tag}\",\"title\":\"All versions of a pact for a given consumer, provider and consumer version tag\",\"templated\":false},\"pb:pacticipants\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/pacticipants\",\"title\":\"Pacticipants\",\"templated\":false},\"pb:pacticipant\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/pacticipants/{pacticipant}\",\"title\":\"Fetch pacticipant by name\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:latest-provider-pacts\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/pacts/provider/{provider}/latest\",\"title\":\"Latest pacts by provider\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:latest-provider-pacts-with-tag\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/pacts/provider/{provider}/latest/{tag}\",\"title\":\"Latest pacts for provider with the specified tag\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:provider-pacts-with-tag\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/pacts/provider/{provider}/tag/{tag}\",\"title\":\"All pact versions for the provider with the specified consumer version tag\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:provider-pacts\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/pacts/provider/{provider}\",\"title\":\"All pact versions for the specified provider\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:latest-version\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/pacticipants/{pacticipant}/latest-version\",\"title\":\"Latest pacticipant version\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:latest-tagged-version\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/pacticipants/{pacticipant}/latest-version/{tag}\",\"title\":\"Latest pacticipant version with the specified tag\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:webhooks\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/webhooks\",\"title\":\"Webhooks\",\"templated\":false},\"pb:webhook\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/webhooks/{uuid}\",\"title\":\"Webhook\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:integrations\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/integrations\",\"title\":\"Integrations\",\"templated\":false},\"pb:pacticipant-version-tag\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/pacticipants/{pacticipant}/versions/{version}/tags" -> "/{tag}\",\"title\":\"Get, create or delete a tag for a pacticipant version\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:pacticipant-branch-version\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/pacticipants/{pacticipant}/branches/{branch}/versions/{version}\",\"title\":\"Get or add/create a pacticipant version for a branch\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:pacticipant-version\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/pacticipants/{pacticipant}/versions/{version}\",\"title\":\"Get, create or delete a pacticipant version\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:metrics\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/metrics\",\"title\":\"Get Pact Broker metrics\"},\"pb:can-i-deploy-pacticipant-version-to-tag\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/can-i-deploy?pacticipant={pacticipant}&version={version}&to={tag}\",\"title\":\"Determine if an application version can be safely deployed to an environment identified by the given tag\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:can-i-deploy-pacticipant-version-to-environment\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/can-i-deploy?pacticipant={pacticipant}&version={version}&environment={environment}\",\"title\":\"Determine if an application version can be safely deployed to an environment\",\"templated\":true},\"pb:provider-pacts-for-verification\":{\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/pacts/provider/{provider}/for-verification\",\"title\":\"Pact versions to be verified for the specified provider\",\"templated\":true},\"beta:provider-pacts-for-verification\":{\"name\":\"beta\",\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/pacts/provider/{provider}/for-verification\",\"title\":\"DEPRECATED - please use pb:provider-pacts-for-verification\",\"templated\":true},\"curies\":[{\"name\":\"pb\",\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/doc/{rel}?context=index\",\"templated\":true},{\"name\":\"beta\",\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/doc/{rel}?context=index\",\"templated\":true}],\"pb:environments\":{\"title\":\"Environments\",\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/environments\",\"templated\":false},\"pb:environment\":{\"title\":\"Environment\",\"href\":\"http://10.34.133.12:9292/environments/{uuid}\",\"templated\":true}}}" read 4384 bytes Conn keep-alive opening connection to 10.34.133.12:9292...```

dyptorden

2022-12-07 10:59

this is the complete current log

matt.fellows

2022-12-07 11:01

Interesting. What do the server logs say?

matt.fellows

2022-12-07 11:01

It's weird the first request goes through but not the subsequent

dyptorden

2022-12-07 11:02

I need to check with someone who has rights... will be back as soon as I have the server logs

hendrik916

2022-12-07 12:07

has joined #general

dimundo

2022-12-07 12:16

hi! we are moving to `deployedOrReleased` and i want to clarify one more stuff ? we deploy FE app( lets say twice a week ) , which has some support time and is marked as released ? we deploy BE ( lets say twice a week ) both FE and BE parts could be consumers and providers current BE has `deployedOrReleased` selectors, so it verifies all FE in the wiled -thats ok :slightly_smiling_face: at which point / how FE part ( marked as released , lets say 2 months ago ) will be verified against upcoming BE part ?

matcheckep

2022-12-07 13:55

has joined #general

youri.thielen

2022-12-07 14:50

Hi Matt, Thanks for you answer! Gotcha. So using Pact (non bi-directional) isn't very useful for an API that has (in our case many) consumers that don't use Pact. In our situation the consumers of our API are our customers (we're a SaaS company). Will look into bi-directional contract testing and will move to #pactflow, we have an open api description for our API. Cheers

dyptorden

2022-12-07 17:03

Hi @matt.fellows Nothing gets populated in the logs when I run the command. I checked `docker logs -f pact-broker` and also looked at EC2's system log.

dyptorden

2022-12-07 17:04

Interesting fact is that I deployed locally the same pact-broker, by using the same docker-compose, and it works. But not when the broker is in AWS...

dyptorden

2022-12-07 17:05

Knowing that the first request goes through, can you please tell me how can I trace the exact URI and Port at which the second request is being done?

wesley.nutley

2022-12-07 19:48

has joined #general

tjones

2022-12-08 00:00

Pact is also very useful for the case where you publish client libraries

dagmara.krent

2022-12-08 10:19

has joined #general

dyptorden

2022-12-08 10:38

Managed to check the requests @matt.fellows by running Wireshark on the docker0 interface, and saw that the 2nd request is sent from the same ip (obviously) but on a different port. I think that our Firewall has some protection so it's definitely not a broker issue - even more, the publish command works from a different EC2

komathypriya

2022-12-08 11:35

has joined #general

youri.thielen

2022-12-08 11:43

(newbie alert) When a consumer needs a new endpoint or some new fields, this should be in close collaboration with the provider right? So before the consumer testing is done, or at least before uploading the contracts. When the provider agrees and implements the contract it can document the new fields/endpoints in for example an open api document. It just that the open api document is not the starting point. Still trying to wrap my head around the whole CDC concept :)

matt.fellows

2022-12-08 11:56

So yes, Pact isn?t a replacement for a conversation

matt.fellows

2022-12-08 11:58

but also, it can _facilitate_ a good conversation. There is nothing wrong with a consumer creating a branch, putting in what is essentially a request for a change (hey, what if we ?added this new field? or ?changed the resource to this shape? etc.) and then publishing it. That?s what the https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/branches (selector) feature is for - to be able to delineate between a wip idea and the mainline. Now there is a first class way to communicate that intent, and for the provider team to go ?yeah, it looks good and we?ve now implemented the change (because the pact is now green :white_check_mark: ?

neethu.santhosh

2022-12-08 14:22

has joined #general

janga.nagamallika

2022-12-08 17:49

has joined #general

jampala_1988

2022-12-08 23:47

has joined #general

krishnaraj.pk

2022-12-09 05:35

has joined #general

rajavadootha04

2022-12-09 07:56

has joined #general

rajavadootha04

2022-12-09 08:09

#pact-jvm We are facing issues with multipart file upload contract testing. Getting 'Missing start boundary'. Do we have multipart support at consumer side? We are trying with both pact versions 3.0.0 and 4.0.0, both results same error. If someone has encountered same issue, please provide us the remedy.

matt.fellows

2022-12-09 09:50

Did you mean to ask in #pact-jvm?

rajavadootha04

2022-12-09 10:14

Yes

tomaszrdzak

2022-12-09 11:54

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-12-09 13:03

Hey hey and happy Friday everybody :ralph-wave: I am pleased to point you in the direction of our launch webinar for Pact Plugins, which is now live on YouTube. :tv: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA0yKOv5DjE&ab_channel=PactFoundation If this has whet your appetite, you can sign up for our Build a ~Bear~ Plugin Workshop on the 13/14th December :point_right: https://docs.pact.io/events/plugins-framework-workshop

dyptorden

2022-12-10 23:45

Hi @yousafn, @matt.fellows. I tried to publish with the mechanism you provided here: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1670360300858079?thread_ts=1670333074.636179&cid=C5F4KFKR8 So after downloading the latest version from here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases I could publish the contract by running: `~/Downloads/pact-1.91.0-linux-x86_64/pact/bin/pact-broker publish /home/user/workspace/pact-ruby-cli/example/pacts/ -b http://10.34.133.12:9292 -u myPactUser -p 'myPassword' -a fake-git-sha-for-demo-$(date +%s) -g -v` Any chance you can make the docker command work as well? - as it will be quite hard to get all the members in all the teams to download the standalone plus keeping it updated to the latest version whenever a new version comes out. To have all in one place, the docker command that fails (for which only the first request goes through): `docker run -w ${PWD} -v ${PWD}:${PWD} -e PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL -e PACT_BROKER_USERNAME -e PACT_BROKER_PASSWORD pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest publish ${PWD}/example/pacts/ --consumer-app-version fake-git-sha-for-demo-$(date +%s) --tag-with-git-branch --verbose` Thank you,

matt.fellows

2022-12-11 23:53

It should be executing the same code (i.e. what is in Docker is the same code, packaged as a Docker container)

matt.fellows

2022-12-11 23:53

My guess is that there is some networking configuration / combination using Docker causing the issue

maxime.raverdy

2022-12-12 09:22

has joined #general

dimundo

2022-12-12 11:32

hi! any comments on this ? https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1670415366082719

matt.fellows

2022-12-12 12:21

When the FE makes a new change it will publish a new contract. At this point can I deploy will fail until the provider has implemented and deployed the change. If the FE makes a change that doesn't modify the contract it's preverifed and can I deploy will pass.

matt.fellows

2022-12-12 12:22

It's the same as tags, am I missing something?

dimundo

2022-12-12 12:42

when MR is being merged its being tested against deployed and released versions ? provider is compliant with all version ? consumer updates or not pact

dimundo

2022-12-12 12:43

if half year old FE provider will be not ok with current BE - BE consumer will be not allowed to be merged/deployed - this will be detected on c-i-d stage

dimundo

2022-12-12 12:45

if half year old FE consumer will be not ok with current BE - BE provider tests will fail on tests stage ( as `deployedOrReleased` selector is there )

dimundo

2022-12-12 12:45

am i correct ?

dimundo

2022-12-12 12:46

looks like i finally managed to formulate this :smile:

sambhavi.chinnu

2022-12-13 04:11

has joined #general

david.turner

2022-12-13 09:01

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-12-13 13:11

Hey all! Hope to see some of you later in our build a Pact plug-in workshop https://docs.pact.io/events/plugins-framework-workshop Where you will create, publish and utilise your own plug-in in a pact test

mateusz.dudek03

2022-12-13 14:10

has joined #general

mateusz.dudek

2022-12-13 14:22

has joined #general

dmitrij.bogomyakov

2022-12-13 16:09

has joined #general

victor.lau841

2022-12-13 16:30

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-12-13 21:05

Hello, we are live! Give us a shout if you can't get in, or have any issues.

matt.fellows

2022-12-14 09:59

Hello! The Europe Plugins Workshop is starting now :point_right: https://docs.pact.io/events/plugins-framework-workshop Join @yousafn and I if you want to get your hands dirty writing your very first plugin :electric_plug:

guillaume.camus

2022-12-14 11:38

Hi folks, I don?t know if that can be interesting for some of you. I wrote a little command line to generate interactive diagrams of relations between ms. Here you can find the repo: https://github.com/ManoManoTech/pact-graph-network and some screenshots.

roblesjm

2022-12-14 11:40

has joined #general

ahmidat

2022-12-14 12:44

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-12-14 14:13

Nice one @guillaume.camus, this looks awesome! How many services in that graph? Will drop a couple of PR changes back for convenience stuff for mac users. I downloaded to `~/.pact/cli` and have that in my path :ok_hand: The path in the readme doesn't exist for macos users. Does it support broker creds? If you want to, it would be great to add on here https://docs.pact.io/community_repos maybe under a new utilities section? Also if you wanted to talk about it, or write a blog on it about why you built it, we can help give you a platform :slightly_smiling_face:

guillaume.camus

2022-12-14 14:17

Thank you, there are 82 services in this example. Authentication is not taken into account, but it?s a good idea, I will add it.

yousafn

2022-12-14 14:26

Nice :chefkiss:

yousafn

2022-12-14 14:27

I'm keen to run it against our demo pact broker!

sergey.ledniov

2022-12-14 16:46

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-12-14 19:36

Pact needs you. Yes, you! I promise I won?t take long and you can get back to dreaming about Xmas puds. We don?t sleep here at Pact and are always thinking about our community. We?ve launched an annual survey with the hope to get input from you, big or small. Any contribution is valuable. If you have contributed to any Pact Open Source projects or have engaged with Pact social media and Slack, we'd love to hear your thoughts and experiences! https://forms.office.com/r/ccxYTMxhJm Also if you are itching to do some more advent of code all year round, we?ve got some interesting projects in the pipeline you can sink you teeth into! More to come soon!

mike.geeves064

2022-12-14 19:51

I think you have heard all my responses before :joy: but I have filled in! Probably I will be needing to take the rest of the year off from any dev at all if I do manage to complete this year AoC :thinking_face:

abhimanu.sehgal

2022-12-14 20:40

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-12-14 22:55

Thank you Mr! Much appreciated. I've not attempted AoC this year, been on my own little journey in the underbelly of Pact in December. Might have a go when I break up for crimbles. I know I gave up last year on day 6 I think. I was like, this is too much like work, but not the fun bit of work.

mike.geeves064

2022-12-14 22:56

Yeah, I was trying Rust last year and it felt like far too much googling and brute forcing answers :joy: this year I have docs and tests :open_mouth: ..but python

hforhirenpatel

2022-12-15 02:13

has joined #general

enrique.decoss

2022-12-15 02:25

has joined #general

kirankishore4

2022-12-15 06:12

has joined #general

dimundo

2022-12-15 09:27

hello :slightly_smiling_face: more questions about record/release :slightly_smiling_face: https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/recording_deployments_and_releases#recording-support-ended-for-a-release ```Recording support ended for a release When a released application is deemed to be no longer supported, call pact-broker record-support-ended. This will stop all pacts for this version being returned for verification by its providers, and remove it from consideration when checking if an integrated application is safe to deploy.``` does this mean, that this version also will be considered as not deployed ? use case - we have 3 components ? all 3 were deployed ( deployedOrReleased returns all 3 ) ? 1 was marked as released ( deployedOrReleased returns all 3(+1 but still 3 ) ) ? released component was marked as record-support-ended will deployedOrReleased still return all 3 components ?

dimundo

2022-12-15 09:31

this part of docs is a bit confusing ```and remove it from consideration when checking if an integrated application is safe to deploy.```

antonello

2022-12-15 10:16

Hello all! I?ve done a quick search on http://docs.pact.io and on here and couldn?t find anything relevant. I know there were conversations in the past around supporting *feature flags*. What are the current recommendations?

yousafn

2022-12-15 10:44

Hey hey @david.vancouvering wrote a little first pass at a guide on it earlier in the year https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/feature_toggles We still have some open questions but thought we would get it out there

yousafn

2022-12-15 10:45

Would love to get some feedback from the field from users both still on tags, or those who have moved to branches and/or environments

antonello

2022-12-15 10:45

I was searching for flags and didn?t think about searching for toggles!

yousafn

2022-12-15 10:45

Fancy a PR? so we can get feature flags on the page for indexing?

yousafn

2022-12-15 10:46

also `npx -y pactman` will let you search from your terminal and print out links to pages (if we've got the right search words in there) If you are extra lazy like me!

alvaro.navarroiborra

2022-12-15 10:47

has joined #general

leelavathi.sundaram

2022-12-15 10:55

has joined #general

yousafn

2022-12-15 11:02

Also I wonder if rather than being theoritcal it would be good to show/lead by example. We could built out a set of scenarioes based say on the existing pact product api scenario which is across multiple languages. A flapplication (feature flag application) and actually show it in practise. We have a couple of scenarioes that show the introduction of a visibility field to hide products, could we show that being used to control the client passing the param in the req and expecting that additional data in the resp (if the client side feature flag is on) Would we need scenarioes to cover how the feature flags are retrieved in the consumer or backend application (hard coded, dynamic at startup, dynamic as read by some external config/feature provider)

yousafn

2022-12-15 11:05

released and deployed are two separate concepts I believe. ? Unrecording a release wont unrecord deployments. ? recording a deployment will undeploy all deployed application This is why we recommend using `deployedOrReleased` selector for most use cases in provider verifications so the provider doesn't need to know in advance which style the consumer is using

yousafn

2022-12-15 11:07

And hey dude, thanks for all the brilliant questions. Are you capturing these anywhere? There is probably value in the moment as having an FAQ page with Dmitry atm :sweat_smile: and then feeding that into our docs. Would you be interested in chatting to one of our UX team members to see how we could have makes this docs journey less confusing for you? cc: @shuying.lin

paula.muldoon

2022-12-15 11:40

has joined #general

paula.muldoon

2022-12-15 11:44

:wave: (couldn't find an intro channel so posting hello here) - I'm Paula, lead engineer at Zopa Bank (UK), using Kotlin/Kafka and TS on the FE. Looking into Pact to provide contract testing for our microservices as well as our BFFs and excited to chat more!

yousafn

2022-12-15 12:02

Hey hey, Welcome to the party! Always good to have faces from the UK, I am lonely up in Leeds as the rest of my core Pactflow team are over in Aus! I'm new to Kotlin (it's next of my little list of polyglotting for my own advent of code) new to Kafka too, largely, getting across it soon as part of our Pact Plugin roll out. We would love to hear about your journey as your onboard through our docs and repos/examples, and exploring ideas around BFF's and good testing practises. We had a chat from the creator of module federation, at a client that were looking at rolling our micro front-ends in a mix of both restful/monolith and eda based arch https://scriptedalchemy.medium.com/when-should-you-leverage-module-federation-and-how-2998b132c840 And good shout on the intro channel, most shout in here and we have our widest audience, so this is as good as any :slightly_smiling_face: The welcome bot is here https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-event-bot/blob/1d8000ef2b0b80e292e468fde25fe7e1705a6779/src/slackEvent.ts#L52 It is shockingly bad, looking back at it :joy: big fat one line string. but if you wanted to help update the content pulled it out here so it is easy to grok. https://gist.github.com/YOU54F/aebc97ef8eb09ce0d4c6d33a3190a672 to say, hey, why not introduce yourself in general. That content is a little stale. we are at over 4.5k users now, and I wrote that before I joined the Pact/Pactflow team It might be that we aren't using that one any more, and you've got a completely different message :sweat_smile:

paula.muldoon

2022-12-15 12:12

Woohoo, :gb: ! Yea I'm really hoping we can use Pact with Kafka cuz microservices testing...ouch

matt.fellows

2022-12-15 12:19

Welcome!

dimundo

2022-12-15 12:38

we almost ready in migration to deployedOrReleased

dimundo

2022-12-15 12:38

and thats why questions appear

dimundo

2022-12-15 12:39

> ? recording a deployment will undeploy all deployed application thats understandable ( making something like ?latest? )

dimundo

2022-12-15 12:39

> ? Unrecording a release wont unrecord deployments. this would be nice to add to docs because it a little bit contradicts with > ```and remove it from consideration when checking if an integrated application is safe to deploy.``` >

dimundo

2022-12-15 12:40

( prolly both notes )

sam774

2022-12-15 12:52

Ran a presentation today at work (Tesco Bank) on Pactflow, it went down a treat! We have lots of integration challenges in our environment and I may have just persuaded the higher ups that we can give this a shot.

sam774

2022-12-15 12:52

Welcome! Another UK bod here (I'm in Newcastle). There's also @wesleythomaswilliams :grinning:

yousafn

2022-12-15 13:46

Saweeeeeet!

yousafn

2022-12-15 13:47

is the slide deck generic enough or worth sharing? just thinking if you found the magic sauce that worked to help get it to click with the higher uppers, that might be good to share

yousafn

2022-12-15 13:48

we have a few champion decks we provide, but I know most practitioners probably have some kind of deck from their own talks / experiences

sam774

2022-12-15 13:50

Take a look at https://sh1989.gitlab.io/talks/consumer-driven-contract-testing Tried to keep it somewhat code light and high level, I only had 20m

yousafn

2022-12-15 13:50

How would people feel about pact-uk / pact-austrailia / pact-<location> style rooms. I would love to meet more Pact advocates, champions in the UK (especially anyone in Leeds), in person and it might be great to help people find communities local to them.

sam774

2022-12-15 13:54

Sounds fun!

paula.muldoon

2022-12-15 14:05

Woo! I'm in Cambridge

yousafn

2022-12-15 14:08

Excellent slide deck dude. Nice 101 level :clap:

yousafn

2022-12-15 14:08

Quality snippets too

yousafn

2022-12-15 14:08

and emojis and occasional lawl pic

yousafn

2022-12-15 14:10

I would maybe have e2e - challenges then the landscape (microservice death star) but other than that, love it Feel free to add an entry on this page if you'd like https://docs.pact.io/blogs_videos_and_articles

yousafn

2022-12-15 14:14

also quotes from testing legends :chefkiss:

sam774

2022-12-15 15:28

We definitely need a Pact UK meetup then lol

yousafn

2022-12-15 17:57

Happy for you to provide any updates to the docs, any of the pages have an edit this link at the bottom. We get a good few updates that way. You can think of it as your own contract-testing wikipedia :slightly_smiling_face:

yousafn

2022-12-15 18:01

We'd want to quickly test it out first before adding to the docs, or get Beth to confirm. I'll have get a chance tomorrow, I've gotta get my head down and box off a couple of tasks today. ty Dmitry

david.vancouvering

2022-12-15 18:55

Wow, I forgot about that doc. :slightly_smiling_face: It's currently under the "getting started" section which doesn't seem right. This seems like a pretty advanced topic. And yes, "feature flag" is probably a better term, sorry about that.

james.sun

2022-12-15 22:42

has joined #general

dominic.matabilas

2022-12-15 22:42

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-12-16 01:33

Great idea Yousaf!

matt.fellows

2022-12-16 01:41

If you can make that happen, we?ll definitely find a way to financially sponsor you if needed (e.g. food, drinks, venue). Would love to see this happen

matt.fellows

2022-12-16 01:41

Could do a Tesco vs Sainsburys contract testing talk :stuck_out_tongue:

bethskurrie

2022-12-16 02:48

@dimundo why was the same version marked as deployed and released?

bethskurrie

2022-12-16 02:49

Deployments and Releases are separate domain concepts, and doing something to a deployment does nothing to a release, and vice versa.

bethskurrie

2022-12-16 02:51

Deployments and releases model real life actions - when you deploy an application, the previous version that was in that environment is automatically undeployed IRL and in the Pact Broker. When you do a library/app release, it doesn?t stop any previous releases being available IRL, so we don?t update any previous releases in the Pact Broker.

bethskurrie

2022-12-16 03:04

I?ve updated the docs in the ?differences between deployments and releases?

bethskurrie

2022-12-16 03:04

bethskurrie

2022-12-16 03:05

I?m confused about which bits contradict each other @dimundo

bethskurrie

2022-12-16 03:06

?Deployed versions? and ?released versions? are very similar, but are modelled slightly differently in the Pact Broker. The difference between `record-deployment` and `record-release` is that ? `record-deployment` is used to model the real life scenario where a deployment causes the previous version of an application to be replaced by a new version. It is used for APIs and consumer applications that are deployed to known instances. When called, it automatically marks the previously deployed version as undeployed. ? `record-release` models the real life scenario where the release of a new version of an artifact does not cause the previously released versions of the artifact to become unavailable. It is used for mobile applications and libraries that are made publicly available via an application store or repository. When called, it does NOT change the status of any previously released version. ?Deployed versions? and ?released versions? are different resource types in the Pact Broker, and an application version may be both deployed and released. For example, a mobile phone application version may be recorded as deployed to a mobile device for automated testing in a test environment, and then recorded as released to an app store in a production environment. Deployments and release lifecycles are completely independent of each other. Ending support for a release will not cause a currently deployed version to be marked as undeployed, and marking a version as undeployed will not end support for a release.

bethskurrie

2022-12-16 03:06

how?s that?

bethskurrie

2022-12-16 03:07

> use case - we have 3 components > ? all 3 were deployed ( deployedOrReleased returns all 3 ) > ? 1 was marked as released ( deployedOrReleased returns all 3(+1 but still 3 ) ) > ? released component was marked as record-support-ended > will deployedOrReleased still return all 3 components ? (edited) Yes, all 3 will still be returned.

bethskurrie

2022-12-16 03:08

@dimundo btw, I don?t hang out in the general channel because there?s too much going on. If you have pact broker questions, best to ask in the #pact-broker channel

bethskurrie

2022-12-16 03:09

`fatal: detected dubious ownership in repository at '/home/myuser/workspace/pact-ruby-cli'` perceptive tool :laughing:

bethskurrie

2022-12-16 03:22

Please raise an issue in the pact-ruby-cli repo if you?re still having the issue @dyptorden

bethskurrie

2022-12-16 03:23

Just read @yousafn?s wrap up of 2022. What an amazing community. I?m so proud to be a part of it. https://docs.pact.io/blog/2022/11/17/pact-2022-end-of-year-wrapup

dimundo

2022-12-16 07:53

> why was the same version marked as deployed and released? yes > I?m confused about which bits contradict each other ```call pact-broker record-support-ended. This will stop all pacts for this version being returned for verification by its providers``` it sounds like `call record-support-ended ... version is removed from verifications`

dimundo

2022-12-16 07:56

adding this > Ending support for a release will not cause a currently deployed version to be marked as undeployed, and marking a version as undeployed will not end support for a release. makes everything clear

dimundo

2022-12-16 07:56

:taco: @bethskurrie and thank you :slightly_smiling_face:

paula.muldoon

2022-12-16 09:33

I am so there for this

sam774

2022-12-16 09:34

The big supermarket bank smackdown

sam774

2022-12-16 09:35

I have a session with our principal test engineer next week to go through what running a contract test workflow actually looks like, so I'm really hoping I can finally get some traction here

paula.muldoon

2022-12-16 09:36

We're close to going down the rabbit hole (again) of "just build api tests that you can run anywhere" oh wait that requires 10 JVM microservices, guess we can only run on UAT post-merge Guess we'll just ignore the output of those tests #NotOnMyWatch #HopePactCanHelp

dyptorden

2022-12-16 10:46

Thank you @bethskurrie . I will.

matt.fellows

2022-12-16 11:15

Not if we can help it! I've heard that story just a few too many times

matt.fellows

2022-12-16 11:16

It was both a lovely read (so Yousaf!) and a great reminder of the work that goes on behind the scenes, and the various contributions across the ecosystem. Thank you all, it really is a pleasure!

paula.muldoon

2022-12-16 12:19

Question about best practices for picking up changes to pactfile. Context: 2 microservices, called `PotatoConsumer` and `PotatoProducer` :ireland: :potato: with separate everything - pipelines, repos, deployable artifacts. Owned by a full-stack team that communicates well. `PotatoConsumer` updates the Pactfile (for `$reasons`). The update would cause a failure in `PotatoProducer` because it no longer upholds this contract. HOWEVER, because the pipelines etc are all separate, the failure in `PotatoProducer` doesn't get picked up until the next time someone touches it, six weeks after `PotatoConsumer`'s deployment to production (let's assume it fails in a subtle and unnoticed way). What's the best way to avoid this without ending up with pipelines doing super weird things to each other?

jaswanth.ooty

2022-12-16 12:27

Hi @paula.muldoon :wave::skin-tone-2: We currently have a setup, where this contract change would trigger a new build that would run the provider pact verification tests in the provider side (via a webhook configured in the pact broker) We?ve set it up in a way that if this build fails, it notifies the producer team via slack.

jaswanth.ooty

2022-12-16 12:29

Our setup is quite close to the platinum level. https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana/step_6

jaswanth.ooty

2022-12-16 12:30

Hope that helps. Please let me know if I?ve misinterpreted your question. Happy to chat more if needed :+1:

paula.muldoon

2022-12-16 13:30

thanks @jaswanth.ooty! If the build fails, does it block anything on the consumer side?

yousafn

2022-12-16 13:46

The consumer when they post their pact, if it has never been verified by the provider, will trigger a contact content changed and contract requiring verification published event. A provider build ( seperate from their usual build ) will be triggered to check out the code for all deployed/released versions of the provider and the head of the main branch to check comparability. Consumer would fail can I deploy, or can poll for a specified time to wait for the providers build to run. If the provider doesn?t have a sep build that it triggered by the contract changing, they can pick up the changes during their regular CI run by using Include WIP pacts Enable pending pacts. Wip pacts would allow the contracts published but not verified to be picked up by the providers ru. Enable pending on provider side would stop the consumers change a) failing the providers build so they can still deploy b ) block consumer until the provider has deployed a compatible change. I would expect consumer to back out change from main and then co ordinate on the change as a feature, that would allow consumers builds to continue for changes unrelated to that feature

yousafn

2022-12-16 13:49

Our ci/cd workshop covers these techniques and application of them Lesson 3 on here https://docs.pact.io/university It uses pactflow as the broker but you can switch out for an open source broker, the webhook commands will be slightly different https://github.com/YOU54F/path-to-pact-nirvana/blob/9831d9d18bc52b61f1608721601669493f86394e/Step_12_AddWebhookForProviderCIWhenConsumerChanges/Makefile#L24 As you can store secrets in Pactflow, so you create a token first that is parameterised in the webhook

yousafn

2022-12-16 13:51

Hey @jaswanth.ooty great answer. Curious has your team moved from tags for representing branches and environments, to branches/environments https://docs.pact.io/blog/2021/07/04/why-we-are-getting-rid-of-tags And are you using the new webhook event https://docs.pact.io/blog/2021/10/11/contract-requiring-verification-published-webhook-event

yousafn

2022-12-16 13:51

Loving the spud scenario :raised_hands:

paula.muldoon

2022-12-16 14:04

ooh thanks @yousafn that's really interesting!

tlemmonds

2022-12-16 19:55

has joined #general

jaswanth.ooty

2022-12-16 22:14

Hi @yousafn :wave::skin-tone-2: thanks for that ultra clear explanation :raised_hands::skin-tone-2: 1. Yup we?ve moved away from tags and use the branches instead :+1::skin-tone-2: 2. We are still perfecting our webhook setup. Since we don?t have dev or staging branches. We only have feature and main (Trunk based branching). We?ve been running through different scenarios to see how best we can set it up. Have you seen any approaches for trunk based branching before ? Would love to hear from you and the community.

dyptorden

2022-12-18 23:54

@matt.fellows should I understand that the issue is in our network or ...?

dyptorden

2022-12-18 23:57

@bethskurrie, at the moment, the only issue I am facing is the one in the next Thread: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1670715914357109?thread_ts=1670333074.636179&cid=C5F4KFKR8

matt.fellows

2022-12-18 23:57

Yes, it certainly appears that way.

dyptorden

2022-12-19 00:10

thanks Matt.

matt.fellows

2022-12-19 02:24

Sorry, I wish I could help you more!

matt.fellows

2022-12-19 02:25

My suggestion from here is to try and create a simple HA setup (sans VPN etc.) and see if the client works there, and then layer in the other networking components until it stops working. Then at least we?ll have a target to debug

samuel.woodbridge

2022-12-19 09:44

has joined #general

tjones

2022-12-19 13:22

I think @elliottmurray (of at least Pact Python fame) might be in Cambridge too

tjones

2022-12-19 13:23

(I was born in Cambridge, but I live in Australia now, so it?s unlikely I can make a meetup)

tjones

2022-12-19 13:23

Love this

tjones

2022-12-19 13:25

> HOWEVER, because the pipelines etc are all separate, the failure in PotatoProducer doesn?t get picked up until the next time someone touches it, six weeks after PotatoConsumer?s deployment to production (let?s assume it fails in a subtle and unnoticed way). This shouldn?t be possible.

tjones

2022-12-19 13:25

The `can-i-deploy` check for `PotatoConsumer` will fail because the contract has never been verified

tjones

2022-12-19 13:25

so it shouldn?t be possible to deploy something that?s broken

tjones

2022-12-19 13:26

(at least, broken in this way)

mwojcik

2022-12-19 13:43

has joined #general

robinsmit

2022-12-19 15:08

has joined #general

edouard.lopez

2022-12-19 15:58

Do you have recommendation when a code base is both consumer *and* provider? Do you create 2 distinguished tasks? How do you identify provider/consumer test to run? One of our team created 2 task: `testContractConsumer` and `testContractProvider` then used tag annotation ```# build.gradle.kts useJUnitPlatform { includeTags("consumer") }``` And in the test file `@Tag("provider")` or `@Tag("consumer")`

elliottmurray

2022-12-19 16:08

I can confirm he is still in Cambridge! Available for meetups. There was a virtual python one last year on pact I attended actually!

paula.muldoon

2022-12-19 16:12

ooh @elliottmurray where in Cam?? I'm in Girton

elliottmurray

2022-12-19 16:13

Mill road/romsey town way

elliottmurray

2022-12-19 16:13

Girton is very nice

paula.muldoon

2022-12-19 16:20

yea we moved up here a couple years ago to get more space. Mill Rd is fun though! Plus you have Hot Numbers...

elliottmurray

2022-12-19 16:22

Haha. Yes had brunch there just Saturday!

jungjae.lim

2022-12-19 16:24

has joined #general

tjones

2022-12-19 20:00

I used to live in Histon(!)

tjones

2022-12-19 21:13

Yes, I think two different tasks is the way to go

tjones

2022-12-19 21:13

As you need to publish the pact before you start the verification

tjones

2022-12-19 21:14

(well, you don?t _need_ to, since you could point at the local pact that you had just generated, too- but I think it?s the least fiddly to have all the tasks that you would if they were separate services)

tjones

2022-12-19 21:15

I have a service which is its own consumer, and for that I treat it as if it had the ?consumer tests? and the ?provider tests?, just as it would if they were separate. This way, if I add other consumers, or pull one of them out to a separate service, then it?s safe

antonello

2022-12-20 15:04

Hello! Can I just double check that if a pacticipant supports both HTTP and message protocols, that you?d need to use two different pacticipant names?

yousafn

2022-12-20 15:28

Hey @antonello, Believe v4 Pact specification will allow for an integration (consumer/provider application pair) to share multiple interaction types via this RFC https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/issues/79 so it would be beneficial for client libraries to upgrade to get all the latest and greatest features. This will probably be a community effort rather than on any individual as there is quite an estate to cover, some of which isn't under the Pact foundations direct control. I've got it on my radar for next year's plan of attack :slightly_smiling_face:

yousafn

2022-12-20 15:30

We could do with some documentation on the site regarding those caveats probably ? message pact testing section ? https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/how_pact_works#non-http-testing-message-pact ? pact specification section ? https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/pact_specification#migration-guides

yousafn

2022-12-20 15:30

Other than that there are just a few pointers to the naming convention required is a few GH issues in diff repos.

tjones

2022-12-21 02:03

Yes, currently that?s the case.

sam774

2022-12-21 14:31

Good news! Last week's contract testing talk went down very well at work amongst the engineering practice. In the new year we are going to run a proof of concept. A lot of the services we use are SOAP, what does Pact have to say about contract testing SOAP?

sam774

2022-12-21 14:32

To some extent I could see it working similarly to bi-directional contract testing, in that the contract must be a subset of the WSDL. But I'm not sure how much benefit you get from this in the same way you do with HTTP. Keen to be wrong on this tho

saurwein

2022-12-21 14:48

has joined #general

ssharma

2022-12-21 15:17

has joined #general

alejandro.depablos

2022-12-21 18:56

has joined #general

abubics

2022-12-21 22:37

WSDLs have the same kinds of issues as OAS, or other schema specs: less reasoning power (aka: https://pactflow.io/blog/schemas-are-not-contracts/)

2022-12-21 22:37

https://pactflow.io/blog/schemas-are-not-contracts/

abubics

2022-12-21 22:39

WSDLs do have a small benefit in that you can generate code that will always (un)marshall correctly, but you can't guarantee that everything that is expressed is valid.

abubics

2022-12-21 22:41

(e.g. If there are many optional properties/children in am entity, the spec doesn't tell you which combinations are valid) - of course you can design around this, but that burden is on engineers, SOAP doesn't help you.

tomas.cerkasas

2022-12-21 23:14

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2022-12-22 02:01

> To some extent I could see it working similarly to bi-directional contract testing, in that the contract must be a subset of the WSDL. But I?m not sure how much benefit you get from this in the same way you do with HTTP. Keen to be wrong on this tho Yeah. We do have this on our list for BDCT, but I?m not yet convinced we?ll actually be able to solve the problem. In my experience, and some of the examples I?ve seen, the schemas are so full of ?optional? elements, that almost any XML document would match. Which, obviously, wouldn?t be too helpful :laughing:. But that may not be a reason to not do it for those that have useful schemas. I think schematron could also play a part here, which alleviates many of the problems XSD had (in practice, not theory). So the way BDCT works with OAS now, whilst suffers from a variant of the same problem, is nowhere near as bad.

matt.fellows

2022-12-22 02:02

> WSDLs do have a small benefit in that you can generate code that will always (un)marshall correctly, but you can?t guarantee that everything that is expressed is valid. I think one of the reason why schemas tended to be so abstract with XSD, is that the way the clients/servers were built in that generation were not fault tolerant, so if you had a client that didn?t have exactly the same schema as the server, everything went :boom:

matt.fellows

2022-12-22 02:02

so a solution (to that problem) is to make the schema weaker

matt.fellows

2022-12-22 02:03

RESTful services have learned from that mistake, and generally speaking everyone accepts that we don?t need to be so tightly coupled. So I?ve never seen an OAS that is anywhere near as bad as those XSDs.

priyanka.soni

2022-12-22 08:24

has joined #general

zijian.wang1

2022-12-22 10:51

has joined #general

anyi.huang

2022-12-22 11:02

has joined #general

arpan.agr

2022-12-23 05:45

Is there pact support for erlang

matt.fellows

2022-12-23 07:27

No, but let us know if you're up for building an Erlang client!

matt.fellows

2022-12-23 07:28

I should also add, you can test soap with pact languages that support XML (java and JS I think are the only ones currently)

stepik02

2022-12-23 10:36

has joined #general

prajwalg

2022-12-25 14:28

has joined #general

raksha.baskaran

2022-12-27 06:01

has joined #general

venkatesh.madas

2022-12-27 06:36

has joined #general

anthony.bennett

2022-12-27 20:15

has joined #general

livinglogic.nl

2022-12-28 10:50

has joined #general

vittorio.guerriero

2022-12-28 16:34

:wave: , Hello! Question about pact cli `can-i-deploy` Is it possible to specify the version of a Pacticipant through the environment? Basically we would like to do this ```pact-broker can-i-deploy --pacticipant AConsumer --version ${gitHash} --pacticipant AProvider --environment prod``` This should only check for the Provider version with the environment prod. We are currently using pact-node and I couldn?t find a way to do this

vittorio.guerriero

2022-12-28 16:36

We would like this functionality because we trigger the verification process synchronously only for the `can-i-deploy` that fails.

vittorio.guerriero

2022-12-28 16:37

This is the version I am using ```"@pact-foundation/pact-node": "10.17.2",```

vittorio.guerriero

2022-12-28 16:41

Just to clarify that we cannot use `--to-environment` because this would include all the Providers in this instance. We would like to specify a single pacticipant with another single pacticipant. Let me know which other info you need!

tjones

2022-12-28 21:03

Can you use `pact-core` instead of pact-node? It?s the core that backs pact-js@10 and above

tjones

2022-12-28 22:02

> Just to clarify that we cannot use --to-environment because this would include all the Providers in this instance. We would like to specify a single pacticipant with another single pacticipant. What is the reason that this is a problem? The use-case for `--to-environment` is to see if it is safe to deploy the application (ie, including all of its dependencies)

livinglogic.nl

2022-12-29 00:53

I'm working on a tool that includes PACT support and I'm trying to make it fit as good as possible. I understand testing for an optional attribute does not make sense as another consumer might want it to be there. However, if I describe a scenario (by giving provider states) where the returned array should be empty, can we not verify that? After reading documentation and doing some testing, I come to these conclusions: 1. A scenario where the array contains at least one item is verifiable. 2. A scenario where the array contains max=1 item is verifiable. 3. A scenario where the array contains max=0 is **not** verifiable (I can specify an empty array, but PACT would still allow a non-empty array). A real world example of scenario 3 would be: _Given a provider state of items with only state 'declined' searching for items with state 'accepted' would result in an empty array_ I could theoretically have 3 interactions: - Interaction 1: tests items in the array - Interaction 2: tests for array length == 1 under specific circumstances - Interaction 3: tests for array length == 0 under specific circumstances It therefore seems arbitrary to allow `max=1` but not `max=0`.

livinglogic.nl

2022-12-29 00:58

Can anyone shine some light on the above? By the way a big fan of Pact, and I will be able to continue without max=0 but I would like to gain some more understanding, thanks!

tjones

2022-12-29 01:38

> 3. A scenario where the array contains max=0 is *not* verifiable (I can specify an empty array, but PACT would still allow a non-empty array). No, it won?t. If you?re experiencing this, it?s a bug.

tjones

2022-12-29 01:39

Sometimes, people get confused by the `eachLike` matcher in the empty array case. When the array is empty, you don?t need a matcher, you just specify an empty array.

tjones

2022-12-29 01:40

A key point is that the matcher isn?t for ?here are the possible responses that the server might make? it?s for ?everything that passes this matcher is covered by this particular test?

tjones

2022-12-29 01:43

So, yes, you?re right that you usually need at least: ? Some items in the array of a particular shape ? No items in the array Depending on the meaning in the response, you might also need things like: ? Exactly one item ? Exactly these items in this order (you don?t need `eachLike` for this) ? Array that includes these specific items in any order etc

tjones

2022-12-29 01:43

What?s your tool? I?m also working on something that will be pact-compatible, we could compare notes

tjones

2022-12-29 01:45

I?m guessing a bit, but another key point that might be relevant is: In normal pact usage, a pact file can only be written if we _know_ that the consumer works with what the pact file describes. This is important, as it?s what gives you deployment confidence when the verification of a pact file passes. Sometimes we find people who want to write pact files manually (or automatically from a spec), and this is usually a reduction in deployment confidence.

tjones

2022-12-29 01:47

> I?m also working on something that will be pact-compatible, we could compare notes One of the things I?d like to do is to review the pact-jvm source code (where the pact matchers are all described clearly) and write up how each one behaves. I want to do this so that I can read pact files correctly - it?s not at the top of my todo list yet, but if this is the kind of thing your tool will also need, it definitely would be worth comparing notes.

tjones

2022-12-29 01:53

> It therefore seems arbitrary to allow max=1 but not max=0. I believe the reason for this choice is that it?s normally something people want to be able to specify when there?s a misuse or misunderstanding - so preventing it brings them to the help pages or FAQ instead of writing a broken test by mistake. The framework could treat `max=0` as `[]`, but think about how it would work if Pact didn?t exist, and instead a coworker was describing the response to you: ?Ok, I need exactly zero items, each of which matches this template? ?.you?d be like ?wait, what? What do you mean??. It would be better to have your coworker say: ?Ok, I need an empty array? ?Got it? And that?s why instead of `eachLike(item, {max: 0})`, you should say `[]`

tjones

2022-12-29 01:54

Also, very small point, but it?s Pact not PACT :heart:

tjones

2022-12-29 01:54

(for your documentation)

livinglogic.nl

2022-12-29 05:23

Thanks for explaining all of this! Let's say I want to match on type at the root: ```{ id: 1, text: 'hello world', items: [], }``` So id would be a number, text would be a string and items would be an array. Now if I want items to be zero-length in some scenario, I cannot have the `{ match:'type' }` on root, because it will then force items to be an any-length array. So in this scenario, I would have to be specific about matching `id` to be a `number` and `text` to be a `string` because I can't use `{ max:0 }` as a matcher on `$.todos` Is this correct?

livinglogic.nl

2022-12-29 05:32

Documenting the various matchers would be very helpful I think! I see you referring to the jvm as the source of truth. At some point I thought the pact_verifier_cli would be the reference implementation to look at?

livinglogic.nl

2022-12-29 05:42

I do see quite some interesting documentation on https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/rust/pact_matching too bad it is a bit hidden (Rust is not my main language)

tjones

2022-12-29 06:52

> Is this correct? No. You can cancel the match and go back to exact for `items` (I forget what it?s called in the pact file format, but there?s a ?match this exactly?), or you could do match of `"type"` on both the `id` and the `text` instead of on the root.

vittorio.guerriero

2022-12-29 07:26

Morning here! :sunrise: ! Thank you for your answer > Can you use `pact-core` instead of pact-node? It?s the core that backs pact-js@10 and above I can certainly do! I was using pact-node because I was simply running the commands from a shell rather than creating a javascript script. Is there a specific reason why is recommended over pact-node? > We would like to specify a single pacticipant with another single pacticipant. Basically, we are following an approach without webhook at Cazoo, As part of the consumer pipeline we ? run the tests ? publish the pacts ? run can-i-deploy -> this is the one that I would like to change ? run the verification only if the previous can-i-deploy failed ? ?. This gives us the advantage that we have an immediate response from the Provider if the verification failed or succeeded. The need of using can-i-deploy with a single Consumer and Provider is to control which verifications we want to trigger. Example ConsumerA is consuming different APIs from 2 different Provider. ProviderA and ProviderB. ConsumerA make a change to the pact that is compatible with ProviderB and it does not affect ProviderA ConsumerA will publish the pacts ConsumerA will run can-i-deploy, it will fail for ProviderB but it will succeed for ProviderA ConsumerA will run the verification on the ProviderB but not the ProviderA

vittorio.guerriero

2022-12-29 07:26

@antonello FYI

antonello

2022-12-29 08:09

Just to clarify further, we?re implanting a webhook-less flow and Beth pointed me to https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker-client/blob/master/lib/pact_broker/client/cli/matrix_commands.rb#L44 but we?ve been unable to use the command successfully.

tjones

2022-12-29 09:04

> Is there a specific reason why is recommended over pact-node? Yes, the latest version of the binaries are in pact-core. Pact-node was renamed `pact-core` to reduce confusion (it was a core package without a convenient DSL that sometimes people mistook for the package to use if you were doing server side node). 9.x depends on pact-node, while 10.x uses pact-core.

tjones

2022-12-29 09:19

I?m not sure I fully understand the workflow you describe, but I have only had time to skim read it so far (I?ll be able to check back later). My first impression is that the situation you describe doesn?t need to be able to drop providers from the query. But perhaps I am missing something

tjones

2022-12-29 09:21

> At some point I thought the pact_verifier_cli would be the reference implementation to look at? My understanding is that they?re the same behaviour. When I was asking Ron if the matchers were documented anywhere, he said they weren?t documented in the spec, but pointed me at this: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-jvm/blob/master/core/matchers/src/main/kotlin/au/com/dius/pact/core/matchers/MatcherExecutor.kt#L142

tjones

2022-12-29 09:22

Out of interest, what are you building?

tjones

2022-12-29 10:32

Ok, I think I understand your use case. Are you saying that you want to use can-i-deploy to determine which providers are failing (if any) and then immediately run their verification steps? If yes, what I would do is use the json output from can-i-deploy (there?s a flag for it), parse it, and use that output. This is better than running individual can-i-deploys because it means that you can use the environment selectors and won?t miss any providers.

tjones

2022-12-29 10:35

I?ve never tried running the provider verification in the same build - it feels like it might be more trouble than its worth, but also if this works for you I can?t see anything wrong with it. I?d be keen to hear how you get on

tjones

2022-12-29 10:38

Without webhooks, I usually just go: Consumer build: ? build / test ? publish pact Consumer deploy (triggered after build) ? can-i-deploy ? deploy Provider build ? build / test ? verify pact(s) ? publish results Provider deploy (triggered after build) ? can-i-deploy ? deploy This has the disadvantage that sometimes changes need to wait for the other thing to be triggered by changes (costing unnecessary waiting time). Sometimes I have kicked them off manually (costing time and mucking about), or had the provider build trigger after the consumer build (costing unnecessary builds, and additional complexity).

tjones

2022-12-29 10:39

If you do them all in the same CI session, then the wrong project might fail the build, which could be annoying

antonello

2022-12-29 11:01

@tjones I?ve implemented the workflow Vittorio is talking about before - I talked about it in the first community event we ran 2 years ago.

tjones

2022-12-29 11:05

Oh! Haha! I thought I recognised the name. Forgive me, I?m very tired :sweat_smile:

tjones

2022-12-29 11:06

I remember being impressed by your talk

tjones

2022-12-29 11:07

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkld_wRsTDE&t=1596s

tjones

2022-12-29 11:09

At 1:17:49 it looks like you also used the json output of can-i-deploy, too

tjones

2022-12-29 11:10

Could you say more about what?s not working this time?

tjones

2022-12-29 11:15

Following https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/can_i_deploy, I think this: ```pact-broker can-i-deploy --pacticipant AConsumer --version ${gitHash} --pacticipant AProvider --environment prod``` should have `--to-environment` not `--environment`, yes?

tjones

2022-12-29 11:17

The docs also say: > If you declare two (or more) application versions as well as a --to ENVIRONMENT, then the Pact Broker will work out what integrations your declared applications will have in that environment when determining if it safe to deploy. So, I think you?d need a version for `AProvider` (even if it is just `--latest`)

tjones

2022-12-29 11:21

Hmm. Maybe this doesn?t actually do what you want. I think it is asking if it?s safe to deploy all of those things to production, not selecting the versions of those things in production.

tjones

2022-12-29 11:31

Maybe you can use `--ignore`?

antonello

2022-12-29 11:36

I had to parse the response if I?m not wrong. But @bethskurrie has implemented a more straightforward command. And we were using tags.

pawel.szczerbicki

2022-12-29 13:22

has joined #general

anandhiemail

2022-12-29 17:37

has joined #general

arika.goyal

2022-12-30 12:18

has joined #general

livinglogic.nl

2022-12-31 08:47

Hi Timothy, I'm working on a TypeScript HTTP client with a focus on integration testing, what about you?

m.marquez

2022-12-31 16:05

has joined #general

tjones

2023-01-01 12:37

I?m working on another contract testing tool which will solve some of the pain points I have with Pact - but ideally I want to be as Pact compatible as possible

guoxin.rick33

2023-01-03 08:45

has joined #general

will

2023-01-03 09:59

has joined #general

mario.pires

2023-01-03 11:42

has joined #general

vtft1988

2023-01-03 16:38

has joined #general

matt.thompson

2023-01-04 10:54

has joined #general

rytis.lisauskas

2023-01-04 14:20

has joined #general

morin.td

2023-01-04 16:54

has joined #general

afernandez

2023-01-04 22:22

has joined #general

vkaramoff

2023-01-05 10:00

has joined #general

vika.karman

2023-01-05 10:32

has joined #general

nickzakirov

2023-01-05 15:01

has joined #general

nickzakirov

2023-01-05 15:06

HI guys! Reading about Pact and thinking about using it. I have a simple usecase (I think). I want to write a test that sends http to external service, record the request-response in pact json format, then replace the external service in the test with pact-mock-server. I think it must be one of the simplest uses but I can't figure how to register the request-response in pact format. Is there a way to launch pact-proxy-server that would forward my requests and record them against responses?

nickzakirov

2023-01-05 15:14

I can certainly create my own but would not want to reinvent the wheel

tjones

2023-01-05 15:22

afaik, Pact doesn?t do this, at least not easily. Matt and I were discussing this kind of feature a while back - it would be an awesome way to kickstart your tests (you could even just run the app for a while in some kind of ?watch mode?, and generate a test skeleton)

tjones

2023-01-05 15:23

One subtlety that you might miss if you?re new to Pact is that a key part of a pact test is confirming that the response object correctly unmarshalls into whatever business object your API client returns. In some languages (eg JS), this is usually the same as the json object - but not always. This part would be hard to automate.

tjones

2023-01-05 15:24

If I were going to do this, I would write something that watched the response, and then autogenerated the pact test in whatever DSL I wanted.

mwilso29

2023-01-05 15:33

Hi All. I've managed to create a consumer pipeline that creates the contract, publishes the contract to the broker, calls a webhook for the provider pipeline to be ran and the can-i-deploy step checking the broker status. However the webhook succeeds when it gets a 201 and moves on to the can-i-deploy job before the provider has chance to run its pipeline and upload a potential new contract to the broker. What would be the best approach here? Is there a way to wait for the provider pipeline to run before the can-i-deploy check is ran? Thanks

nickzakirov

2023-01-05 15:34

Hmm, I don't understand the confirming part. I write in Rust and what I want really is to make my tests fast - so replace the external service with a mock service. Since I know how to interpret the response from external service and deserialize it into my types I should be able to do the same with pact responses too. Pact has a mock server as far as I understand that would spit reponses based on its json configuration and those responses would be identical to external service. Or I get it wrong?

tjones

2023-01-05 15:48

The diagrams here might help: https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/how_pact_works

tjones

2023-01-05 15:49

A successful pact test says: ?This consumer will make this request, and can understand this response, if the provider sends it?

tjones

2023-01-05 15:49

Without asserting on the resulting object from your API code, you can?t be sure that the response is correctly understood

tjones

2023-01-05 15:50

(For comparison, a successful provider verification- ie, the other side of the pact test - says ?this provider can understand that request, and will generate a response that the consumer understands?

tjones

2023-01-05 15:52

Usually in pact you write the expectations first- so you would write down what your consumer expects to receive from the provider in your pact test. Then you later verify that expectation

tjones

2023-01-05 15:53

It would be possible to seed that process by observing real traffic, but I think it?s rare to already have those tests ready to be watched.

tjones

2023-01-05 15:56

There are a few other subtleties too - in a Pact test, you ideally don?t describe the whole payload, just the parts your consumer needs. This is advantageous because it?s not a breaking change to rename or remove a field/endpoint that no-one is using. You wouldn?t have this advantage with recorded traffic- although not having it won?t matter in a lot of cases.

tjones

2023-01-05 15:56

You?re right that a Pact test will be much faster than an integration test. This is one of the major advantages, I think.

tjones

2023-01-05 15:57

There?s a retry-while-unknown flag for can-i-deploy, which would make the pipeline wait until it got a clear answer from the broker. This might work for you (I forget what the flag is called, but it?s in the docs / CLI usage).

tjones

2023-01-05 15:58

> Pact has a mock server as far as I understand that would spit reponses based on its json configuration Ohh, are you asking how to configure the mock service yourself? I probably wouldn?t do this.

tjones

2023-01-05 15:58

It?s likely to be more trouble than it?s worth, I think.

tjones

2023-01-05 16:00

I don?t think the mock setup json is documented.

tjones

2023-01-05 16:00

If you wanted to try this, you?d have to look at the Rust source to see how they?re read, or something like pact-js, which has the matchers laid out in a fairly readable way.

nickzakirov

I just want to use the library functions

nickzakirov

https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/rust/pact_mock_server

nickzakirov

create server

nickzakirov

start server

nickzakirov

Providing the pact file to the server

nickzakirov

The pact file ideally I want it to be autogenerated by running "pact proxy server"

tjones

I?m not personally familiar with the rust API, sorry

nickzakirov

that doesn't exist yet unfortunately as I understand

nickzakirov

Thank you very much for taking time and writing replies

nickzakirov

Much appreciated!

tjones

hmm. The pact file shouldn?t exist yet, in that design.

nickzakirov

It doesn't exist in the beginning

tjones

If you have a pact file, it means you definitely can send those requests and understand those responses

nickzakirov

But I would like to autogenerate it

tjones

https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/rust/pact_consumer

Yes, it should be autogenerated.

dyptorden

2023-01-05 16:04

try a retry mechanism to poll the broker, such as : ? --retry-while-unknown=60 ? --retry-interval=10 (tuned with the values that you need)

nickzakirov

2023-01-05 16:04

But how can I autogenerate it?

tjones

2023-01-05 16:05

usually the consumer tests generate it.

tjones

2023-01-05 16:05

tjones

2023-01-05 16:06

The mock server has a `write_pact_file` function

tjones

2023-01-05 16:07

which will do it - although I think you have to check to make sure that all the tests pass before calling it, otherwise you?ll write a pact file that might not be true

tjones

2023-01-05 16:11

Anyway, it sounds like an interesting project. I?d be keen to hear if you get anything working like this

tjones

2023-01-05 16:11

I?d recommend starting with the user-facing DSLs first, though.

tjones

2023-01-05 16:12

that will give you a feel for how it usually works, which will help inform any automation

mwilso29

2023-01-05 16:23

Perfect thanks guys

varnit.garg2424

2023-01-06 08:26

Hey guys, I?m running into a basic issue while running provider side tests in the CI I?m using pact-go and using pact-ruby-standalone in my local machine. However, while running the tests in ci, it returns - `exec: "pact-provider-verifier": executable file not found in $PATH` Do I need to run `pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest` as part of my application container before running the pact test?

mtissot79

2023-01-06 09:31

Hi Pact team We are about to migrate our internal framework which is based on spring (boot 2.7.7, spring 5.x) to spring boot 3. Spring boot 3 comes with Spring 6, java 17 (minimum) and migration of javax ee8 to jakarta ee9. Spring recommands to look at any third party libraries for the usage of javax ee8. We are using Pact junit5spring that comes with spring 5 and javax ee8. Could you please tell me if you plan to upgrade to spring 6 and support jakarta 9 ? Have a nice day

matt.fellows

2023-01-06 12:17

No, you need the CLO tools installed on your CI also

matt.fellows

2023-01-06 12:18

Pact won't use the docker variant as part of its test run

varnit.garg2424

2023-01-06 12:19

Thanks Matt for the response I?m a bit lost, do we have any example? :) We are using GitHub actions

yousafn

2023-01-06 12:29

Hey got an example I made for another member recently https://github.com/YOU54F/go-pact-test

yousafn

2023-01-06 12:49

Hey @mtissot79, This would be best cross posted in #pact-jvm Our JVM expert is based in Aus so you may get a reply overnight

yousafn

2023-01-06 12:50

:ralph-wave: How do every one! Hope you had a lovely chilled out break with family, loved ones and friends, and are having a brilliant start to the year. I am back in action from today, after a lovely break away, so will be catching up on various slack threads, GitHub messages, pull requests, issues. Feel free to give me a nudge. Good to be back in the land of :pact-open-link:

nam.nguyen

2023-01-07 04:00

has joined #general

dale.wells

2023-01-08 15:18

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-01-09 01:10

You need to install the CLI dependencies for Pact Go 1.x.x to work. In the Pact Go project, we use a make target to do this ? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/Makefile#L32 (installs into the relative `pact` folder) ? We also add that `pact` folder to the `PATH` environment variable during the build so that it is available to the runtime: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/make/config.mk#L1 If you?re using 2.x.x, you don?t need to install these for the tests to run (i.e. Pact go won?t use them), but you probably want them installed anyway to publish pact files etc.

matt.fellows

2023-01-09 01:11

Example using Docker to publish the pacts: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/Makefile#L40

manohar.adepu

2023-01-09 02:58

has joined #general

hsyogesh12

2023-01-09 05:54

has joined #general

anandhiemail

2023-01-09 06:14

Hi Team, I am a QE engineer and I would like to introduce Contract testing to our team. In our service which I have taken for writing a POC using Pact, we make thrift RPC calls to other services. How can I write a Pact contract test for Thrift calls? I request you to guide me on this.

matt.fellows

2023-01-09 06:29

Hi Anandhi! We don?t currently support Thrift. You could create a plugin for it (see https://docs.pact.io/plugins) however the plugin framework is still in its infancy - what language do your teams use to write the Thrift calls?

sowmya.bhg

2023-01-09 10:32

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-01-09 11:25

Thanks for answering in detail - as always - Tim! I did very much take time afk during the ?break? over xmas (I say break because I?m moving homes, so I?d much rather have ?wasted? my 2 weeks on the computer here :stuck_out_tongue: ) Sounds like a fun project Rinke. Let us know how we can support you!

ivan.mikhalka

2023-01-09 13:20

has joined #general

klaudijus.rulys

2023-01-09 13:32

has joined #general

boer.k

2023-01-09 15:10

has joined #general

dyptorden

2023-01-09 15:44

hi @matt.fellows and Happy New Year. I did the same implementation on a *public* AWS network and it works. It will only NOT work in a *private* one. *`But`*: it works if the docker command (same command / same docker version / same VPN etc.) runs from a Mac. Tested on 3 Ubuntu's in different corners of the world, and on 3 Macs also in different countries. So from Ubuntu 20.04.5 LTS it *doesn't work* but from macOS Monterey v 12.6. it *works*. Could it be something specific to Ubuntu ?

anandhiemail

2023-01-09 15:55

HI Matt, Thank you very much for your response. Our teams use Scala and Typescript to write the Thrift calls.

chris.aguirre11

2023-01-09 16:45

has joined #general

chris.aguirre11

2023-01-09 16:54

Hi, I am a Developer who also would like to introduce contract testing to my team/company. I am not able to successfully install pact via NPM on an Amazon Ec2 instance with CentOS Linux 7. I get many errors related to 'g++' not found (gyp errors), and even after installing a c++ compiler, still have errors related to it. On the other hand, on a physical MAC laptop I have no issues at all installing Pact via NPM. Anyone here ever installed PACT on a bare bones Linux machine and got it working?

nicolas.barbey

2023-01-09 17:06

has joined #general

anandhiemail

2023-01-09 19:21

We have a library that generates Typescript from Thrift IDL files. Our framework calls that library internally, not directly. In that case, if I use the same Thrift calls in my Pact tests, it should work?

simon.petty

2023-01-09 21:11

has joined #general

edisonjen13

2023-01-09 22:25

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-01-09 22:26

Best to ask this kind of question in #pact-js channel next time Chris. But for now, under ?Instructions > Requirements? section, there is a link to https://github.com/nodejs/node-gyp#installation which discusses the dependencies required for this. To do any development on Mac OSX, you would had to install the XCode build chain, which covers those needs. Depending on your linux distribution, by default you may not have these

vika.karman

2023-01-10 08:53

Hello! I've got a general question regarding provider verification step. What happens when you run it? Is a test request gets generated from the pulled pact and goes through the providers handlers? We have argues in the team regarding whether it is the same when you run provider verification tests and when you generate provider's spec, push it to pactflow and let it to compare the consumer's and provider's pacts.

abubics

2023-01-10 11:48

Sounds like there might be some confusion between consumer-driven and bi-directional?

abubics

2023-01-10 11:49

Fwiw, I have only done consumer-driven. In that flow, the consumer tests generate a contract, it goes to the broker, which triggers provider verification. There's no provider pact.

vika.karman

2023-01-10 11:52

right...some people of my team think it is more easy to just generate a pact for provider and let broker to compare pacts. But I am not quite sure this will be the same as if we run provider verification. So this is what I am asking - if during provider verification we do more than just pulled consumer pact and provider specification comparison

abubics

2023-01-10 11:54

Yes, there's a significant difference. The consumer-driven flow gives more reasoning power. There's a nice article about it here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/pactflow.io/blog/schemas-are-not-contracts/amp/

abubics

Basically, schemas can only tell you that the consumer and provider might not be incompatible.

vika.karman

thank you! will read this!

abubics

Np, I hope you can win your people over :pray:

vika.karman

https://docs.pact.io/blog/2018/07/10/retries-for-can-i-deploy

me too :)))

tjones

2023-01-10 13:29

> it is more easy to just generate a pact for provider and let broker to compare pacts. Definitely not.

tjones

2023-01-10 13:30

The point of pact is to be sure that two services can communicate with each other. With a spec-driven approach, the best you can get is ?they?re not definitely incompatible?

tjones

2023-01-10 13:33

Sometimes people who have graphql or grpc specs as part of their development flow say they don?t need contract testing. I think this is a bit like saying ?all our endpoints use json, so we don?t need contract testing?. Just because (for example) grpc ensures that the payload is receivable by consumers with older versions of the spec doesn?t mean that it will have the intended meaning.

tjones

2023-01-10 13:34

As far as I know, there is no ?provider pact? written by any pact framework at the moment. Pactflow?s BDC approach is based on a swagger spec, which isn?t a Pact.

vika.karman

2023-01-10 13:34

right

vika.karman

2023-01-10 13:34

just spec

tjones

2023-01-10 13:35

When a pact file is written, you are guaranteeing that you can send that request, and promising that you will understand that response (for each req/resp pair in the pact)

tjones

2023-01-10 13:35

this is important, because it?s not a specification that describes the design. It?s a list of examples that definitely work.

vika.karman

2023-01-10 13:36

and how exactly verification on provider side is made? is a request generated from the pact and "send" through the provider's handler?

tjones

2023-01-10 13:38

Yes, that?s right. You can think of it as replaying the requests, and seeing if the responses match what the consumer will understand (that?s not quite what happens, but the subtleties don?t actually matter in practice).

tjones

2023-01-10 13:39

The pact test which writes the file says: ?I definitely send this request, and I have checked that I can understand this response? When you do provider verification you are saying: ?I am checking that I can understand this request, and I definitely send that response?

vika.karman

2023-01-10 13:40

got this!

vika.karman

2023-01-10 13:40

Thank you Timothy! you gave me needed confidence

tjones

2023-01-10 13:41

You?re welcome! Let us know if there?s anything else we can help with.

tjones

2023-01-10 13:42

You?re welcome to invite the team in here and we can answer their questions directly, too.

vika.karman

2023-01-10 13:50

I will! thanks!

anandhiemail

2023-01-10 20:12

Hi Team, I am a QE and have just started learning about Pact and looking for possibilities to introduce it to our team. Do we have to write Pact tests close to the dev code only? Can we write contract tests in a different repo (other than dev repo) using Pact/Cypress? Would it still serve the purpose?

matt.fellows

2023-01-11 00:50

If you want to use the Pact framework on both the consumer and provider side, you really need the tests to be part of the code that is being tested (think of them as unit tests)

matt.fellows

2023-01-11 00:51

You could use tools like Cypress to generate pact files, but I wouldn?t currently recommend using that with Pact on the provider side

matt.fellows

2023-01-11 00:53

We do have a feature (in Pactflow only, so take note of that) that allows you to generate contracts from tools like Cypress and compare to an OAS file (see https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/bi-directional-contract-testing for what it is, the tradeoffs etc.) There are a number of example projects (https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/examples/) and blog articles (http://pactflow.io/blog) that go through both types of testing

anandhiemail

2023-01-11 00:55

Thank you Matt for the guidance. I will go through the docs and links provided.

siddharth.gupta

2023-01-11 09:20

HI , We have a two software components A & B. Communication is unidirectional from A to B . B is the consumer or lets say it subscribes\registers with A and A sends data to B on certain events on database . How can we implement Consumer driven Contrat testing in this case .I guess similar would be the case for software components which registers on a message bus

tjones

2023-01-11 09:30

Yes. B is the consumer here

tjones

2023-01-11 09:30

This would be what is called a ?message pact?

tjones

2023-01-11 09:31

I?m on mobile right now, but have a look for that in the documentation and you should be able to find some useful information. What you describe is a common use case for message pacts

antonello

2023-01-11 11:07

Solved. Here is the command we needed: ```pact-broker can-i-deploy --pacticipant=a_consumer --version=consumer_version --pacticipant=a_provider --latest --in_environment=Prod -b=broker_url -k=a_token```

matt.fellows

2023-01-11 11:24

Thanks Tim - this is a good starting point: https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/how_pact_works#non-http-testing-message-pact

matt.fellows

2023-01-11 11:25

I think this AMA we talk a bit about message pact strategies (for AWS SNS/Kafka, but we discuss the general principles): https://docs.pact.io/help/amas#ukeu

artem.z

2023-01-11 13:18

has joined #general

vika.karman

2023-01-11 13:18

@artem.z fyi

jrede

2023-01-11 17:57

has joined #general

artem.z

2023-01-11 18:15

Hi Team! thank you so much for your detailed explanation! happy to be talking to someone who actually make this work. So am i right that you?re saying that BCDC should only be used as a compromise when let?s say the ?provider team? doesn?t want to put too much effort? :wink: Thanks for sharing the post - however i was under the impression that the idea of it is to prompt people to use the commercial pactflow solution which is supposed to help with most of listed concerns (which we already do!) - in conclusion it suggests to learn _how you can make schemas work with contract testing_ Speaking of the specifics: my original idea was to implement it in a way described in pactflow https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/bi-directional-contract-testing/provider or https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/bi-directional/step3 (provider schema created -> provider schema validated against the provider implementation in a ?https://pactflow.io/blog/contract-testing-using-json-schemas-and-open-api-part-2/? style -> validation results and schema uploaded to broker -> broker validates consumer pact against provider schema). With such an approach it doesn?t seem to me that the concerns listed in the post are real, lemme try to go through them: 1 - not sure we faced any issues with that; if we use .yml schema the broker seems to understand it in a way we want. or am i misunderstanding what that means? 2 - totally valid! but is this fully solved with CDCT? for instance could we test with 5xx error from provider when it?s not caused by the inputs from consumer? 3 - looks like supposed to be solved by ?provider vefification step? from the workshop 4 - same (?provider vefification step? ) 5 - same (?provider vefification step? ) 7 and 8 apparently are supposed to handled by pactflow 9 - not sure is this could be a problem with OAS yaml schema ? In general, i understand what you mean when you say that the interactions generated by _consumer_ and ?replayed? against prodiver are more ?real?, i have same ?feeling?; but the tradeoff seems to be fair considering much easier implementation especially with multiple consumers Is there something i am missing? would really appreciate any pointers :wink: thank you guys and have a great day!

abubics

2023-01-11 23:57

Bi-directional is also a helpful stepping stone when adding testing to a large, established ecosystem. If you're starting from scratch, there's pretty much no compelling reason to avoid consumer-driven :innocent:

tjones

2023-01-12 03:42

I?m a bit unclear on what points you?re replying to with the numbers

vanitha.annamalai

2023-01-12 05:27

has joined #general

antonello

2023-01-12 07:46

Any thoughts on https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/issues/588? It should be a simple change but I?m not sure if it would be formally correct to have the provider version in the response. However it would save us from having to use the api to get the id for the environment and then get the latest prod version for the provider from the list of ?latest?.

artem.z

2023-01-12 08:10

ok seems everyone here is leaning to consumer driven approach then we shall try it, thanks again guys for your help! @tjones oh sorry i was replying to the problems listed and numbered in the https://pactflow.io/blog/schemas-are-not-contracts/ Boris shared above in the thread :sweat_smile:

jessy.li

2023-01-12 17:29

has joined #general

lcruz

2023-01-12 19:08

hi all -- I'm trying to find the talk / it might've been a podcast or video that made a specific reference to "collaborative" testing. I'm sure this is probably referenced across multiple talks but I can't seem to pinpoint which one it was :sweat_smile:

aronlmin

2023-01-13 02:13

has joined #general

tjones

2023-01-13 15:18

I?ve not heard of collaborative testing

buckley

2023-01-13 20:01

has joined #general

nickzakirov

2023-01-16 04:34

Ok so I did this repo to solve this problem https://github.com/NikZak/pact-proxy-rs

sashizen

2023-01-16 09:09

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-01-16 11:20

looking at this, are you not better off re-using existing record/replay tools, instead focussing on writing a converter to/from the common formats?

matt.fellows

2023-01-16 11:21

e.g. VCR -> Pact, Nock -> Pact, Polly -> Pact etc.?

matt.fellows

2023-01-16 11:21

that way, you don?t have to re-invent the record/replay bit?

matt.fellows

2023-01-16 11:22

Also I do think you need to be careful - in this way, you?ll miss out on the benefits of matchers and provider states, two very powerful aspects of Pact, without which will likely make your tests very brittle

matt.fellows

2023-01-16 11:22

?and of course, the unit testing bit Tim mentioned

matt.fellows

2023-01-16 11:22

I like to think of Pact as a unit testing tool for your API client, which also happens to do contract testing. If you think of it this way, you?ll be less focussed on generating a contract (and all that goes with that), and more about the test itself

nickzakirov

2023-01-16 11:36

Hi Matt. Thanks a lot for looking at this and chiming in. It is very possible that I still don't understand all of the strenghts of pact. To me the important part here was to make my tests effortlessly fast. I just replace the target url with this proxy server and then it records pacts and matches to this pacts in the next call. First run takes seconds, second run microseconds which is what I need. After some research and asking around I did not find anything like that. I am happy to add back all the missing features one by one if it is required. Or use something standard. (but it should not be that I write the whole request/expected response inside the test like everywhere proposed, that already exists in multiple versions) Would be great if you give some more detailed feedback. Possibly as issues on github. I believe that converters are needed if you want to connect to the web to get the info first time. And I had to rewrite some of the functionality of pact_mock_server to make matching faster (before it was taking >90% of program time) and to be able to interpret a modified url localhost:port/https/<url you actually need in the web without the scheme>

nickzakirov

2023-01-16 11:43

as for existing record/replay. Initially it was my intention but found nothing suitable in rust

nickzakirov

2023-01-16 11:44

I thought of using non rust stuff with test-containers. but it has own drawbacks too

nickzakirov

2023-01-16 11:54

Imagine I have a connector to the exchange that sends orders, reads market data, etc. I have to test it. I can not change the client, I would lose functionality interpreting incoming data. So i can not use some vcr client or whatever client. All I can "dependency inject" is the url and it's for the server to take all the work from here

nickzakirov

2023-01-16 11:55

so no other changes on the client side are allowed. could not find a solution for that

paula.muldoon

2023-01-16 14:00

Happy new year! We are doing team programming tomorrow and trying out this demo. This all makes sense - thanks (didn't know the contract has to be verified) and `can-i-deploy` looks just the ticket.

richardmccann

2023-01-16 15:37

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-01-16 17:03

Happy new year! Awesome sounds like fun, have a good day tomorrow :rocket: Feel free to reach out on here or send your teammates here is they have any other questions :slightly_smiling_face:

tjones

2023-01-17 03:48

> . (but it should not be that I write the whole request/expected response inside the test like everywhere proposed, that already exists in multiple versions) I think ? you need this, right? How would you avoid writing it out? Or, would it be better to automatically translate whatever expectation you already have into Pact?

nickzakirov

2023-01-17 04:05

well I do avoid writing it out. Just look at the example in the readme. I don't write out the expectation. I write whatever I receive as expectation into a pact and then use it as expectation when test is launched second time. I guess I fail to explain my use case.

eugene.malihins

2023-01-17 11:08

has joined #general

yusufjamalazam

2023-01-17 12:24

has joined #general

yusufjamalazam

2023-01-17 12:29

Hello I have a general question. I publish a pact with my consumer that has changes, it runs the webhook and trigger a workflow in the provider verification step. The consumer build however on can-i-deploy says there is no verification for this pact. Do I have to wait for the broker to return the verified pact as part of my ci.?

jbosca

2023-01-17 13:10

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-01-17 13:31

Yes, you can ask can I deploy to retry/poll whilst it waits for the provider verification that is triggered to return its result

yusufjamalazam

2023-01-17 13:49

is this done by passing --retry-interval or --retry-while-unknown flags to the can-i-deploy?

yousafn

2023-01-17 13:59

richardmccann

2023-01-17 15:11

Hi, I have a question about implementing Pact. I have been investigating Pact as a POC for a multi team project where the Consumer and Provider teams will be separate. I have created the POC following the best practice for CI/CD as described in the Pact documentation. There is one thing that I think will be a blocker for us to implement Pact and contract tests which is that the necessity of the Consumer code creating (or updating) the the contract first means that this work done by the Consumer team is left in limbo - it cannot be merged into the main branch and must be shelved until the Provider team 'get around' to fulfilling the contract. Under our definition of done this leaves that piece of work incomplete, and dependent on another team before it can be completed. We have tried to remove dependencies like this between teams as the teams are not always at liberty to drop what they are currently working on and so it may be some time before the provider work is done, leaving the Consumer code going stale on a branch. For reference the current process would be that the Provider team would develop the interaction first, test and merge to main, completing their story. The Consumer team could then implement the usage of the feature with no dependency on the Provider team. I would be interested to hear if others have faced this and how they have addressed it or what would the recommended approach be?

tjones

2023-01-17 15:32

> Under our definition of done this leaves that piece of work incomplete, and dependent on another team before it can be completed. How would you solve this problem without Pact?

tjones

2023-01-17 15:34

> For reference the current process would be that the Provider team would develop the interaction first, test and merge to main, completing their story. The Consumer team could then implement the usage of the feature with no dependency on the Provider team. Er. For equivalence, wouldn?t you say that the provider team can?t complete their story without the consumer team doing theirs?

tjones

2023-01-17 15:34

I mean, what happens when (inevitably) it turns out that the provider team made a mistake or the consumer team need more information in a response than they realised?

tjones

2023-01-17 15:35

I?m suspicious of a definition of done that lets one team mark a bit of work as done before the other team have validated that it works for them.

tjones

2023-01-17 15:36

> what would the recommended approach be? Pact is, by nature, consumer driven. This is definitely the recommended approach. The server exists to, well, serve. So, the ideal design process is to have the consumer tell it what they need.

tjones

2023-01-17 15:38

Where I?ve been forced to do something from the provider side first, my experience is that the overall implementation time (to get end-to-end working) is longer, less likely to be a well-designed API, and requires more rework

tjones

2023-01-17 15:38

A related question that might be worth raising is - if your teams are this dependent on each other, why are they separate teams?

tjones

2023-01-17 15:41

If you?re just trying to make sure that teams are not blocked, what I have found successful (and facilitated by Pact) is: 1) Consumer team writes the Pact 2) Provider team adds the verification to their backlog 3) Consumer team proceeds with mock responses (not even hitting any API) safely, since the mock responses can be exactly what the expected response was in the Pact 4) At some point, the provider team finish the verification, and you can use the real endpoint. This works really well for APIs that aren?t complex, or are a lot of read-only requests. Your milage may vary.

tjones

2023-01-17 15:43

> Under our definition of done What is this definition of done? I?m concerned that a consumer team wouldn?t be done without the provider team?s work, but the provider team can be done without the work of the consumer team. If either one of the teams haven?t done their bit, then presumably value is not ready to be delivered to users?

tjones

2023-01-17 15:46

Really, it seems to me that there?s a process problem that is unrelated to Pact. > this work done by the Consumer team is left in limbo - it cannot be merged into the main branch and must be shelved until the Provider team ?get around? to fulfilling the contract. This is true in your usual approach too, yes? It?s just not exposed, because the consumer team don?t even start the implementation while they?re waiting for the Provider team to ?get around? to building the endpoints.

komathypriya

2023-01-17 17:32

Hi Team, we are planning to use PACT for API Testing. Wanted to know is there a license involved in using PACTbrokers and Pact io? If so where can i look at that. If not, if Pact being a Open source how the PACTs are secured when its published in PACT io?

komathypriya

2023-01-17 17:34

PACT been recently acquired by Smartbear. Smart bear has a tool called Ready API, whats the difference being both API testing tools. We are opting for PACT, so trying to understand the benefits of PACT over Ready API.

komathypriya

2023-01-17 17:35

Can anyone help me on my decision ques

komathypriya

2023-01-17 17:35

questions

nickm

2023-01-17 17:49

Hi all, I?m having an issue and need some perspective/guidance. We are introducing a new provider service, and we have built the pipeline in to run the provider verification. We run our verification against `{"deployedOrReleased": true}` as we deploy to staging upon merge to main (assuming tests pass). Since we don?t have the provider in place yet, there?s no consumer test deployed against it. Unfortunately, running a `can-i-deploy` check fails with ```Computer says no �_(?)_/� No pacts or verifications have been published for version XXX of XXX``` To me, this shouldn?t be a failure. Am I missing something?

nickm

2023-01-17 18:02

I should note that pacts _have_ been published on non-main branches as a part of PR testing

dyptorden

2023-01-17 19:48

afaik, you only need to pay if you want to go with Pactflow. Otherwise it will be free (if you stick with Pact Broker)

kriegster108

2023-01-17 21:18

Hello quick question, our organization is using RDF(Turlte)/JSONLD for response types from our APIs vs just a standard static json response, is this type of testing possible with pactflow?

hehecx

2023-01-17 22:16

has joined #general

abubics

2023-01-17 23:24

> leaving the Consumer code going stale on a branch Feature toggles are usually used to address this, so the work can be "done" while not finally exercised, and not go stale on an old branch. I think Pact either has support for feature toggles now, or it's being worked on.

abubics

2023-01-17 23:25

Apart from that, I agree with Tim that this isn't really a Pact problem, but it might be highlighting other issues :slightly_smiling_face:

matt.fellows

2023-01-17 23:38

Pact Broker is open source (MIT Licensed) as is Pact (primarily MIT licensed)

matt.fellows

Pactflow is a commercial offering (free for up to 5 integrations)

tjones

No it hasn?t. Pact is open source. Pact is not Pactflow (who have been bought by smartbear)

matt.fellows

Pactflow is a superset of the Pact Broker, with additional features

matt.fellows

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/issues/238

`s/PACT/Pact`

matt.fellows

2023-01-17 23:40

Pact is a contract testing tool, ReadyAPI is a functional/security/performance tool

matt.fellows

2023-01-17 23:40

you can use both at the same time, if you want.

tjones

2023-01-17 23:43

A key difference is that Pact offers no hosting - you have to host the broker yourself (there?s a docker image to make this straightforward). I think of Pactflow as a paid hosted broker with extra features (and a team of experts for support). I don?t work for Pactflow though, so that might not be the most accurate summary

jawaharsurapaneni

2023-01-18 00:36

has joined #general

kerrypmckeever

2023-01-18 02:12

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-01-18 06:56

Pretty much, i?m not sure Marketing would approve of that message though :laughing:

tjones

2023-01-18 08:19

I think ?with extra features? is definitely underselling it

paul

2023-01-18 16:56

has joined #general

jean.paiva42

2023-01-18 18:41

Hey everyone, is it possible to use pact-verifier to verify async communication (messages)? Should it work as long I return the response through an endpoint? I am just asking because it seems like sync pact use an array of interactions, and for async, it seems like we use `messages` . Would I be able to use it in a scenario like this?

hazem

2023-01-18 22:02

Hey all, I haven't quite found a nice pattern to define consumer pacts when the provider schema with proto3 type `oneof`? Curious if anyone has any matching examples for the following ```message FooResponse { string description = 1; repeated Field fields = 2; } message Field { string id = 1 oneof field_data { TextField textInput = 6; ChoiceField choiceInput = 7; } } ``` example json to match on ```{ "description": "foo", "fields": [ { "id": "123", "textInput": {} }, { "id": "123", "choice": {} } ] }```

uglyog

2023-01-18 22:05

What problem are you getting?

hazem

2023-01-18 22:05

Currently I've been writing two pacts for this using min=1 for the fields array and matching it contains each type possible type of object, in this case two different permutations. It feels like I'm not using the tool set right. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated

hazem

2023-01-18 22:07

In my example above, there are only two choices, but in reality I have more than that. And the best I've come up with is using minLike matcher for a template for each type of possible choice.

hazem

2023-01-18 22:08

Otherwise, if I define one, then it's possible the other choices will break and I wont know.

uglyog

2023-01-18 22:15

That is the recommended way to use with Pact, have a test for each permutation, and you can control it with provider states.

hazem

2023-01-18 22:16

ok, so i am doing it right then.

matt.fellows

2023-01-19 03:01

Yes you should be able to - see https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/rust/pact_verifier_cli#verifying-message-pacts

basma.eldesouky

2023-01-19 10:24

has joined #general

alex.strizhak

2023-01-19 13:12

has joined #general

laura.porpiglia

2023-01-19 13:56

has joined #general

chimein.1234

2023-01-19 16:13

has joined #general

john295

2023-01-19 23:12

has joined #general

dominik.lukac.96

2023-01-20 10:33

has joined #general

david342

2023-01-20 15:07

Afternoon , I have set up a PactFlow integration with my SwagerHub, I have the correct URL and Token and have assigned a PactFlow Applications (which appeared in the relevant drop down - I assigned my consumer here - is this correct ? ) and created the integration. When I check "Check Compatibility" I see 'Compatible' but when I click "view compatibility result' I see "_This API does not yet have any consumer contracts_". Why is this , I have a contract in PactFlow which is assigned in the integration , would anyone know how to fix this error ? I think I have misunderstood the PactFlow application , could someone define that for me and how topush it to PactFlow . Thanks

yousafn

2023-01-20 16:03

Hello best asking in the PactFlow channel. You need to select the provider name in the integration option page in SwaggerHub

yousafn

2023-01-20 16:04

The provider name is used to get any associated consumer contracts. :ok_hand::skin-tone-5:have asked for us to clarify the wording there :facepunch::skin-tone-5:

david342

2023-01-20 16:04

OK Thanks . That would be the provider contract uploaded to PactFlow or the provider in the pact between the consumer and provider ?

yousafn

2023-01-20 16:07

The consumer contract in PactFlow has a provider name associated with it, that associates a provider with a consumer. Once you?ve uploaded a consumer contract it should show at least two applications in the integrations list in SHUB. Your consumer and provider

david342

2023-01-20 16:09

OK I have done that but still see the error , I must be doing something incorrectly. I'm afraid the documentation isn't clear for me. But thanks for your help

yousafn

2023-01-20 16:12

Can you show a screenshot of your pactflow main page and SwaggerHub PactFlow integration options? I can have a quick squiz to see if it?s correct

yousafn

2023-01-20 16:17

There are some other caveats, you haven?t followed from the docs. You need to upload your consumer contract with a branch property set

david342

2023-01-20 16:18

My provider name is GeoProvider

yousafn

2023-01-20 16:19

It uses the branch and recording deployments feature to ascertain which contracts to verify. You need the consumer publishing to a main branch ( main/master ) or whatever you set ( it is configurable in the broker )

david342

2023-01-20 16:21

Apologise how would I edit the branch in PactFlow I do not see that option ? I published the consumer contract via a gitHub action and do not see a option to set the branch there either.

david342

2023-01-20 16:29

OK I see your repo https://github.com/pactflow/example-consumer , I'll use that as a basis to publish my contract it seems to set a branch in the workflow. I appreciate your help thanks for your time . Have a good weekend

yousafn

2023-01-20 16:33

you would pass in the `--branch` property in the CLI call. This action does it https://github.com/pactflow/actions/tree/main/publish-pact-files https://github.com/pactflow/actions/blob/ffdabd8bf795ec7c769a977d82002e3e9add759f/publish-pact-files/publishPactfiles.sh#L15-L34 it gets the branch via the command `git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD` and passes it into the CLI in the `--branch` call. The Pact CI/CD workshop introduces the concepts of branches and environments if it may be helpful https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/ci-cd/ Good luck chap and thanks for trying out the feature

luca.narbone

2023-01-20 16:39

has joined #general

jean.paiva42

2023-01-20 20:05

God bless you sir, as always :awesome-smiley:

bram.hautekiet

2023-01-22 22:32

has joined #general

benjamin.hess

2023-01-23 23:55

has joined #general

steve.jefferies

2023-01-24 09:47

has joined #general

nuno.frias

2023-01-24 10:44

Hi all, I have a contract that checks whether the `Authorization` header in the response matches a jwt regex. However when the provider test runs, it seems to be overriding the regex match and doing an exact match. Is there a different behaviour for the `Authorization` header ?

matt.fellows

2023-01-24 11:23

There's currently a bug in that exact feature

matt.fellows

2023-01-24 11:24

nuno.frias

2023-01-24 12:00

Thank you :+1:

aoife.drury

2023-01-24 14:36

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-01-24 20:23

Hey, Some material around the acquisition and what it means for Pact. https://docs.pact.io/blog/2022/04/06/pactflow-joins-smartbear and PactFlow?s sentiment towards open source and the positioning of Pact https://pactflow.io/blog/why-build-an-open-source-company/ TL;DR - We want it to be accessible to as many people as possible, but we also understand that larger enterprise customers who make the world work, also want the additional features and support that commercial tools such as PactFlow and ReadyAPI provide. SmartBear for example also SoapUI, the open source alternative to ReadyAPI. There is a plethora of documentation supporting these tools, on both of their own sites, and in others own words. Happy to answer any specific questions :+1:

perger1984

2023-01-24 21:04

has joined #general

ajaytaneja

2023-01-25 13:18

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-01-25 13:58

Happy Wednesday everyone! As Pact nears 10 years old (in April!), we are thinking about a birthday party/event to help celebrate it in style, and it wouldn't be a party without you all. We are currently thinking of ideas, so if we have any party-planners in the house, or any ideas, feel free to give me a shout. To kick it off, I'm really keen to try and get some local meetup's arranged globally, we have so many little Pact communities in far-reaching places, so ill start off with a couple of questions. ? Where are you from in the world? ? Would you be keen to attend, help organise or organise a local event? we aren't necessarily looking for Pact experts, anyone with an interest in Pact would be welcome ( I didn't say anyone as I can imagine AirBnB style internet party take-overs where 500 ravers turn up :sweat_smile: )

petr.sebek

2023-01-25 14:20

has joined #general

john295

2023-01-25 14:28

I am in San Diego and interested in attending

jaswanth.ooty

2023-01-25 14:47

Would be keen to participate in something at the birthplace of pact? ie. the DiUS Melbourne office! I?m sure they?d be accomodating :raised_hands::skin-tone-2:

sean.mccann

2023-01-25 15:25

has joined #general

tjones

2023-01-26 08:11

I don?t think that?s the birthplace of pact, but I?d attend a Melbourne party all the time

tjones

2023-01-26 08:11

I meant, ?all the same?. But I?m leaving the typo as I like what it implies about parties

jaswanth.ooty

2023-01-26 08:13

Haha! I could be totally wrong. I just took a stab in the dark :joy: But also, keen to know a bit more of the history. I know Yousaf wrote a blog about it. Time to head there :blush:

tjones

2023-01-26 08:15

I think Pact was born at REA, but someone who was there would be better to say for sure. The history is in one of the readmes somewhere. Of course, DiUS put a lot of effort in. That?s where I picked it up

tjones

2023-01-26 08:15

The history of pact would be a good topic for the 10 year birthday party

antonello

2023-01-26 09:58

a bit of history https://youtu.be/wkld_wRsTDE?t=299

yousafn

2023-01-26 11:08

https://docs.pact.io/history https://docs.pact.io/blog/2022/11/17/pact-facts-a-history-lesson Couple of other pages on Pact history :)

nirob726

2023-01-26 12:25

has joined #general

giuseppe.aina

2023-01-26 17:45

has joined #general

tanyaryzhova93

2023-01-26 18:26

Hi All! I have a question regarding provider verification. I would like to achieve the following: ? Webhook triggers the provider verification when a contract was changed and published from the consumer *merge request*. The provider should take the contract published from the *consumer?s merge request or the latest published contract.* ? When provider opens a merge request then the verification should happen for the contract which was published from the *consumer?s main branch*. I created a webhook in PactFlow and it triggers the verification anytime when the contract is changed/published. However, I can?t come up with the idea how to achieve the described scenarios above. I was thinking to provide a `--consumer-version-tags="main"` for provider verification job but then the first scenario won?t work, the provider will always take the contract with `main` tag which is assigned after merge to the main branch. Also, I can create two verification jobs for provider, one will be triggered by webhook only, another one will run when merge request is opened from provider. But it doesn?t look great. Do you have any ideas how I can achieve my desired result described above? Maybe I can play with tags somehow or pass something to my webhook? Please advice :slightly_smiling_face:

tanyaryzhova93

2023-01-26 18:47

I have the following webhook in PactFlow

tanyaryzhova93

2023-01-26 18:48

and the job in gitLab for the verification ```verify contracts: stage: validate image: name: pactfoundation/pact-ref-verifier:latest script: - >- /usr/local/bin/pact_verifier_cli --hostname="app" --broker-url="$PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL" --token="$PACT_BROKER_TOKEN" --loglevel="info" --provider-branch="$CI_COMMIT_REF_SLUG" --provider-version="$CI_COMMIT_SHA" --provider-tags="$CI_COMMIT_REF_NAME" --consumer-version-tags="main" --provider-name="dummy-microservice-provider" --publish rules: - if: $CI_COMMIT_REF_NAME == $CI_DEFAULT_BRANCH && $CI_PIPELINE_SOURCE == "push" - if: $CI_MERGE_REQUEST_ID - if: $CI_PIPELINE_SOURCE == "trigger"```

tanyaryzhova93

2023-01-26 19:11

in other words, I?d like to take the `latest` published contract version when a webhook triggers the verification. And I?d like to take the contract published from `main` branch only in other cases.

boris.pogrebitskiy

2023-01-26 23:00

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-01-26 23:30

Have you run through this workshop? https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/ci-cd

matt.fellows

2023-01-26 23:31

For (1), the webhook that fi res passes the contract that requires verification and triggers the build job

matt.fellows

2023-01-26 23:31

For (2) you should use the appropriate selectors that verifies the main branch

tanyaryzhova93

2023-01-26 23:36

No, I didn?t went through the workshop. I?ll have a look. What do you mean saying ?the appropriate selectors?? Like `--consumer-version-tags`?

rafael.luiz-cavalcant

2023-01-27 00:00

has joined #general

tanyaryzhova93

2023-01-27 00:44

ok, I had a look. And I changed my webhook and tried to use `--consumer-version-selectors="{\"mainBranch\": true}"` . 1. I provided the link to the latest contract. See screenshot. It works just fine and the latest published contract is taken until I provided selectors

tanyaryzhova93

2023-01-27 00:46

2. I added selectors such as `--consumer-version-selectors="{\"mainBranch\": true}"` for my gitLab verification job. But now contracts posted from the main branch are taken only by webhook despite the fact that I specifically provided the url to the latest published contract in webhook.

tanyaryzhova93

2023-01-27 00:50

Do you have any thoughts how I can handle it? Probably I need to say that I trigger the same gitLab verification job with webhook too, so have only one verification job

tanyaryzhova93

2023-01-27 00:51

my webhook

tanyaryzhova93

2023-01-27 02:35

I checked your repo https://github.com/pactflow/example-provider/blob/master/.github/workflows/contract_requiring_verification_published.yml Do I understand correctly that you created a separate job for webhook? It looks like I need to create one more job too specifically for webhook

abubics

2023-01-27 05:25

Melbourne and DiUS here :) always happy to host Meetups at our office, or other places (I'm also a GDG & RHoK organiser)

mwilso29

2023-01-27 12:41

Hi guys Im getting a 401 when trying to publish an openapi spec from the provider side using `pactflow publish-provider-contract` using pact_broker-client-1.66.1 locally. I know the broker-base-url and broker-token are fine as I can publish the consumer contract just fine. Any ideas?

mwilso29

2023-01-27 12:42

The open api spec is in json format is this an issue?

yousafn

2023-01-27 12:58

the parser should accept json from previous testing. Could you provide the command and OpenAPI spec by chance, and I can try and upload on my side I assume you haven't hit your integration limit? Is there any other messages in your logs?

yousafn

2023-01-27 13:00

yes, you should have two provider verification tasks, one for provider changes (which uses consumer version selectors) and one for webhook triggered builds by PACT_URL, these if you are using branchs/recording deployments rather than tags, will also provide a commit sha, so the webhook based verifications will take place against the latest on your configured main branch, and any released or deployed versions

tanyaryzhova93

2023-01-27 13:01

Thank you! I implemented two jobs and now it works as I wanted.

yousafn

2023-01-27 13:01

superb, top work @tanyaryzhova93

zkocsihorvath

2023-01-27 13:47

has joined #general

tjones

2023-01-27 14:17

#pactflow please

mwilso29

2023-01-27 14:29

I'm using a template openapi just to prove the functionality

mwilso29

2023-01-27 14:30

I have now started using the docker image cmd and made some progress. I am now receiving a 400 error `{"errors":{"contentType":["contentType is missing"]}}`

jorgen.x.andersson

2023-01-27 14:56

has joined #general

eugene.malihins

2023-01-27 16:36

try this ```pactflow publish-provider-contract \ schema.json \ --provider "name" \ --provider-app-version 1.0.0 \ --branch main \ --content-type application/json \ --verification-results=success.json \ --verification-results-content-type=json \ --verification-success \ --verifier=postman \ --broker-base-url=$PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL \ --broker-token=$PACT_BROKER_TOKEN```

shawn305

2023-01-27 19:08

Hi all. I've been working extensively with Pact, MSW, and the rust implementation of pact mock server to run Jest tests against our generated pact files. I've looked at the msw adapter and I'm hoping to get some understanding on two things: 1. Doesn't generating pact files from UI test interactions violate Pact's warnings against writing contracts based on UI test cases? 2. Pact provides an API for clearly identifying exact values vs. types of values that may change via matchers - I would expect generated test cases to either be too exact or too loose. Can we really generate quality contracts this way? I guess I'm trying to understand if we're losing significant value by using this adapter. I'm interested in the efficiency of it, though. Any insights are appreciated!

tjones

2023-01-28 01:15

What adapter?

tjones

2023-01-28 01:16

Anyway, generally: > Doesn?t generating pact files from UI test interactions violate Pact?s warnings against writing contracts based on UI test cases? Yes, try not to do this

tjones

2023-01-28 01:18

What is under test in a Pact test is the API layer. You _could_ drive that test from the UI layer, but I would expect it to be a pain to maintain and set up.

tjones

2023-01-28 01:19

It?s much better to put the test ?callipers? of Pact around what is actually under test - ie, the API client

tjones

2023-01-28 02:26

> generated test cases to either be too exact or too loose. A subtlety that you might not have thought of is that the generic matchers aren?t for describing the schema, they?re for making it easier to write tests. They?re a convenience, so you don?t have to have the same exact test data on both sides. If you say `{ name: like("Steve")}`, you?re saying ?this particular test case covers all possible responses where the name field is a string?

tjones

2023-01-28 02:28

Not ?the name field could be any string?

tjones

2023-01-28 02:29

(well, you are saying that too, but that?s not the main point)

tjones

2023-01-28 02:29

This is why there aren?t optional matchers for ?it could be this type or that type?

mlapis

2023-01-29 10:56

has joined #general

tim.malseed

2023-01-30 04:52

has joined #general

mwilso29

2023-01-30 08:37

Thanks @eugene.malihins was resolved in the pactflow channel

yshkedi

2023-01-30 08:39

Hi all, and thanks for helping in advance. In the company that I working for, contract tests were added, it understood why we need it and the value. We have a use case that was talked in our company and we would like to hear the opinion here from the pact?s experts, to understand what better to do. *Use case:* A msg contract was added. There is a service, that is kind of monolit, the service also send msg (by queue) and the same service consume this queue (maybe other instance). *Question:* Should we create a contract test for this use case? From one side: it more sensible that contract should be between 2 services. From the other side: this is a big service and we still want to verify that nothing break. Would like to hear your opinon. @aram FYI

matt.corby-eaglen

2023-01-30 11:47

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-01-30 12:09

It might be worth asking a few other questions: 1. What other protections do you have in place for this if you didn?t use Pact? 2. What?s the harm in trying it? One issue you will probably run into is deadlocks in builds where a consumer is waiting for a provider (itself) or vice versa.

yshkedi

2023-01-30 12:13

thanks for your comment. 1 - tests inside the serivce 2 - it will work, but from design aspect, if it is true. Regarding the ppossible issuee, it is know, should sepeprate the level of the consumer and provider test (will not be in parallel)

ulises.cervino

2023-01-30 12:38

has joined #general

m.gruehn

2023-01-30 13:04

has joined #general

shawn305

2023-01-30 13:23

@tjones thanks for the response here! Replying to a couple of your comments: 1. The adapter I'm referring to is `pact-msw-adapter`: https://github.com/pactflow/pact-msw-adapter. MSW (mock service worker) is used here to capture requests and generate pact files on the fly without any actual pact test authoring by the engineer. Which, if this is truly a viable approach to contract testing, may be a game changer. Pretty much no one is using it, but it's official from Pact. So I'm at least intrigued. 2. I did not realize `"Steve"` and `Matchers.like("Steve")` produce identical output in the pact file, wow. Good point on the role of matchers, that is indeed subtle. One of the biggest challenges for contract testing is the paradigm shift, I'm still wrapping my head around that. So maybe using the adapter is a fine approach, and it's up to us to target tests specifically against the API layer. The thing that stands out to me, though, is the experience based feedback from Pact folks is that using UI tests with Pact should be avoided because the written tests are brittle and maintaining them is overly cumbersome while providing limited value. The adapter arguably changes this - we're not writing tests, pact files are just generated based on the tests, so they may maintain themselves to an extent. I still don't have a lot of real world experience with Pact yet, so wanted to see if this rang true at all for folks who do.

tjones

2023-01-30 13:58

> but it?s official from Pact From Pactflow. A different thing

tjones

2023-01-30 13:59

Pactflow != Pact

tjones

2023-01-30 13:59

But, thanks for the link, I?ll take a look

tjones

2023-01-30 14:01

> The adapter arguably changes this - we?re not writing tests, pact files are just generated based on the tests, so they may maintain themselves to an extent. Hmmm? At first glance, I would say that it feels like it would have the same drawbacks long term, but be much faster to get going. Provider states would be the hard part

tjones

2023-01-30 14:02

In http testing (which you?re probably doing if you?re using this mock service worker thing) you?ll have situations where the same request would generate different responses in different provider states

tjones

2023-01-30 14:05

> and it?s up to us to target tests specifically against the API layer You?re 100% right about this. This, I think, is the main part of your question - if, in your situation, it?s possible to write UI tests that target the API layer, then you?ll be ok. If not (as is usually the case, at least long term), then you might be in for a bad time

ulises.cervino

2023-01-30 14:28

hi all, I have a question about consumer tests: does it make sense, in general, for a consumer to write a test that expresses something like "when I fetch an entity with ID 1, e.g. GET /entity/1, I expect a response entity in json, and the field id in there should also have the value 1"?

ulises.cervino

2023-01-30 14:29

you can check via regexes that the string in field "id" is exactly "1", but that doesn't work with provider states (or at least I couldn't figure out how to make it work) since the pact has the hardcoded string "1", and not as an example

martin.ineichen

2023-01-30 15:07

has joined #general

ch.pascucci

2023-01-30 15:22

has joined #general

grace.tree

2023-01-30 16:03

has joined #general

ulises.cervino

2023-01-30 19:39

another question: how do you folk agree on naming? not just participants' names, but provider states, variable names, etc.?

ulises.cervino

2023-01-30 19:39

we're in a situation in which we have several teams writing consumer tests, while others are writing provider tests, and right now the solution to that is to "hop on a zoom call" but that's ad-hoc a best

pryan

2023-01-30 21:25

has joined #general

andy.jenness

2023-01-30 21:29

has joined #general

abubics

2023-01-31 01:26

This depends how you handle provider states inside your provider. Different language bindings have slightly different options. Depending where you provide the test content for your states (e.g. db stub, domain layer stub, etc), you'll have different options for how those values can be injected, and how static/dynamic you want those states to be.

abubics

2023-01-31 01:26

The original way of declaring interactions doesn't have dynamic path matching, because you need concrete examples to test against. I think that option might be there now, but I don't really use it.

abubics

2023-01-31 01:28

Contracts are definitely not a replacement for conversations :slightly_smiling_face: (as it says https://docs.pact.io/faq#who-would-typically-implement-pact)

abubics

2023-01-31 01:29

it might be a good idea to come up with a naming scheme, and document it somewhere, so you don't have to have to have the discussion from first principles every time

lijinze01

2023-01-31 02:36

Guys, why my webhook is always Not Run??? I changed the contract, and I can also manually kick off wehook, how come my webhook status is always Not Run? And it is not automatically triggered either. Anyone can give me some clue? Thanks in advance.

dyptorden

2023-01-31 07:52

what event are you using for the webhook @lijinze01?

ulises.cervino

2023-01-31 07:57

right, not trying to prevent conversations :slightly_smiling_face:

ulises.cervino

2023-01-31 07:57

but I'm thinking that agreeing on strings for everything, and hoping that they still match 6 months later is a bit brittle

ulises.cervino

2023-01-31 07:57

and sadly, in my experience, documentation rots faster than software

ulises.cervino

2023-01-31 07:58

just trying to formalise and add more visibility to these agreements

ulises.cervino

2023-01-31 08:00

in pact-jvm you can specify that a path depends on a provider state (value) like an ID for instance, and that's fine, it makes the provider more flexible in the presence of auto-gen IDs, however what I couldn't quite pin down is the following: the consumer says "when I get entity with ID 1 I will confirm that the response has the same ID", but also keep this ID variable so that the provider is not forced to have an entity with ID 1 created when providing the state

ulises.cervino

2023-01-31 09:46

if you're interested I have a proposal; in fact I'd love to run it by you folk

abubics

2023-01-31 09:50

Right. There are a couple of separate things going on. ? The consumer and provider don't talk to each other at the same time. ? Depending where you cut your provider for stubbing, you may or may not need to "have an entity with ID 1 created when providing the state". You don't need to actually persist anything unless you want to, you can just pretend you have a real entity (in-memory), with whatever values your state describes, and return it (across the network boundary). ? Not sure if this is what you're implying, but Pact doesn't do behaviour. Each interaction should be agnostic of all others.

abubics

2023-01-31 09:51

To describe an interaction with an ID in the GET (request), which is also returned in the body (response), you just need a matcher in the body (response expectation) with the same ID (by value, not by type). I think that's a canon example in the docs.

abubics

2023-01-31 09:51

(The example with alligators, maybe?)

abubics

2023-01-31 09:53

If you've got some sample code, a concrete explanation might be easier :slightly_smiling_face: I don't know what language/platform you're using, though.

ulises.cervino

2023-01-31 09:53

right, seen that, perhaps I didn't write my tests correctly, for instance in my consumer (pact-jvm) I have call like `pathFromProvider("/entity/${id}", "/entity/1")`

ulises.cervino

2023-01-31 09:54

and then in the expectations part I have something like `body.stringMatcher("id", "1")` (using lambdadsl)

ulises.cervino

2023-01-31 09:54

that's fine on the consumer side of things

ulises.cervino

2023-01-31 09:55

but then it all crumbles on the provider side of things, because I'd expect to be able to return a map like `"id" -> 100` and have the pact be verified no problem

ulises.cervino

2023-01-31 09:55

the value of the ID is immaterial, the check here is "when I get entity with ID N, I expect a field "id":"N" in the response"

abubics

I'll need to look up the docs, but you don't want to match on the String type (then it could be anything, including random unicode). You want a String value matcher. It might be `body.stringValue` or `body.string`.

ulises.cervino

and the reason I was thinking about this sort of test is because I could easily introduce a bug in my provider whereby I change the ID of the returned entity, and this is important on the side of consumers because this ID is shared state across consumers (it's a shopping-cart ID if it helps)

ulises.cervino

I tried with `stringValue`, but then there was no matchers in the pact.json, which was a bit confusing

ulises.cervino

https://github.com/pact-foundation/docs.pact.io/pull/221

but perhaps that's it

abubics

2023-01-31 09:57

yes, without matchers, it will match on the literal value :+1:

abubics

2023-01-31 09:58

I don't work for Pact, but I think everyone is always keen for improvement ideas ^_^

abubics

2023-01-31 09:59

I think the reason there's no formal guidance around it, from the Pact side, is that there are so many different ways people like to do things, and there's not a one-size-fits-all solution. All of the ways I've seen people add structure to state names encodes significant abstraction that's not rarely warranted for all other users.

abubics

2023-01-31 10:00

That said, there's a bit more structure added in more recent versions, with support for lists of state names, and additional maps for metadata. This seems to get people a lot further down the path.

ulises.cervino

2023-01-31 10:00

even on the provider side of things?

abubics

2023-01-31 10:01

Yep, the way the contract describes matching has to work the same on both sides, otherwise it's not reliable. If it doesn't, that's probably a bug.

abubics

2023-01-31 10:02

But also, the contract file isn't really intended for human consumption, so the DSL written there may not be intuitive. The tests should describe the expectations in a more digestible way.

yousafn

2023-01-31 11:06

Would love to hear your ideas @ulises.cervino! I think I would like to see the ability to easily see provider states in use at a glance for a provider, and which consumers are using any given state description. This would allow me to strike up the right conversations, if someone isn't using the right string on the consumer side, or to help authors find existing states to use. The consumers often may not have access to the provider codebase explicitly so can only traverse other contracts.

ulises.cervino

2023-01-31 11:12

I'll play with it a bit more and report back, thanks for your help

ulises.cervino

2023-01-31 11:13

the tl;dr for what I had in mind is to have a broken openapi spec describing (enums) consumer/provider names, provider states, and variable names

ulises.cervino

2023-01-31 11:14

possibly one of the biggest benefits there is code generation + IDE autocompletion for discovery of these things

ulises.cervino

2023-01-31 11:14

what I've seen at work is that many people write both consumer and provider tests, and so they can have a central class (in Java for instance) with enums for these

ulises.cervino

2023-01-31 11:14

but that's in a single repository, single team, etc. It's easy.

ulises.cervino

2023-01-31 11:15

we (my team) are in a position where consumer tests will be written by other teams, in 2+ languages, and we need to coordinate and communicate names, states, variable names, with everybody

ulises.cervino

2023-01-31 11:15

so I'm planning on writing this spec and distribute it + give instructions for code generation

jcarlos.anast

2023-01-31 12:24

has joined #general

leonardo.saragiotto

2023-01-31 12:32

has joined #general

lijinze01

2023-01-31 21:33

@dyptorden I am using contract_requiring_verification_published, but not sure why, webhook always not getting triggered, so frustrating lol

lijinze01

2023-01-31 21:36

Actually thanks for your reminder:) I just changed it to contract_published, it works

matt.fellows

2023-02-01 04:38

Just thinking for better possibilities here, because these seem brittle and look like workarounds (which may be of course acceptable in the short term)

matt.fellows

2023-02-01 04:41

*What if* all of the provider states and any associated parameters/data could be enumerated within the Pact Broker (probably attached to a provider-role pacticipant), and then annotated from within the Pact Broker with what their purpose is? e.g. a form of ?data dictionary?

matt.fellows

2023-02-01 04:43

I?m not sure I follow the OAS argument, how would IDE code completion help here? Also, why you would need the consumer/provider names in an OAS given you can see them in the Pact Broker already? What additional value to you get from it being in the OAS? I?m guessing you may want a way to control what names can be used or control who can create them?

matt.fellows

2023-02-01 04:51

This adapter (and others like it - e.g. wiremock, cypress) are really not designed to work with Pact (the tool) but to produce a pact file (contract). The pact file is an interoperable format that can be used in other contexts - in this case, it?s really designed for use with the Pactflow BDCT feature: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/bi-directional-contract-testing. Doing so whilst still verifying pacts using the Pact tool still has the potential for several drawbacks as per other articles. In particular (and as mentioned), matching rules, provider states and the proliferation of tests are still causes for concern. I?m going to have a standard warning/note added to these adapters Github readme?s to make this much clearer.

matt.fellows

2023-02-01 04:52

It might be possible to add https://github.com/pactflow/pact-cypress-adapter/pull/19 and https://github.com/pactflow/pact-cypress-adapter/pull/22 which alleviate part of this, but that will also have its own set of tradeoffs.

dyptorden

2023-02-01 06:50

you are welcome Jay :wink:

ulises.cervino

2023-02-01 08:12

a central registry is the general concept, however not every consumer/provider is _initially_ integrated with the broker, so using the broker as a central repository of names/state-names/variable-names is a fine idea, but might not work all the time

ulises.cervino

2023-02-01 08:13

regarding IDE completion, OAS is only the source of truth, each participant would have to generate code (the models -- which would be nothing but enums) before they can get their IDE to auto-complete things

ulises.cervino

2023-02-01 08:14

further benefits of distributing OAS as an artefact is versioning, auto-upgrades (via automated jobs or bots like renovate https://github.com/renovatebot/renovate)

bhavyashree.r

2023-02-01 08:52

Hi.. Is it possible to host pact broker centrally without using pactflow ? If yes can someone please help me with the steps .

matt.fellows

2023-02-01 09:09

Or course. We provide a ruby app and docker container. See here for broker docs: https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker Hosting concerns generally outside the scope of this forum though - there are plenty of better places for that.

dyptorden

2023-02-01 09:16

@bhavyashree.r we keep our pact broker in an EC2, so yes it can be done. Initially we started it along with a postgres using a docker compose. Later, the posgres was moved out of ec2 in an Aurora RDS, so I can confirm that you have plenty of flexibility to host either the broker or the postgres wherever you need

matt.fellows

2023-02-01 10:05

If it wasn't firing before but is now, maybe it didn't need to fire in the first place? I.e. it didn't require verification?

ulises.cervino

2023-02-01 10:26

ok, I gave it a go and it didn't so what I was hoping it would do

ulises.cervino

2023-02-01 10:27

let me try to sanitise the code a bit before sharing

ulises.cervino

2023-02-01 10:30

```Consumer: --------- @Pact(consumer = "C", provider = "P") RequestResponsePact getExistingLiveBasket(PactDslWithProvider builder) { return builder.given("a LIVE basket exists") .uponReceiving("retrieve LIVE basket") .headers(REQUEST_HEADERS) .method("GET") .pathFromProviderState("/${basketId}", "/" + existingBasketId) .willRespondWith() .status(200) .headers(RESPONSE_HEADERS) .body(LambdaDsl.newJsonBody( body -> body.stringValue("basketId", existingBasketId.toString()) .stringMatcher("status", "LIVE")) .build()) .toPact(); } @Test @PactTestFor(pactMethod = "getExistingLiveBasket", pactVersion = PactSpecVersion.V3) void createBasket_whenServiceIsRunningFine(MockServer server) throws JsonProcessingException { ResponseBasket responseBasket = RestAssured.given() .headers(REQUEST_HEADERS) .when() .get(String.format("%s/%s", server.getUrl(), existingBasketId)) .then() .statusCode(200) .extract() .as(ResponseBasket.class); assertEquals(existingBasketId, responseBasket.getBasketId()); assertEquals(ResponseBasket.StatusEnum.LIVE, responseBasket.getStatus()); }```

ulises.cervino

2023-02-01 10:31

that's the consumer test (using pact-jvm junit5 + resassured)

ulises.cervino

2023-02-01 10:31

regardless of language, I'm hoping it's self-explanatory

ulises.cervino

2023-02-01 10:31

on the provider side of things I got: ``` @State("a LIVE basket exists") Map liveBasketExists(Map _ignored_params) { Map<String, Object> state = new HashMap<>(); InternalBasket internalBasket = repository.createBasket(TestSupport.Repository.basketWithDefaults()).orElseThrow(); // the key in this state-map corresponds to the variable in the expression in the consumer test, i.e. in the // example consumer test we have a call like .pathFromProviderState("/${basketId}", ...) state.put("basketId", internalBasket.getBasketId()); return state; }```

ulises.cervino

2023-02-01 10:32

which in principle should do what we want (create a basket and then provide its ID back for the pact to be verified)

ulises.cervino

2023-02-01 10:32

however the pact has an expected request which uses the ID generated by the consumer

gsouza

2023-02-01 15:17

Hey there! Do we have a documentation about how to setup pact at github actions?!

barry.irvine

2023-02-01 15:52

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-02-01 16:03

Hey Hey, How do you mean? To run the Pact CLI tools? To run a consumer or provider test?

gsouza

2023-02-01 16:09

I mean, run at CI/CD tools Run a consumer and provider test

gsouza

2023-02-01 16:10

I fund CI/CD setup Guide

yousafn

2023-02-01 16:11

You can download the pact ruby standalone here, which you can extract and then in any CI system https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone examples here https://github.com/YOU54F/pact-cli-action https://github.com/pactflow/actions all these examples run on GitHub actions https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/examples although they are for PactFlow, it is easy to substitute for a Pact Open Source broker, by using `USERNAME` / `PASSWORD` over `TOKEN`

yousafn

2023-02-01 16:13

https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/webhooks#using-webhooks-with-the-contract_requiring_verification_published-event I would check the list of pre-reqs > Use of this webhook requires that: > ? the provider's https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/branches#pacticipant-main-branch-property is configured > ? verification results are https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/branches#configuring-the-branch-when-publishing-verification-results or you are https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/branches#automatic-branch-creation-from-first-tag (even if you use trunk based development, and only ever use one branch) > ? the exact commit of a provider version can be determined from the version number used to publish the verification results (ie. it either _is_ the commit, or _contains_ the commit as per the Pact Broker https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/versioning_in_the_pact_broker#guidelines) > ? any deployments and releases are recorded using the `record-deployment`https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/recording_deployments_and_releases`record-release`https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/recording_deployments_and_releases.

gsouza

2023-02-01 16:15

I'll take a look, thanks!

gsouza

2023-02-01 16:29

@yousafn and about this link https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana ?!

yousafn

2023-02-01 16:37

what is the question?

gsouza

2023-02-01 16:42

I mean, is this a valid doc to follow?!

dyptorden

2023-02-01 16:43

hi guys - is there a way to separate the publishing of the provider results back to the broker from the actual run of the provider tests? (somehow similar to running consumer tests and publishing them in the broker)

yousafn

2023-02-01 16:44

it is yes :+1:

yousafn

2023-02-01 16:45

You can publish verification results to the broker if you wanted to https://docs.pact.io/provider#publish-verification-results-to-the-pact-broker

dyptorden

2023-02-01 17:00

Yousaf, how I have it now is that I have the `pact.verifier.publishResults` property set to `true` in the surefire, so the results get published. What I intend to do is to have 2 separate stages: 1. run tests 2. publish the results

yousafn

2023-02-01 17:20

sounds plausible, I've not tried it myself. may be worth spinning up the scenario on a local broker to test :slightly_smiling_face:

marcin.slowiak.007

2023-02-01 18:28

has joined #general

eddie

2023-02-01 22:47

For pact verifier (provider) implementations, what is the expected behaviour if a given interaction is missing the `providerState` key? Should the verifier still make a call to the provider-states endpoint or should it skip doing that and go directly to making the request defined by the interaction? See https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9UTHV2AD/p1675291386716379 in #pact-net.

hoon.jung

2023-02-01 23:53

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-02-02 01:23

> when I get entity with ID 1 I will confirm that the response has the same ID I?m not sure this is an important thing to capture in a contract test. This smells more like a functional test to me

matt.fellows

2023-02-02 01:26

I must be missing something sorry, i?m still confused about the relationship of the OAS -> consumer/provider names, states, variables etc. Could you perhaps show me what the OAS would contain to solve this problem?

andhika.hasiholan06

2023-02-02 03:51

has joined #general

abubics

2023-02-02 04:30

I've definitely done this before, even if it smells that way, there's no technical limitation in the Pact spec. This code is over 5 years old, and while JS, does the same thing: ``` describe('can get a specific experiment', () => { // given: beforeEach(() => provider.addInteraction({ state: 'a view and two samplers with experiments', uponReceiving: 'request to show experiment 0 in sampler 1 in view 0', withRequest: { method: 'GET', path: '/view/0/sampler/1/experiment/0', headers: headers.request }, willRespondWith: { status: 200, headers: headers.response, body: { name: like('Some experiment'), id: '0', metrics: eachLike({ type: 'event', name: 'view' }, { min: 1 }), variants: eachLike({ name: 'jim', data: '' }, { min: 2 }), state: like('unscheduled') } } }) ); // when: it('', () => client.experiment .get(0, 1, 0) // then: .then(body => { expect(body).to.eql({ name: 'Some experiment', id: '0', metrics: [{ type: 'event', name: 'view' }], variants: [{ name: 'jim', data: '' }, { name: 'jim', data: '' }], state: 'unscheduled' }); }) .catch(fail)); });```

abubics

2023-02-02 04:32

That interaction comes out like this in the pactfile: ``` { "description": "request to show experiment 0 in sampler 1 in view 0", "providerState": "a view and two samplers with experiments", "request": { "method": "GET", "path": "/view/0/sampler/1/experiment/0", "headers": { "Accept": "application/json" } }, "response": { "status": 200, "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json" }, "body": { "name": { "json_class": "Pact::SomethingLike", "contents": "Some experiment" }, "id": "0", "metrics": { "json_class": "Pact::ArrayLike", "contents": { "type": "event", "name": "view" }, "min": 1 }, "variants": { "json_class": "Pact::ArrayLike", "contents": { "name": "jim", "data": "" }, "min": 2 }, "state": { "json_class": "Pact::SomethingLike", "contents": "unscheduled" } } } },```

abubics

2023-02-02 04:32

So there might be something broken in the Java DSL, or the wrong DSL part is being used. I'm not too sure what the right DSL method is in Java, though.

abubics

2023-02-02 04:37

Ooh, I found one: ``` "gets an existing biller" { val pact = builder .given("a cached biller list") .uponReceiving("a request for biller details").run { headers(authHeaders) method(GET) path("/bpaybiller/24208") } .willRespondWith().run { headers(contentTypeHeaders) status(200) body(LambdaDsl.newJsonBody { with(it) { stringValue("code", "24208") stringType("name", "SOUTH EAST WATER") stringType("longName", "SOUTH EAST WATER CORPORATION") } }.build()) } .toPact() verify(pact) { fetchBiller( GetBillerDetailsRequest(code = "24208") ) shouldBe Response.Success( BpayBiller( code = "24208", shortName = "SOUTH EAST WATER", longName = "SOUTH EAST WATER CORPORATION" ) ) } }``` This one is also over 5 years old, and while Kotlin, is using the same Java8 Lambda DSL, I think.

abubics

2023-02-02 04:37

So, `body.stringValue("code", "24208")` worked for me all the way back then. If it's not working now, there might be a bug.

matt.fellows

2023-02-02 07:17

I?d be very surprised if you couldn?t do that in Java

ulises.cervino

2023-02-02 08:53

when I use `body.stringValue(...)` nothing comes out in the pact file, furthermore we're using `pathFromProviderState`. You maybe have a point about a check like "has the same ID as the path I queried" being a non-quite-a-contract-test thing. We can certainly add other sorts of tests that cover this scenario, however I got curious and I suspect many/most our consumers will come up with that question.

ulises.cervino

2023-02-02 08:54

yes, of course, let me give you an example. Say we have consumer `C` and provider `P`. In pact-jvm you annotate tests with `@Consumer("C")` and `@Provider("P")` on both ends. Further, in the consumer you write stuff like `.given("an expected state for the provider to be in")` and in the provider tests you also add `@State("an expected state for the provider to be in")` and so on.

ulises.cervino

2023-02-02 08:55

now imagine the team of the consumer saying "you know, "C" is a bad name for our consumer, it should be "VeryCoolConsumerC" instead!" the team agrees and change their tests

ulises.cervino

2023-02-02 08:55

now only older pacts (for consumer "C") are being verified by the provider, and not the new ones

ulises.cervino

2023-02-02 08:56

of course this can be solved by a "quick zoom call", which I find brittle (I can share stories about OAS and quick zoom calls -- tl;dr don't trust people, trust code)

ulises.cervino

2023-02-02 08:57

my proposal: have an OAS with stuff in it such as ```components: schemas: Consumer: description: Service consumer enum: - basket-storage - basket-checkout - flight```

ulises.cervino

2023-02-02 08:59

from that you can generate code, in Java you'd end up with an enum `Consumer`, with instances such as `BASKET_STORAGE` (you get something similar for JavaScript too)

ulises.cervino

2023-02-02 08:59

so, what's the point? now if you depend on the OAS (and you generate the code) in your project, with the help of your IDE you can discover participant names, provider states (there'd be a section in the OAS for provider states), and more.

ulises.cervino

2023-02-02 09:00

say someone changes their consumer name from `C` to `VeryCoolConsumer` , when a new version of the OAS is published (and people should always auto-upgrade) now you'd get compilation errors

ulises.cervino

2023-02-02 09:00

so this raises the visibility of an actual issue (newer pacts aren't being verified)

ulises.cervino

2023-02-02 09:01

guess how many pipelines I've seen where people allow the verify-job to fail because it couldn't find a contract or something similar? (too many, and this is of course an issue in and of itself eh)

abubics

2023-02-02 09:03

If `stringValue` doesn't make changes in the Pactfile, it's a bug. It'd be great if you could raise a bug on Github :)

jhordies

2023-02-02 09:59

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-02-02 10:08

It feels like you?re just moving the problem around - yes sure the OAS has code gen, but now you: 1. Need to update all of the places you use Pact to be aware of the OAS / schema 2. Need a way to manage the OAS so that you always have the latest version 3. Need a way to version the OAS reliably 4. ? without those things the risk of having out of date information anyway. The pact broker already has this information, there must be another way! (please don?t not do this if you think it will work for you of course! But I?m trying to take your requirement and extrapolate it to a general solution that might benefit others)

ulises.cervino

2023-02-02 10:16

yes, great observations, we have 1-3 sorted out, but the out-of-sync issue is still there

ulises.cervino

2023-02-02 10:31

cool, I'll try to triple-confirm I'm not talking out of my bum and then raise an issue if necessary, but thanks for double-checking my expectations

ulises.cervino

2023-02-02 10:32

sorry, was in a meeting and that's why I was a bit terse: while the info is in the broker, a participant might move on from what's in there (name changes, state-name changes, and even things like variable names in expressions which aren't in the broker -- they're in the pact alone)

ulises.cervino

2023-02-02 10:33

the point of the shared registry (in OAS form in my head right now) is to raise visibility for when there's change, and to add discoverability. This sort of mechanism also doesn't really rely on a broker, so in principle you could use this + S3 buckets for sharing pacts (I know you lose a lot of functionality if you do this though)

amanda.santos

2023-02-02 14:19

has joined #general

keith.w

2023-02-02 15:57

has joined #general

gazal.gafoor

2023-02-03 00:13

has joined #general

ulises.cervino

2023-02-03 08:48

ok, did a bit more digging. I didn't look into `stringValue`, but I did look into `valueFromProviderState` which is the way of telling the provider, via the contract: this field will have a value that you need to fill in.

wesleythomaswilliams

2023-02-03 11:06

Great to see more UK folks here. A bit lttp to comment on the thread. Interesting @sam774 that you have a principal test engineer, that role doesn't even exist in Sainsbury's. It's a bit of a free for all on how we test and what we use to test, with little to no technical guidance.

sam774

2023-02-03 11:07

It's a new role for us too I believe, as we've started to bring test within the engineering fold. Mind you Greg's doing a fantastic job in the role

sam774

2023-02-03 11:35

Thanks both, very useful. Yeah, I also see with SOAP services that we use there are tons of optional elements, which means the utility of applying any form of rigour to them is very limited. I've had some success with snapshot testing on the client side using Jest, so we can capture the SOAP we are sending and check it isn't unintentionally drifting. That says nothing about the validity of the SOAP request against the schema so we have to trust there. It's at least a step forward though

dyptorden

2023-02-03 11:38

hi guys I try to disable the telemetry by setting the `PACT_DO_NOT_TRACK` to *true* (similar to the way I am setting the `pact.verifier.publishResults` to *true* which *works*). Unfortunately, I still get at build the message: ```Please note: we are tracking events anonymously to gather important usage statistics like JVM version and operating system. To disable tracking, set the 'pact_do_not_track' system property or environment variable to 'true'.``` which makes me believe it is not working. Is there another way of writing the `PACT_DO_NOT_TRACK` (e.g. with dots)? The Surefire looks like: ```<systemProperties> <property> <name>pact.verifier.publishResults</name> <value>true</value> </property> <property> <name>PACT_DO_NOT_TRACK</name> <value>true</value> </property> </systemProperties>``` Thanks,

yousafn

2023-02-03 12:11

try `pact_do_not_track` https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-jvm/blob/5cf0cb226d6a9f39b8b6cd2aacb5da4cbd20211b/core/support/src/main/kotlin/au/com/dius/pact/core/support/Metrics.kt#L83-L84

dyptorden

2023-02-03 12:30

thank you @yousafn. It worked

dyptorden

2023-02-03 12:31

can you please update the https://docs.pact.io/telemetry page by adding the variable with low case?

dyptorden

2023-02-03 12:31

it only shows the caps one

yousafn

2023-02-03 12:31

you can edit the page at the bottom, there is a little pencil :+1: ty

yousafn

2023-02-03 12:32

good catch :+1:

dyptorden

2023-02-03 12:32

oki, will do

dyptorden

2023-02-03 12:32

last thing: I wanted to disable the telemetry because it was causing an err in our CI\CD

dyptorden

2023-02-03 12:33

```2023-02-03 12:13:40.891 WARN --- [ Thread-4] au.com.dius.pact.core.support.Metrics : Please note: we are tracking events anonymously to gather important usage statistics like JVM version and operating system. To disable tracking, set the 'pact_do_not_track' system property or environment variable to 'true'. Error: Exception in thread "Thread-4" java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: org.apache.commons.codec.digest.DigestUtils.<init>(Ljava/security/MessageDigest;)V at au.com.dius.pact.core.support.Metrics.hostnameHash(Metrics.kt:150) at au.com.dius.pact.core.support.Metrics.access$hostnameHash(Metrics.kt:74) at au.com.dius.pact.core.support.Metrics$sendMetrics$1.run(Metrics.kt:104) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:750)```

dyptorden

2023-02-03 12:33

```Build org.apache.commons.codec.digest.DigestUtils.<init>(Ljava/security/MessageDigest;)V```

dyptorden

2023-02-03 12:34

dunno if it was a conflict with smth that we have, but the first thing to do was to remove it completely.

yousafn

2023-02-03 12:35

Was this in Pact-JVM? Would you mind raising an issue on GitHub, when you get some time (no rush). This is less than ideal, and glad you have a workaround. Ideally the metrics would work, without fail, or if they do fail, fail gracefully and allow the Pact framework to work as expected!

yousafn

2023-02-03 12:35

thanks for reporting as always @dyptorden

dyptorden

2023-02-03 12:37

strangely, it does work despite throwing this err. The build completes as green and it moves to the next stage (Can-I-Deploy)

yousafn

2023-02-03 12:41

have you got an `if: always()` or any special conditions in your workflow?

dyptorden

2023-02-03 12:47

not at all

yousafn

2023-02-03 12:53

nice resurrection :slightly_smiling_face: also stoked to see lots of UK faces - We are keen to get everyone together this year somehow on topic, I moved into a principal test engineer role around 2016, and have seen a trend away from Software engineer in test -> test engineer -> principle test engineer/architect. I quite liked the term quality coach/engineer, which is loose enough to kind of fit the ever fluid role that I think a-lot of us play, and didn't silo under the test banner

dyptorden

2023-02-03 12:54

ulises.cervino

I sort of take it back, this is what we have in the pact now: ``` "matchingRules": { "body": { "$.basketId": { "combine": "AND", "matchers": [ { "match": "type" } ] },``` which I'm unsure is the right thing

ulises.cervino

this comes out from a lambda-dsl call like ``` body.valueFromProviderState( "basketId", "basketId", existingBasketId.toString())```

ulises.cervino

(if I leave out the `toString` bit then it's `null` all the way through)

ulises.cervino

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/issues/220

back to the drawing board

eschroeder

2023-02-03 17:15

has joined #general

marunachalam1

2023-02-04 02:16

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-02-06 00:04

@uglyog might be able to provide some pointers on the DSL. I think it should also write to a `generators` section

uglyog

2023-02-06 00:20

If you use `pathFromProviderState` for the path, and then `valueFromProviderState` in the body, with both using the same expression, then there will be two generator entries added to the Pact file that will replace the values with the result from the provider state callback.

loc.daot

2023-02-06 07:37

has joined #general

ulises.cervino

2023-02-06 08:28

yes, that's exactly what's happening. One thing though is that if I use `${varName}` in the path, and then `varName` in the value, it doesn't do what I was expecting it to do (in my provider state I return a map containing `varName -> actualValue`). My expectation, after reading the docs for `valueFromProviderState` was that if you just specify a name like `varName` in the expression parameter, it'd use that as key, but that didn't quite work for me. Having them both use `${varName}` works just fine though, which is nice.

ulises.cervino

2023-02-06 08:29

another gotcha was that if I do `valueFromProvider('name', '$varName', uuidObject)` then the generator is of type `RAW` (which is fine in principle) however the matchers try to match with `null`, if instead I provide `uuidObject.toString()` then the generator is of type `String` (good stuff) and then the values need to match

ulises.cervino

2023-02-06 08:30

I'm probably just not reading the docs properly

ondrej.hajek

2023-02-06 09:45

has joined #general

ondrej.hajek

2023-02-06 10:53

Hello, I have a question about webhooks, hope this is the best channel. I have successfully setup https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana/step_6 level of Pact, but I struggle with one thing, that I don?t fully understand. I am using webhook triggered by `contract requiring verification published` which works nicely, except for one important scenario: 1. I make a pull request to my consumer, which changes the contract 2. My consumer pact tests pass and publish new pact to the broker 3. The provider verification job gets triggered, by the webhook 4. My can-i-deploy job correctly waits for the verification results and shows that I can?t deploy :no-sign: So far so good? but now I go to fix my provider according to the new contract and when I am done, the updated provider is merged, I want to go back to the PR for consumer and just restart the build and get Yes:yes-sign: from can-I-deploy. This doesn?t work though, because the webhook is not triggered again. I understand, why it?s not triggered and I think I can solve it by using the `contract published` event, but I don?t think that?s the best approach, is it? What am I missing? Thanks for any suggestions?

shravan.baira

2023-02-06 11:16

has joined #general

cameron.doyle

2023-02-06 11:17

has joined #general

ckarlborg45

2023-02-06 11:29

has joined #general

itzhak

2023-02-06 11:56

has joined #general

prashant.singh

2023-02-06 14:05

has joined #general

georgina.sallery

2023-02-06 15:18

has joined #general

prashant.singh

2023-02-06 16:03

Hi Pact Team, I want to use webhook, triggered by "Contract published with changed content or tags" and push data to *Microsoft Teams.* Do we have any documentation/example around it? Thanks in advance

guptadaksh56

2023-02-06 20:40

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-02-06 20:59

I don?t think we do, but if you come up with an example we?d love a PR to our docs :pray:

matt.fellows

2023-02-06 21:00

If you can?t fire a webhook directly at Teams, you might need to use as strategy like sending the message to an intermediary (e.g. AWS Lambda) and calling from there

matt.fellows

2023-02-06 21:00

I think what you want is the https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/webhooks#the-provider-verification-succeeded-event event

matt.fellows

2023-02-06 21:01

uglyog

2023-02-06 22:12

> another gotcha was that if I do valueFromProvider('name', '$varName', uuidObject) then the generator is of type RAW (which is fine in principle) however the matchers try to match with null, if instead I provide uuidObject.toString() then the generator is of type String (good stuff) and then the values need to match That sounds like a bug, `uuidObject` some type of object?

abubics

2023-02-06 22:31

Yeah, if it's a UUID class object, it wouldn't be a JSON type (e.g. String) automatically. I don't know if the lib does coercion like that.

tjones

2023-02-06 23:02

I?ve done this before with Teams, but not for Pact. The teams documentation you?ll want to start with is here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/platform/webhooks-and-connectors/how-to/add-incoming-webhook?tabs=javascript

tjones

2023-02-06 23:03

You may need an administrator to create the webhook

brendanmbliss

2023-02-06 23:14

has joined #general

helloyuanyuan

2023-02-07 02:25

has joined #general

ulises.cervino

2023-02-07 07:59

it's a `UUID` class, yes. I don't mind raw (doing `Object` sort of equals) but I do mind it being checked against `null`

ulises.cervino

2023-02-07 08:00

for now `toString` is a workaround though

geetika.joshi

2023-02-07 10:25

has joined #general

erik.haartmans

2023-02-07 10:31

has joined #general

rawisankarn

2023-02-07 12:59

has joined #general

hiep.duong

2023-02-07 13:10

has joined #general

michael.branders484

2023-02-07 14:08

has joined #general

anda.rozenfelde

2023-02-07 14:33

has joined #general

vietanhtran.dev

2023-02-08 04:44

has joined #general

geetika.joshi

2023-02-08 06:16

Hi Pact Team, i am using pact framework and facing a scenario where the response body of the api changes. How can I handle this ? I am using java

tjones

2023-02-08 06:50

Have a look at the documentation on provider states

goyal.himanshu

2023-02-08 08:23

has joined #general

geetika.joshi

2023-02-08 09:04

Thank you are you talking about this link https://docs.pact.io/?

tjones

2023-02-08 09:05

Yes

jeroenlamain

2023-02-08 11:57

has joined #general

jeroenlamain

2023-02-08 12:02

Hi, is installing the pact broker (open source) using a prefix path supported or recommended? I have deployed the broker on aws using a name like http://blbla.aws.com/pact-broker. I can log in and do api calls. However, i have multiple problems using client libries. (1) the jvm @provider annotation does not support a path (I think) (2) using the pact-js libraries I could publish the consumer contract but could not verify as the native verifier could not download the consumer contract. Has anyone deployed the pact broker using a prefix path?

pallavi.bose

2023-02-08 13:19

has joined #general

pallavi.bose

2023-02-08 13:21

Hi Pact Team, I'm too new to pact. For my .Net application I'm trying to connect to pact broker from Provider test. I keep getting SSL error. Is there anyways I can disable SSL verification?

adi.d

2023-02-08 16:25

has joined #general

oriane.rodriguez

2023-02-08 16:59

has joined #general

wesleythomaswilliams

2023-02-08 17:01

Quality Coach has a nice ring to it. I definitely feel like we'd benefit from someone in a role like that.

matt.fellows

2023-02-08 21:20

Which version of .NET?

matt.fellows

2023-02-08 21:21

You should be able to use all the normal strategies of loading certificates into the system keyword for the latest (4.x.x), and 3.x.x you can use the standard openssl environment vars

matt.fellows

2023-02-08 21:22

I believe we don't currently support it but there is a feature request to do so

matt.fellows

2023-02-08 21:22

matt.fellows

2023-02-08 21:23

perhaps you could elaborate a bit more on your use case, as it is currently not clear the scenario you are trying to solve for

tdickman

2023-02-08 21:36

has joined #general

george.croucamp

2023-02-09 05:14

has joined #general

gcroucamp

2023-02-09 05:15

has joined #general

tonis.ojandu

2023-02-09 09:46

has joined #general

justyna

2023-02-09 10:03

has joined #general

jeroenlamain

2023-02-09 10:24

thanks, we'll install a pact broker without prefix

tomer.ghelber

2023-02-09 12:24

has joined #general

tommy.chen

2023-02-10 00:39

has joined #general

kerrypmckeever

2023-02-10 21:54

Hey there! Say I have the following scenario: I have a contract test between `Service A (consumer)` and `Service B (provider)`. However, in this particular test, and for the particular endpoint we're exercising, `Service B (provider)` makes an additional call to its own provider, `Service C` . My question is: Has anyone encountered this and worked out a solution where you can still run the contract test with `Service B (provider)` running in isolation, without the need for `Service C` to be running concurrently?

matt.fellows

2023-02-10 22:40

Yes this is totally normal. You should stub C in your provider B verification, and have pact tests between B and C

matt.fellows

2023-02-10 22:40

kerrypmckeever

2023-02-10 22:45

That was the direction we were already going, so it's awesome having validation that we're following the right path. :slightly_smiling_face: Thanks, Matt!

sayler.b

2023-02-11 03:46

has joined #general

rm.bozhko

2023-02-12 16:27

has joined #general

moid.abdul

2023-02-13 00:16

has joined #general

greg.tyler

2023-02-13 08:57

Hi folks, apologies for the #general post but I wasn?t sure which channel this best fit into. I?m trying to sort out Pact verification inside our Jenkins build. We?re using the Ruby (legacy) verifier and need to output as a JUnit file (hence legacy verifier, since the new native binary doesn?t seem to support JUnit). So I have `--format RspecJunitFormatter --out /output/junit.xml`. When I do a verification against multiple consumers, I would hope this would create a single JUnit file of the combined results, but it seems to overwrite the file for each consumer, meaning in the end I only get the last-run consumer?s results. If any other consumers fail, I lose their JUnit output and can?t tell where the failure occurred. This results in failed pipelines without knowing what the error was. Is it possible to either combine multiple consumer-runs into a single JUnit file? Or to output to a dir (`--out-dir /output`) or multiple files (`--out /outout/junit-{consumer}.xml`)?

sugi

2023-02-13 09:59

has joined #general

sgeethu21

2023-02-13 11:01

has joined #general

kp1289

2023-02-13 11:59

has joined #general

rahul.jalagadugu

2023-02-13 15:37

has joined #general

omatuzenko.hse

2023-02-13 18:14

has joined #general

tyler.fleurant

2023-02-13 21:56

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-02-13 23:06

Hmmm might be a @bethskurrie question gfor the Ruby one. Would you mind please creating a feature request for the latest verifier here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/issues

bethskurrie

2023-02-13 23:26

> it seems to overwrite the file for each consumer, meaning in the end I only get the last-run consumer?s results that?s a pain. Can you raise an issue in https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-provider-verifier please

dyptorden

2023-02-14 08:55

good morning! can someone please confirm whether the States are case sensitive or not? My pact file contains the following pieces of info: ```"providerStates" -> "name": "My services are up" "interactions" -> "description": "Get Customer information Request",``` But in the PactBroker the following string is displayed: ```Get Customer information Request given my services are up```

dyptorden

2023-02-14 08:56

so the `interactions` respect the sensitivity but not the `states`

matt.fellows

2023-02-14 08:59

Hmm, good question. I?m pretty sure they are case sensitive.

matt.fellows

2023-02-14 08:59

@bethskurrie @uglyog?

uglyog

2023-02-14 09:07

Yes, case sensitive

geetika.joshi

2023-02-14 09:49

Hi @matt.fellows I am working on pact contract test framework ,where we are doing comparison based verification of the api response we received and what was expected. The expected/correct response body is stored in a metadata. So for all API's which we need to perform pact testing on, it is needed that we have a maintain a database, where we store api details and the response body. Now in some scenarios ,some api's response change in runtime so always it will differ from the response stored in the database, and error like : 0 - $ -> [{mismatch=Expected a Map with at least 6 elements but received 2 elements, diff={ - "children": [ - { - "code": "100", - "id": "100", - "title": "DimOneTest" - }, - { - "code": "102", - "id": "102", - "title": "Test SCD Action1" - }.............

geetika.joshi

2023-02-14 09:50

I need to know how can i handle this kind of scenarios

swilkinson

2023-02-14 09:59

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-02-14 10:01

It looks like you are expecting exact values, which is why your tests are failing when different data comes back. Pact has the concept of https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/matching which resolves this issue. In Java, you can see them here: https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/jvm/consumer I would read this section of our docs: https://docs.pact.io/consumer, specifically this section: https://docs.pact.io/consumer#choose-the-right-type-of-matching-for-the-situation

matt.fellows

2023-02-14 10:02

thx

geetika.joshi

2023-02-14 10:02

Ok Matt tysm i will try this approach

matt.fellows

2023-02-14 11:23

Worth doing the workshops too if you?re new to Pact (howtolearn)

2023-02-14 11:23

Here are a number of useful hands-on labs that teach all of the key concepts: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops and https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/workshops

dyptorden

2023-02-14 11:29

@uglyog if it is case sensitive, then it means there's a bug in the UI (as the state is displayed with lower case only)?

matt.fellows

2023-02-14 11:31

I think so, because people are likely to copy/paste it

matt.fellows

2023-02-14 11:31

Mind raising a bug? Is this in Pactflow or the OSS Pact Broker?

dyptorden

2023-02-14 11:38

Pact Broker

brooks

2023-02-14 18:41

has joined #general

carlos.lopez

2023-02-14 19:20

has joined #general

sam.mirzaee

2023-02-15 02:35

has joined #general

geetika.joshi

2023-02-15 07:07

from where can i participate? is it on youtube?

tjones

2023-02-15 07:07

It?s on the link that Matt posted above

geetika.joshi

2023-02-15 07:08

ok tysm

kam.sobon

2023-02-15 11:26

has joined #general

mail391

2023-02-15 14:59

has joined #general

constantin.jaeck

2023-02-15 16:09

Hey, I was wondering if you think it's a good idea to write e2e with e.g. cucumber-js and use pact in the background to 'mock' the services I'm communicating with. So basically I have my e2e, use the `.feature` files to control the 'given' behaviour of pact with the 'given' of cucumber - and in the end I call 'writePact' to get my output The cucumber would execute selenium/puppeteer UI actions :slightly_smiling_face:

bethskurrie

2023-02-15 21:08

The pact broker un-capitalises the state so the sentence makes sense.

bethskurrie

2023-02-15 21:08

It is deliberate

jmoreno

2023-02-15 21:27

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-02-15 23:24

You could do it, the concern would be the granularity you are testing. Unit tests have the ability to go more granular to test all of the scenarios you need. If you?re doing this at the e2e level, you may not be able to get that level of specificity, and therefore only cover some of the cases. Or, you end up writing too many e2es

matt.fellows

2023-02-15 23:26

I guess the verification test output should have the correct case, so developers could copy correctly from there

tjones

2023-02-16 00:48

Yeah, my gut is this would be a pain to maintain. But, I?d be interested to hear how it goes if you try it

marcio.duarte

2023-02-16 03:38

has joined #general

constantin.jaeck

2023-02-16 14:19

I think due to the 'advertisement' pact is doing with 'cut e2e in smaller pieces' this would be exactly the use case, but I remember the docs also used to contain a warning exactly against hat. From a testing strategy I usually try to only do unit tests for edge-cases that are hard to test from an e2e perspective. Too many unit tests make the code rigid and therefore refactoring hard

constantin.jaeck

2023-02-16 15:02

Right now I'm only building this for an application that's in the supporting domain, which currently only covers 2 interactions with one endpoint - but depending on my learnings I'd roll it out to different parts of our product

bryen.vieira

2023-02-16 16:34

has joined #general

bryen.vieira

2023-02-16 16:54

Hey all, good evening! I was wondering what the recommended approach would be when using Pactflow between Android/iOS apps and the services they communicate with (and if this is even recommended at all, as it seems quite difficult to find articles/docs on this). Integration tests can ensure that software modules which depend on each other correctly work together, and Pact tests are not supposed to be end-to-end integration tests, sp we shouldn't be writing tests in a `given we make a request to this endpoint with these query params, we expect this EXACT response` sort of style, right? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of these assumptions, and thanks in advance! :hugging_face:

bryen.vieira

2023-02-16 16:54

To give an example of what I mean, say we have an endpoint `/user` which takes an `email` query parameter, our Pact test should just have a regex to ensure that the email is valid (standard email regex, perhaps a check on the domain for the email, etc.) and then ensure that the response contains the fields we would expect to see for the `user` object of the response, using things like `StringMatcher`s to ensure that a `username` has no special characters in it, etc. because the Android/iOS apps won't accept that, hence breaking the contract we expect. The Pact shouldn't do things like create a hardcoded case where, for example, the `email` query parameter is `` and `willRespondWith` responds with a `user` object that has no address field in it, if I've understood correctly?

bryen.vieira

2023-02-16 16:55

TL;DR: I suppose the question here is how generic/specific should the Pacts (and the tests we write by using them) be?

kerrypmckeever

2023-02-16 21:17

Hey there! I am trying to get my team up to Diamond level, but there is something I'm unclear on. Say I have a new provider and a new consumer, and these two exist in a monorepo. If I am setting up the pipeline for both and adding the `can-i-deploy` and `record-deployment` for both, then it seems I will come to a stalemate since the pipeline changes would exist for both in the same commit, nothing is merged into the target branch, so there's nothing to verify `can-i-deploy` against. I assume I can do this across multiple PRs where I configure the `consumer test`, `provider test`, `provider verification webhook`, and `record-deployment`, let it deploy to my target branch, then configure `can-i-deploy`? Or is there a preferred method of managing this in a monorepo?

ryan319

2023-02-16 22:50

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-02-17 06:33

> I think due to the ?advertisement? pact is doing with ?cut e2e in smaller pieces? this would be exactly the use case, but I remember the docs also used to contain a warning exactly against hat. the main way we do that is to improve the ?base? of the pyramid - more tests, reliability etc. lower down gives you more specificity, speed etc. Most orgs have unwieldy e2e tests, because they try to do too much with them. By adding contract testing at the base, you can usually reduce your e2e at the top. Often to the point you don?t need them at all

matt.fellows

2023-02-17 06:34

This YT video is a good way of describing our objective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFCHSEHgqFE

zhig.ivan

2023-02-17 08:56

has joined #general

yerken.tussupbekov

2023-02-17 11:40

has joined #general

iamchughmayank

2023-02-17 18:30

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-02-18 03:22

The reason there isn't much content is that there is nothing unique to the mobile use case.

matt.fellows

2023-02-18 03:22

I believe there was an article that was recently released on mobile tho, let me find it

matt.fellows

2023-02-18 03:23

I'd start here tho: https://docs.pact.io/consumer I think that should answer your base questions

matt.fellows

2023-02-18 03:29

https://medium.com/go-city/pact-contract-testing-in-android-ff7e996d0910

jake.kline

2023-02-18 04:11

has joined #general

culudamar

2023-02-20 08:12

has joined #general

gawaine.ogilvie

2023-02-20 17:01

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-02-20 22:12

It?s Pact's 10th birthday today We are proud to be the most loved and adopted multi-protocol and language contract testing tool. it?s made possible by all of our open source contributors and users! Thank you. We look forward to celebrating with you this year, both in person and as part of virtual events. For now, please take a step back in time with this interactive history of Pact, from your very own Developer Advocate and Community Shepherd! https://docs.pact.io/blog/2022/11/17/pact-facts-a-history-lesson

greg.tyler

2023-02-21 10:18

Sorry this has taken me so long, I ended up moving into something else entirely. Bugs now created :slightly_smiling_face: ? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/issues/257 ? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-provider-verifier/issues/94

matt.fellows

2023-02-21 11:04

No worries - thanks for that!

tjones

2023-02-21 14:36

You might also be interested in https://stackoverflow.com/a/48000704/790070 I wrote a while back that talks about end-to-end tests and pact

james414

2023-02-22 10:00

has joined #general

nbolam

2023-02-22 20:26

has joined #general

lambent21

2023-02-23 13:35

has joined #general

pach

2023-02-23 17:34

has joined #general

richard.ruiter

2023-02-24 06:43

has joined #general

geetika.joshi

2023-02-24 07:19

Hi Pact Team, i need to use matchers for contract verification. so do i need to include matchers in json file? i am unable to understand where to place the matcher statements like some regular expression etc. i am using java.

matt.fellows

2023-02-24 09:28

What have you tried so far?

matt.fellows

2023-02-24 09:29

I?d start by searching ?matchers? in the docs: http://docs.pact.io We also have numerous examples, tutorials and workshops. (howtolearn)

2023-02-24 09:29

Here are a number of useful hands-on labs that teach all of the key concepts: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops and https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/workshops

geetika.joshi

2023-02-24 09:35

where do we have to write the regular expressions for matchers?

matt.fellows

2023-02-24 09:56

In your test

spalle

2023-02-24 10:54

has joined #general

alex637

2023-02-24 14:32

has joined #general

egrep

2023-02-25 17:32

has joined #general

ykamali

2023-02-26 05:10

has joined #general

kripa.kurian

2023-02-27 04:35

has joined #general

jordan.brooks

2023-02-27 09:46

has joined #general

courtel.yann

2023-02-27 10:47

has joined #general

nathan.hickson

2023-02-27 13:07

has joined #general

mark.simpson

2023-02-27 13:08

has joined #general

nathan.deamer

2023-02-27 14:35

Hi Matt, Just popping on to say this is great. Bryen works with Barry (who wrote that article) and me at Go City :slightly_smiling_face:

masykur.sn

2023-02-27 15:21

has joined #general

makifkus

2023-02-28 03:51

has joined #general

jacob.waller

2023-02-28 21:08

has joined #general

dipak8959

2023-02-28 21:18

has joined #general

sanketh.shanbhag

2023-03-01 03:57

has joined #general

adam.cox

2023-03-01 12:34

has joined #general

adam.cox

2023-03-01 12:37

Hi Pact Team, We are just starting a project using the pact-cplusplus consumer library. I was looking at the async contract testing but I can?t seem to see the methods in the library. Has this been implemented? Thanks

dyptorden

2023-03-01 14:03

Hi everyone - just wondering if anyone used Pact for SIP protocol testing.

steve.short

2023-03-01 15:14

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-03-01 16:49

hiya, doesn't look like it but the implementation calls the ffi methods exposed by pact reference so following the framework of other languages it could be added in. We would happily accept PR's or be able to advise on how you could bring across the relevant FFI methods to support messaging

yousafn

2023-03-01 16:49

Hey dude, what is SIP protocol testing, for the uneducated (like me)

kgrady

2023-03-01 18:58

has joined #general

dyptorden

2023-03-01 20:13

SIP is a protocol used in the telecom industry. It allows pairing the caller and the callee after a series of handshakes between intermediary proxies. Quite similar to HTTP in terms of concepts... it has a header...status codes etc.

matt.fellows

2023-03-01 23:47

I think the answer here is no, as we only support HTTP as a protocol, or are protocol agnostic (sync/async messaging). I think this would need to be implemented as a plugin, if I understand correctly

matt.fellows

2023-03-01 23:47

http://docs.pact.io/plugins

tjones

2023-03-02 03:13

Contract testing is a really good fit for SIP, although as Matt says, Pact doesn?t directly support it

dyptorden

2023-03-02 07:50

@tjones thanks! Do you also refer to the use of the Plugins or another way? And did you try it?

adam.cox

2023-03-02 09:20

Excellent, thanks for clarifying. I?ll discuss with the team about getting some PRs in place

pratima.patil

2023-03-02 11:13

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-03-02 12:17

I think he?s just saying that contract testing (concept) is a valid strategy for SIP, without regard to specific implementation

matt.fellows

2023-03-02 12:17

If you want to do it with Pact, you would need to write a plugin that knew how to communicate the SIP protocol

shilpa199350

2023-03-02 12:40

has joined #general

syamphaneendrak

2023-03-02 16:21

has joined #general

neeraj.sharma

2023-03-02 16:33

has joined #general

dominik.chmielarz

2023-03-02 16:55

has joined #general

xchen

2023-03-02 18:59

has joined #general

fdawson

2023-03-03 08:15

has joined #general

cyrus.devnomad

2023-03-03 11:20

Hi I have a pact consumer unit test that very often and somewhat randomly thows the error "Unable to start mock server". The corresponding error trace would look like this: ```Error Message: System.InvalidOperationException : Unable to start mock server Stack Trace: at PactNet.Drivers.HttpPactDriver.CreateMockServer(String host, Nullable`1 port, Boolean tls) at PactNet.PactBuilder.StartMockServer() at PactNet.PactBuilder.VerifyAsync(Func`2 interact) at MyConsumer.PactConsumer.MyConsumerPactTest.GetUsersByValidParam() in /pact/MyConsumer.PactConsumer/MyConsumerPactTest.cs:line 93 at System.Threading.Tasks.Task.<>c.<ThrowAsync>b__128_0(Object state)``` I'm not sure whether the source of this error is in http://Pact.NET library or in deeper non .NET pact libraries involved. I have asked this question also in http://Pact.NET forum with a test project to reproduce the problem: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9UTHV2AD/p1676368784117769

yousafn

2023-03-03 11:37

Happy Friday everyone! :ralph-wave: Hear from @matt.fellows as to how Pact is evolving alongside the ever shifting world of API development, empowering our users to contract test existing and emergent protocols and transports. Essential to those operating in multi-protocol landscapes. https://nordicapis.com/plugging-into-the-future-of-api-contract-testing-with-pact/

tom.meldrum

2023-03-03 13:02

has joined #general

adam.cox

2023-03-03 15:05

Hello again, Please could someone confirm the following for me? 1. Synchronous message testing is only present in the Pact v4 spec? 2. Pact verifier does not support websockets as a transport by default? We would need to create a plugin for this? Thanks in advance

dawoud.sheraz

2023-03-03 15:59

Hello. Not sure if this sharing is allowed, let me know if not. I will be speaking at Python Web Conf 2023 (March 13- 17), talk titled ?Why you should contract test your Microservices?. This talk will cover the need for contract testing and how pact can help in that (https://2023.pythonwebconf.com/presentations/why-you-should-contract-test-your-microservices). Even though it has been a while since I worked with Pact and Contract testing, my exposure to Pact and the wonders it can bring in integration testing has greatly expanded my technical expertise. I have given a few trainings and provided mentoring to folks within my organization on contract testing already. Really excited for this. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/syed-muhammad-dawoud-sheraz-ali_python-web-conference-2023-activity-7030572405756469248-NkAQ?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

dragos.neagu

2023-03-03 16:44

has joined #general

tjones

2023-03-04 02:02

> Not sure if this sharing is allowed, Absolutely! This is exactly the right place. All the best for the talk!

yousafn

2023-03-04 12:40

:wave: hey @dawoud.sheraz ! this sounds awesome! thanks for sharing, we always seen loads going on in the community but normally after the fact so if we can help amplify your content we are all for it, as it?s mutually beneficial for us and our users :yellow_heart: we have pages for upcoming events, talks etc so you can list it there if you wish to make a pr say listed under upcoming community events? https://docs.pact.io/events we are also after increasing our Python maintainer base and contributors with moving to the rust core as one of this years goals. we would super appreciate a call out for extra hands from Pythonistas whilst your there ( if it?s not too much of an ask! )

dawoud.sheraz

2023-03-04 16:26

I would love to both add this under upcoming event and also add a call out for Pact & Pact-python support during the talk.

facundo.g

2023-03-06 12:13

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-03-06 14:30

We've added it now as an upcoming event https://docs.pact.io/events#upcoming-community-events Best of luck with the talk Syed!

michael.bryson

2023-03-06 14:59

has joined #general

dawoud.sheraz

2023-03-06 15:26

Thank you.

kingsley

2023-03-06 22:47

has joined #general

jacob.waller

2023-03-07 03:16

Seems like a hilariously catchable bug with a tool like pact:

tjones

2023-03-07 03:27

Yep. So many outages are avoidable this way

tjones

2023-03-07 03:28

?oh, we don?t need contract tests, because all our clients are built from the schema? ?so you?ve never had an outage after a deployment because of API incompatibility?? ????

matt.fellows

2023-03-07 03:44

:eyes:

matt.fellows

2023-03-07 03:50

permalink: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1632810081497513993?s=20

matt.fellows

2023-03-07 03:52

Awesome news Syed and thanks for doing this! As others have stated, this is definitely the right place. Let us know if we can support you (over and above what Yousaf has done above :point_up: )

marckpuiu

2023-03-07 15:58

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-03-08 12:33

It's those type of outages that make Pact a far easier sell in your organisation, it is quite difficult to sell the benefits to a business who's bottom line hasn't been affected by an integration outage making it to prod.

tjones

2023-03-08 12:36

Did someone reply to him recommending Pact / Pactflow?

tjones

2023-03-08 12:36

Because someone should

yousafn

2023-03-08 12:36

It was hard to resist

yousafn

2023-03-08 12:38

Hey all, The PactFlow team is conducting research on contract testing within an event-driven architecture context. We'd love to hear from you about your event driven architecture testing strategy in your workplace and how contract testing fits in your event driven projects. More specifically, we are looking at integrating tightly with AsyncAPI, to bring you all the great benefits of Pact alongside the benefits that specification-driven workflows can provide. By getting involved, you can help be in the driving seat and shape the future of contract testing We?ve got multiple ways you can get involved, - An easy to fill https://forms.office.com/r/51FGni44fn (open until 27th March) - Schedule a https://calendly.com/shuying-lin/event-driven-architecture-pactflow?month=2023-03with PactFlow team - Join our https://github.com/pactflow/roadmap#developer-preview-programs - Vote or comment on our Public Roadmap https://github.com/pactflow/roadmap/issues/57 We appreciate your time and input! - Shuying & Yousaf from the PactFlow team!

tjones

2023-03-08 12:40

So um?. what is AsyncApi?

tjones

2023-03-08 12:40

I mean, I?m googling it right now. But this is the first time I?m hearing of it

yousafn

2023-03-08 12:41

Herro dude! It's a specification format for documenting message based services, similar to OpenAPI for REST

tjones

2023-03-08 12:41

> All powered by the AsyncAPI specification, the *industry standard* for defining asynchronous APIs. Emphasis theirs. Colour me suspicious.

yousafn

2023-03-08 12:45

I haven't dug too far into their raison d'etre, but seems similar to the Swagger/OpenAPI. Machine readable specs, which can be leveraged by multiple tools, for multiple purposes We utilised it as a previous organisation in order to help document both their existing RESTful services with OpenAPI and the emergent event-based services that had been built, with AsyncAPI (which people felt familiar with due to exposure to Swagger/OpenAPI). We then built a centralised store where we could search across them, as the real business value spanned multiple services and it was hard to get a decent view across it

tjones

2023-03-08 12:47

Yeah. Looking at the docs it seems a bit sparse, but clearly a good fit for people who like OpenAPI - you don?t have to learn much more, and your existing pipelines / generators etc wouldn?t have to change much

tjones

2023-03-08 12:47

like you could keep going using the same process

tjones

2023-03-08 12:47

even if the tools change

yousafn

2023-03-08 12:48

For those also not sure on what AsyncAPI is, you can check out their link here. https://www.asyncapi.com/ It's part of the Linux Foundation, as is the OpenAPI spec, so it is in decent hands. Industry standard (marketing speak) - it's definitely got a foodhold in the spec market but I don't think enough people are using it. (It's also free and open-source which is why I quite like it) - especially when thinking about building out demos showcasing hexagonal arch where you can show the business logic unaffected by using different transport mechanisms

yousafn

2023-03-08 12:48

They get FREE pro slack too :cry: ! which I am bare jelly about

tjones

2023-03-08 12:48

> Message validation in runtime I reckon pact could do this. It would be excellent to have a drop in gateway / shadow proxy that would detect request / response pairs that aren?t covered by the pact

yousafn

2023-03-08 12:49

I really like the way msw does that, and totally agree

yousafn

2023-03-08 12:50

proxys all reqs and tells you if calls were made without a mock handler

yousafn

2023-03-08 12:51

this caught my eye in the past too https://github.com/bochaco/pact-mock-reactive it gave me many grand ideas

tjones

2023-03-08 12:54

Ah yeah! I thought about building that for Case - it?s something that a lot of mobile developers would like

jacob.waller

2023-03-08 14:34

I'm using a screenshot of that tweet in a company presentation to recommend pact

duncan3142

2023-03-08 19:42

has joined #general

william.stewart

2023-03-08 20:25

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-03-09 01:26

> Colour me suspicious. (edited) It?s definitely good marketing on their part, but given a bunch of industry titans have backed it it?s all but going to be. I think https://cloudevents.io/ is probably one competing version, but not really. If you can remember back to the early days of REST, there was WADL, RAML, blueprint and Swagger. Swagger one out for various reasons, and then was donated to the linux foundation. The fact AsyncAPI has been backed by pretty much all the likely suspects means there is unlikely to be a _viable_ alternative. The real question is - will it get _used_? According to public data sources (notably SmartBear and Postman?s annual API surveys), the number of respondents who use it is 12-13%. I think there are reasons to be very skeptical of that number. For example, the actual usage of AsyncAPI in SwaggerHub is much smaller than that. Postman doesn?t yet support it in their IDE yet as far as I can see, but others like Stoplight do. That will no doubt drive some level of adoption. I?m (and the team) are mostly interested in that last question, how message pact provides value to teams today and what we could do to improve that

trc229

2023-03-09 01:34

has joined #general

zaira.zafar

2023-03-09 10:41

has joined #general

dominik.goltermann

2023-03-09 15:31

has joined #general

sharathkonda

2023-03-09 15:37

has joined #general

allen.ayala

2023-03-09 16:33

has joined #general

slawomir.pawluk

2023-03-09 18:22

has joined #general

casavelha

2023-03-09 19:49

has joined #general

nikita.gupta

2023-03-09 22:21

has joined #general

pjayakumar

2023-03-10 02:21

has joined #general

josh.marlow

2023-03-10 15:10

has joined #general

patilb

2023-03-11 17:02

has joined #general

renan.santos

2023-03-11 18:46

has joined #general

keren.eckshtein

2023-03-12 08:57

has joined #general

2023-03-12 11:58

has joined #general

gokuldot

2023-03-12 17:30

has joined #general

ldgaribello

2023-03-13 06:23

has joined #general

lidan.liu

2023-03-13 10:45

has joined #general

vipin.kumar

2023-03-13 12:29

has joined #general

vipin.kumar

2023-03-13 12:40

Hello Pact Team, How can I test My graphql queries with latest pact library for node? I browse through the documentation and I found that for graphql ecamples are either outdated or not documented well. Can someone please point me to a latest example ?

bknapik

2023-03-13 17:13

has joined #general

bknapik

2023-03-13 17:34

Hello Pact Team, I was wondering if there is any guidance on how to measure contract test coverage? I have stakeholder buy-in on contract testing, however we need a way to measure that contracts are covered and what are not. Our concern comes from the fact the can-i-deploy tool is only as good as the data we give to the pact broker. if we are missing contracts, can-i-deploy will misrepesent that the safety of the deployment. Long term we would like to block PRs if they are missing pacts for new endpoints/consumers. (I apologize if this is the wrong channel for this question, please direct me to the correct one if needed.)

ravi0894

2023-03-13 17:38

has joined #general

anji.boddupally

2023-03-13 20:37

has joined #general

tjones

2023-03-13 22:39

I?m not sure what you?re asking for exactly- this post seems to imply a few different meanings of ?contracts?. But, one of the advantages of contract testing is that it _only_ covers what you?re using. So, if you have an endpoint that isn?t used, it?s not covered by the tests (because you could make arbitrary changes to it without consequences)

tjones

2023-03-13 22:40

On the client side, you can get some of the same advantage by tying the test fixtures that you use for your Pact tests to your other tests - so that your contract must be covering exactly what your functional tests cover

bknapik

2023-03-13 22:49

Sorry for the confusion. We know that these endpoints are being used however, they do not have existing pact tests. We have 2 scenarios we are looking to address: 1.) we are rolling out contract testing using Pact. How can we measure what endpoints/producers/consumers are missing tests with Pact. We have 60+ microservices, so onboarding pact is quite an effort. 2.) A developer added a new endpoint/producer/consumer and they forgot to add a pact test for it. Is there any approach/tooling to help us with these scenarios?

tjones

2023-03-13 22:52

I?m not aware of any tooling, although it would be possible to build something that looked at schemas and gave an answer. I think the reason that general purpose tooling doesn?t exist is because Pact isn?t supposed to cover the whole API surface, it?s supposed to cover the parts that your consumer actually needs. Removing a field from a response isn?t a breaking change if your consumer isn?t expecting that field.

tjones

2023-03-13 22:52

> 2.) A developer added a new endpoint/producer/consumer and they forgot to add a pact test for it. How would you solve this for other test types like e2e or unit tests? This doesn?t feel like a problem that should be solved with tooling

tjones

2023-03-13 22:54

> 1.) we are rolling out contract testing using Pact. How can we measure what endpoints/producers/consumers are missing tests with Pact. We have 60+ microservices, so onboarding pact is quite an effort. I think this is a _great_ question

tjones

2023-03-13 22:55

The answer probably depends a lot on what your existing ecosystem is. Do you have schemas for those APIs?

tjones

2023-03-13 22:59

btw - for forgetting to add a test, I think consistency of patterns is important. If your test fixtures are tied to the Pact tests, then people will see the pact stuff when they try to mock the API for the unit tests.

tjones

2023-03-13 23:00

Also, I would expect unit test coverage tools to have full coverage of some parts of the client code. For example, this code should have full coverage during a pact test: ```const api = (baseurl: string): Api => { const server = makeAxiosConnector(baseurl); return { getAllProducts: () => server.authedGet<string[]>('/products'), getProduct: (id) => server.authedGet(`/products/${id}`), getUser: (id: string) => server.authedGet<User>(`/users/${id}`).catch((e) => { if (e.code === API_NOT_FOUND) { throw new UserNotFoundConsumerError(`Unable to find user '${id}'`); } throw e; }), .... }; };```

tjones

2023-03-13 23:01

It?s tricky though, because not all API client code will be 100% covered during a pact test. For example, your API client might handle unexpected error scenarios that the server never produces

tjones

2023-03-13 23:02

(eg, if the client has code for ?what do I do if the sever doesn?t conform to the contract? it?s hard to put that in the contract)

voon.wong

2023-03-14 01:34

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-03-14 05:29

Thanks Tim. Yes, the answer to that question is hard. The usual API coverage tools are the best starting point. I would recommend you run pact tests separate from the rest of your tests - you can then at least scope the coverage to your API client packages and know what was covered was from the pact tests and not your other testing types, and assess from there (automated-ly or otherwise)

gigamac

2023-03-14 08:09

has joined #general

ivstam

2023-03-14 08:43

has joined #general

tomknee1

2023-03-14 12:34

Hello, I have a token eg ```"eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJhZy1zdGFnaW5nLW1vYmlsZUBhcHBzcG90LmdzZXJ2aWNlYWNjb3VudC5jb20iLCJhdWQiOiJodHRwczov" + "L2lkZW50aXR5dG9vbGtpdC5nb29nbGVhcGlzLmNvbS9nb29nbGUuaWRlbnRpdHkuaWRlbnRpdHl0b29sa2l0LnYxLklkZW50aXR5VG9vbGtpdCIsImV4cCI6MTY0NjMxNjU5NywiaWF0Ij" + "oxNjQ2MzEyOTk2LCJzdWIiOiJhZy1zdGFnaW5nLW1vYmlsZUBhcHBzcG90LmdzZXJ2aWNlYWNjb3VudC5jb20iLCJ1aWQiOiI0MTEwMDAzNyJ9.MLpkCQI5bOSmdJuneQdwChEYvXhkaig" + "d4ouPOn5f2Rw"``` that needs to match my jwt regex of `private val jwtRegex = "^[A-Za-z0-9-_=]+\\.[A-Za-z0-9-_=]+\\.?[A-Za-z0-9-_.+/=]*\$"` most of the time in CI this is fine during pactPublish, but occasionally I get this annoying json parser error like below... ```/usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/json-2.6.2/lib/json/common.rb:216:in `parse': 859: unexpected token at 'nbGUuaWRlbnRpdHkuaWRlbnRpdHl0b29sa2l0LnYxLklkZW50aXR5VG9vbGtpdCIsImV4cCI6MTY0NjMxNjU5NywiaWF0IjoxNjQ2MzEyOTk2LCJzdWIiOiJhZy1zdGFnaW5nLW1vYmlsZUBhcHBzcG90LmdzZXJ2aWNlYWNjb3VudC5jb20iLCJ1aWQiOiI0MTEwMDAzNyJ9.MLpkCQI5bOSmdJuneQdwChEYvXhkaigd4ouPOn5f2Rw" (JSON::ParserError) }, "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json; charset=UTF-8" }, "matchingRules": { "$.body.token": { "match": "regex", "regex": "^[A-Za-z0-9-_=]+\\\\.[A-Za-z0-9-_=]+\\\\.?[A-Za-z0-9-_.+/=]*$" } }, "status": 200 } } ], "metadata": { "pact-jvm": { "version": "4.3.5" }, "pactSpecification": { "version": "2.0.0" } }, "provider": { "name": "OtacProviderService" } } '``` it doesn't happen 100% and I've tried countless things to fix it with my variable and my regex etc but it still pops up every so often, can anyone please give some guidance here :pray: ? im using kotlin so pact-jvm, apologies if wrong channel and then pact cli docker image

tomknee1

2023-03-14 12:36

It seems similar to another similar issue I had a while back around the escaped slash ending up being `\\\\` every so often when parsed :confused:

bknapik

2023-03-14 13:06

Thanks for your replies; they are appreciated. In our case we use SonarCloud quality gates to require 80%+ unit test coverage. If the developer does not meet that standard their PR is blocked from being checked in using Azure DevOps quality gates. It is how we control our unit testing standards. For E2E tracking, we use Zephyr Squad with Jira where each ticket would have their E2E tests tracked. I do agree on running pact tests seperately.

melikesezin

2023-03-14 14:17

has joined #general

adam.cox

2023-03-14 14:51

Hi Pact, We are trying to develop a plugin in rust that enables support WebSockets. Unfortunately it doesn?t look like the example plugins start up a new server so I am struggling a bit. The `start_mock_server` function on the Plugin trait does not have a mutable reference to the Plugin struct and so I can?t store a reference to the server. Is there some guidance I can get on how to implement this properly?

adam.cox

2023-03-14 14:52

Or are we expected to run the Mock Server as a separate process entirely?

tomknee1

2023-03-14 16:12

For now I will try using a raw string literal instead for the regex but possibly an issue on the pact cli side?

gopishankar.haridas

2023-03-14 16:42

has joined #general

rajasekaran.parthiban

2023-03-14 20:13

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-03-14 20:36

Is the issue on publish or something else?

matt.fellows

2023-03-14 20:36

Are you using PactFlow or a self-hosted broker? (I ask, because it might be tripping a WAF rule or something)

uglyog

2023-03-14 22:19

Hi Adam, you can have a look at the gRPC plugin, it provides a gRPC mock server. See https://github.com/pactflow/pact-protobuf-plugin/blob/main/src/server.rs#L568

uglyog

2023-03-14 22:21

It stores the data for the running mock server in a global variable using the lazy_static crate. See https://github.com/pactflow/pact-protobuf-plugin/blob/main/src/mock_server.rs#L49

sbanerjee

2023-03-15 02:46

has joined #general

tomknee1

2023-03-15 08:58

this is on pact publish specifically

tomknee1

2023-03-15 08:58

We are using self hosted pact broker in GKE using GCP Managed Cert and Ingress etc

tomknee1

2023-03-15 09:00

```+ docker run -v /bitrise/src/pacts:/pacts pactfoundation/pact-cli:0.51.0.0 pact-broker publish /pacts --consumer-app-version 6d3721fa3c71f3e431d1af8265b6bff368b5ac2a --branch task/VIS-3411-instrumented-tests-announce-tx-journey-update --broker-base-url https://pact-broker.tools.ld.payments.dojo.dev --broker-username [REDACTED] --broker-[REDACTED] '[REDACTED]' Unable to find image 'pactfoundation/pact-cli:0.51.0.0' locally 0.51.0.0: Pulling from pactfoundation/pact-cli 9621f1afde84: Pulling fs layer 8302e5003f61: Pulling fs layer 9bd515237796: Pulling fs layer a9c2f95dc8b8: Pulling fs layer d659e923d195: Pulling fs layer 0496e58000ed: Pulling fs layer 3ae718baa03f: Pulling fs layer 8a6f32654e19: Pulling fs layer 1e4a0858513a: Pulling fs layer bbf55dfda7e7: Pulling fs layer d31bd4799644: Pulling fs layer 75e247ce101c: Pulling fs layer f73e386bc3e7: Pulling fs layer d659e923d195: Waiting 6ae2a9f86af1: Pulling fs layer 1e4a0858513a: Waiting 0496e58000ed: Waiting 3ae718baa03f: Waiting bbf55dfda7e7: Waiting d31bd4799644: Waiting 8a6f32654e19: Waiting 6ae2a9f86af1: Waiting a9c2f95dc8b8: Waiting f73e386bc3e7: Waiting 8302e5003f61: Verifying Checksum 8302e5003f61: Download complete 9bd515237796: Verifying Checksum 9bd515237796: Download complete 9621f1afde84: Download complete d659e923d195: Verifying Checksum d659e923d195: Download complete 0496e58000ed: Verifying Checksum 0496e58000ed: Download complete 3ae718baa03f: Verifying Checksum 3ae718baa03f: Download complete 8a6f32654e19: Verifying Checksum 8a6f32654e19: Download complete 9621f1afde84: Pull complete 1e4a0858513a: Verifying Checksum 1e4a0858513a: Download complete a9c2f95dc8b8: Verifying Checksum a9c2f95dc8b8: Download complete 8302e5003f61: Pull complete d31bd4799644: Verifying Checksum d31bd4799644: Download complete 75e247ce101c: Verifying Checksum 75e247ce101c: Download complete 6ae2a9f86af1: Verifying Checksum 6ae2a9f86af1: Download complete 9bd515237796: Pull complete bbf55dfda7e7: Verifying Checksum bbf55dfda7e7: Download complete f73e386bc3e7: Verifying Checksum f73e386bc3e7: Download complete a9c2f95dc8b8: Pull complete d659e923d195: Pull complete 0496e58000ed: Pull complete 3ae718baa03f: Pull complete 8a6f32654e19: Pull complete 1e4a0858513a: Pull complete bbf55dfda7e7: Pull complete d31bd4799644: Pull complete 75e247ce101c: Pull complete f73e386bc3e7: Pull complete 6ae2a9f86af1: Pull complete Digest: sha256:b7d9facf2566cbe23c404fa2baaf3b7bb7c417788ad9f83d765fa72cea1a9754 Status: Downloaded newer image for pactfoundation/pact-cli:0.51.0.0 /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/json-2.6.2/lib/json/common.rb:216:in `parse': 859: unexpected token at 'nbGUuaWRlbnRpdHkuaWRlbnRpdHl0b29sa2l0LnYxLklkZW50aXR5VG9vbGtpdCIsImV4cCI6MTY0NjMxNjU5NywiaWF0IjoxNjQ2MzEyOTk2LCJzdWIiOiJhZy1zdGFnaW5nLW1vYmlsZUBhcHBzcG90LmdzZXJ2aWNlYWNjb3VudC5jb20iLCJ1aWQiOiI0MTEwMDAzNyJ9.MLpkCQI5bOSmdJuneQdwChEYvXhkaigd4ouPOn5f2Rw" (JSON::ParserError) }, "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json; charset=UTF-8" }, "matchingRules": { "$.body.token": { "match": "regex", "regex": "^[A-Za-z0-9-_=]+\\\\.[A-Za-z0-9-_=]+\\\\.?[A-Za-z0-9-_.+/=]*$" } }, "status": 200 } } ], "metadata": { "pact-jvm": { "version": "4.3.5" }, "pactSpecification": { "version": "2.0.0" } }, "provider": { "name": "OtacProviderService" } } ' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/json-2.6.2/lib/json/common.rb:216:in `parse' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/pact_file.rb:28:in `pact_hash' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/pact_file.rb:20:in `consumer_name' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/rake-13.0.6/lib/rake/file_list.rb:70:in `collect' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/rake-13.0.6/lib/rake/file_list.rb:70:in `collect' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/publish_pacts.rb:145:in `consumer_names' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/publish_pacts.rb:60:in `publish_pacts' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/publish_pacts.rb:33:in `call' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/publish_pacts.rb:15:in `call' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/cli/pact_commands.rb:66:in `publish_pacts' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/cli/pact_commands.rb:29:in `publish' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in `run' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/invocation.rb:127:in `invoke_command' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor.rb:392:in `dispatch' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/thor-1.2.1/lib/thor/base.rb:485:in `start' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/lib/pact_broker/client/cli/custom_thor.rb:23:in `start' from /usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.0.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.0/bin/pact-broker:10:in `<top (required)>' from /usr/bin/pact-broker:25:in `load' from /usr/bin/pact-broker:25:in `<main>'```

tomknee1

2023-03-15 09:06

```apiVersion: http://networking.k8s.io/v1 kind: Ingress metadata: name: {{ include "pactbroker.fullname" . }} namespace: {{ .Values.namespace }} annotations: http://external-dns.alpha.kubernetes.io/hostname: {{ .Values.cloudEndpoints.hostName | quote }} http://kubernetes.io/ingress.allow-http: "true" # allow-http and use frontendConfig to redirect to https http://kubernetes.io/ingress.class: "gce" http://networking.gke.io/managed-certificates: {{ include "pactbroker.fullname" . }} http://networking.gke.io/v1beta1.FrontendConfig: "frontendconfig-ssl-modern-tls12" spec: rules: - host: {{ .Values.cloudEndpoints.hostName | quote }} http: paths: - path: /* pathType: ImplementationSpecific backend: service: name: pact-broker-service port: number: 80 --- apiVersion: http://networking.gke.io/v1beta1 kind: FrontendConfig metadata: name: frontend-config-redirect-to-https spec: redirectToHttps: enabled: true responseCodeName: "MOVED_PERMANENTLY_DEFAULT" --- apiVersion: http://networking.gke.io/v1beta1 kind: FrontendConfig metadata: name: frontendconfig-ssl-modern-tls12 spec: sslPolicy: ssl-policy-modern-tls12 redirectToHttps: enabled: true responseCodeName: "MOVED_PERMANENTLY_DEFAULT"```

adam.cox

2023-03-15 10:00

Thank you! I have been looking at the protobuf plugin in pact-plugins/plugins but it is in Kotlin and I was having a hard time reading it and working our how it could apply to our rust version. This is excellent. Much appreciated. I?ll take a look and see how I can apply this to our own code

matt.fellows

2023-03-15 10:16

Thanks! Have you been able to confirm if the file is indeed invalid JSON? That would help us get to the bottom of it - sounds like perhaps an invalid JSON document is being serialised by your consumer client library (as I think you hinted at)

tomknee1

2023-03-15 10:17

I mean it passes 90% of the time in CI and this issue pops up occasionally, the contracts haven't changed between them

tomknee1

2023-03-15 10:17

and when it works I correctly see the output that it was preverified etc

matt.fellows

2023-03-15 10:46

:thinking_face: so strange!

tomknee1

2023-03-15 11:22

I recently merged a potential fix by using raw string literals in kotlin instead of relying on `\\` for escaped slashes, so will monitor CI over the next week or so and see if the issue still happens or not

kurt_schriefer

2023-03-15 13:21

has joined #general

andreas530

2023-03-15 22:32

has joined #general

santiago.rendong

2023-03-15 23:21

has joined #general

christine.awofeso

2023-03-16 09:58

has joined #general

konstantin.manna

2023-03-16 15:04

has joined #general

emgarcia

2023-03-16 15:44

has joined #general

john.goodwin

2023-03-16 15:51

has joined #general

tomasz.kowalczyk

2023-03-16 15:51

has joined #general

samir.ferreira

2023-03-16 16:27

has joined #general

raess.simon

2023-03-16 23:02

has joined #general

anshu.ranjan1002

2023-03-17 21:59

has joined #general

mptinternational

2023-03-18 18:12

has joined #general

16728365

2023-03-19 14:30

has joined #general

brick777

2023-03-19 21:47

has joined #general

siddharth.gupta

2023-03-20 08:19

Hi Matt , Is there any certification or course after completing which i can become a certified Pact trainer. I am looking to step up my Pact learning further and become a professional trainer.

mark.ingram

2023-03-20 11:31

has joined #general

jo.laing

2023-03-20 17:06

has joined #general

erich.buri

2023-03-20 22:07

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-03-20 22:24

Hi! We don?t currently have any certification program, for either users or trainers. We have previously worked with our PactFlow global partners to train and endorse them, but there is nothing official with regards to a certified ?professional trainer?

matt.fellows

2023-03-20 22:25

I?d be interested to know if others think this is a worthwhile initiative cc: @lewis.prescott @yousafn

matt.fellows

2023-03-20 22:27

Awesome stuff Adam! Do join the #pact-plugins channel if you haven?t already, and if the time is right we can create a #websockets channel for this.

matt.fellows

2023-03-20 22:27

Let us know how we can best support you :fist:

kgrady

2023-03-20 23:22

Hi Pact, I?m in the process of upgrading an angular app from spec version 2 to version 3 using the migration https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/master/docs/migrations/9-10.md. Now that mockProvider (PactV3) no longer has access to mockService, where can I access the baseUrl? The migration docs claim: ```the mockService property on the Pact class is no longer an actual MockService, but supports the baseUrl property for compatibility.``` But I am seeing an error that mockService is not a known property of PactV3. What are my options here?

abubics

2023-03-21 03:23

my 2c ? People working with Pact typically need to be embedded in dev teams, doing dev work. Getting a range of experiences across different architectures is a big part of the foundational value you want to end up with. ? The software industry has a history of dubious certification (especially around agile, but also tech), with several pitfalls (payment vs knowledge, faction politicking, secondary economy, transparency, expectation management, etc). ? It's not an inherently bad idea, but it would need a lot of care to make sure it starts & stays valuable & relevant.

siddharth.gupta

2023-03-21 03:30

I get many queries from a lot of companies for training on Pact . Which means many companies want to adapt to Pact but they are lacking skills and want to get trained . From a trainer perspective I would want to ensure that I have to deliver a comprehensive coverage of pact features and best practices . A well structured certification course will allow us not only to confidently impart proper training but it will also act as boon for marketing of the product

abubics

2023-03-21 03:34

I don't disagree with any of that :+1: it's just not simple/obvious how to approach it :sweat_smile:

abubics

2023-03-21 03:35

Anyway, it won't be up to me, just highlighting some pitfalls :innocent:

xiaorong.ruby

2023-03-21 09:34

has joined #general

markcox20

2023-03-21 10:08

has joined #general

adam.cox

2023-03-21 13:26

Hi @matt.fellows - I have just posted our next hurdle over in the #pact-plugins channel. Something is not quite working but we are struggling to work out whats going on

oloruntobi.ayilara

2023-03-21 14:01

has joined #general

pankaj_kumar39

2023-03-21 14:18

has joined #general

ravi_shankar_lakkims

2023-03-21 14:18

has joined #general

sathish.nilla

2023-03-21 14:19

has joined #general

sikandar_kumar.singh

2023-03-21 14:19

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-03-21 17:34

It's available within the `executeTest` scope as shown in the linked docs so this ``` const api = new API(provider.mockService.baseUrl); // make request to Pact mock server const product = await api.getAllProducts(); expect(product).toStrictEqual([ {"id": "09", "name": "Gem Visa", "type": "CREDIT_CARD"} ]);``` would become this ``` await provider.executeTest(async (mockService) => { const api = new API(mockService.url); // make request to Pact mock server const product = await api.getAllProducts(); expect(product).toStrictEqual([ {"id": "09", "name": "Gem Visa", "type": "CREDIT_CARD"} ]); })```

benjamin.earle

2023-03-21 19:23

has joined #general

benjamin.earle

2023-03-21 19:41

Hi everyone! I'm not sure if this is the channel to ask this question, but here we go. I'm trying to use providers states to create an entity and then test the contract of a `get` endpoint for that entity. I need to create it first so that the endpoint doesn't return a 404. I have created a provider state setup function in my API, that creates this entity and returns a dictionary with the relevant value for the generator. I am using the docker pact-cli for verifying the provider, and it is calling that endpoint correctly. My issue is that it is not modifying the pact to use the returned id instead of the example specified in the pact. Here's an example of my code: ```// Consumer in JavaScript provider .given("an existing experiment") .uponReceiving("a request to get the experiment") .withRequest({ method: "GET", path: fromProviderState("/v3/experiments/${uuid}", `/v3/experiments/${exampleUuid}`), }) .willRespondWith({ status: 200, body: { resource: like({ uuid: fromProviderState("${uuid}, exampleUuid) })}, }));``` ```# Provider state setup endpoint (Python & FastApi) @router.get(/pact/setup) def pact_setup(): experiment = create_experiment() return { "uuid": experiment.uuid }``` The setup function is being called by the docker verifier, returning the uuid of the created experiment, but the provider verification is still executing a get request to the `exampleUuid`. Is there anything I'm missing?

benjamin.earle

2023-03-21 20:05

Here?s the generated pact from the js code

tjones

2023-03-21 22:38

Can you show us the verifier configuration?

tjones

2023-03-21 22:39

Are you sure the setup function is being called?

matt.fellows

2023-03-21 22:48

Python doesn?t support verifying V3 pacts, and doesn?t understand the ?from provider state? feature

tjones

2023-03-21 22:49

ah, of course

sanjaysingh99in

2023-03-22 00:57

has joined #general

benjamin.earle

2023-03-22 01:35

Oooh. I see. I'm not using pact-python though. Verification is being done through the pact https://hub.docker.com/r/pactfoundation/pact-cli. Doesn't that support provider injection? It is calling the setup function correctly (requests are logged properly). It's just not injecting the return value on the contract.

matt.fellows

2023-03-22 03:01

Aha!

matt.fellows

2023-03-22 03:01

ok so the answer is yes but no

matt.fellows

2023-03-22 03:02

You actually want https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/cli#native-binary-new (the newer verifier). The docker one still uses Ruby. I think we ought to consider getting the new verifier into that image. I?ll raise an issue

matt.fellows

2023-03-22 03:05

Created https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-cli/issues/95 to track this issue, but it might get moved about.

benjamin.earle

2023-03-22 03:17

Well, that explains a lot :sweat_smile:. I knew it used the ruby version, but I didn't know it doesn't support provider state injection. Thank you for the help and support!

matt.fellows

2023-03-22 03:17

No worries, it?s confusing. I?m sorry about that

matt.fellows

2023-03-22 03:18

It should be fairly straightforward to swap to the rust version. There might be a docker container for that if it?s your preferred pathway, i?ll take a look. But I do wonder if we should have all of the tools in one place

rafalmaciak

2023-03-22 08:03

has joined #general

markcox20

2023-03-22 09:21

Hi, apologies for cross-posting from #pact-ruby-standalone, but just in case that channel isn?t monitored.

jyothy18

2023-03-22 09:23

has joined #general

haiyang.huang

2023-03-22 10:30

has joined #general

denispegan4

2023-03-22 13:14

has joined #general

erich.buri

2023-03-22 14:30

Hi @kgrady I had the same problem. I added an Interceptor to the TestBed-Environment: ```@Injectable() export class DynamicUrlTestInterceptor implements HttpInterceptor { constructor(private urlResolver: () => string | undefined) {} intercept(request: HttpRequest<any>, next: HttpHandler): Observable<HttpEvent<any>> { const urlToPrepend = this.urlResolver(); if (urlToPrepend) { request = request.clone({ url: urlToPrepend + request.url, }); } return next.handle(request); } }``` Add it to your Test-Env: ```{ provide: HTTP_INTERCEPTORS, useValue: new DynamicUrlTestInterceptor(() => mockServerUrl), multi: true, },``` In my test-case: ```const angebotIntegrationService = TestBed.inject(AngebotIntegrationService); await providerV3.executeTest(async (mockServer) => { mockServerUrl = mockServer.url; // activate DynamicUrlTestInterceptor const response = await firstValueFrom( angebotIntegrationService.createAngebotNeugeschaeftRsvUnternehmen( angeboteErstellenNeugeschaeftRsvUnternehmen, captchaToken ) );```

erich.buri

2023-03-22 14:38

Need to add this to your test as well: ```let mockServerUrl: string | undefined = undefined;``` Basically, I set the `mockServerUrl = mockServer.url;` in `executeTest()` , for any subsequent Http-Request, the Interceptor will be called, which will in turn call the `urlResolver` callback to get the current-value to use at that moment, and change the url accordingly.

erich.buri

2023-03-22 14:38

let me know if you found a better solution

benjamin.earle

2023-03-22 14:50

That would be great! I ended up making my verifier in JS, but it would be nice to have a cli ready to use.

kgrady

2023-03-22 20:50

@erich.buri With your solution, where is `mockServerUrl` being passed? If I assign it within `executeTest()` it has no place to go and is just an unused variable

kgrady

2023-03-22 20:57

@yousafn The API that I am testing does not take a URL as a parameter when instantiating like in `const api = new API(mockService.url);` but takes an `HttpService` and `HttpConfigService` which have been added as providers in a `beforeEach()` . If that is the case, can I simply leave the API instantiation out of the `executeTest()` method? I still need access to a mockUrl for the provider `ConfigService`?s `useValue`

kgrady

2023-03-22 20:59

Here?s a look at my `beforeEach` untouched. Error is on `mockProvider.mockService` which no longer exists: ``` beforeEach(async () => { const app = await Test.createTestingModule({ imports: [ConfigModule, HttpModule], providers: [ TenantService, HttpConfigService, { provide: 'MOCK_ENV', useValue: false, }, { provide: ConfigService, useValue: { get: jest.fn((key: string) => { if (key === 'TENANT_BASE_URL') { return mockProvider.mockService.baseUrl; } }), }, }, ], }).compile(); service = app.get<TenantService>(TenantService); });```

tranghetti

2023-03-22 21:15

has joined #general

amruta_mandavilli

2023-03-23 06:23

has joined #general

shubhamshriram.shinde

2023-03-23 06:34

has joined #general

juliemarierosok

2023-03-23 08:20

has joined #general

colin.aygalinc

2023-03-23 09:23

has joined #general

erich.buri

2023-03-23 09:37

I don't know `HttpService` - we're using `HttpClient` . But looking at your setup, you would have to return the actual value here: ```{ provide: ConfigService, useValue: { get: jest.fn((key: string) => { if (key === 'TENANT_BASE_URL') { return mockProvider.mockService.baseUrl; } }), },``` Except that you use a variable like `mockServerUrl` in my case (instead of `mockProvider.mockService.baseUrl` ) mockServerUrl will then be set inside `executeTest()`

me1685

2023-03-23 10:53

has joined #general

erich.buri

2023-03-23 11:14

Hi, I think there is a serious issue with `eachKeyLike()` and it might have to do with the fix here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/issues/216 Please see my comment here https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/issues/216#issuecomment-1480976176 and the added note below: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/issues/216#issuecomment-1480996968 I ran the same on Windows and Mac as I wasn't sure if it is related to my machine. But I got the same result. This is a simplified version to show the issue. I have a more complex data-structure I want to test and the resulting `matchingRules` I got were looking very strange: Example: ```"$.angebote.*.*.*[*].*[*].*.*.*": { "combine": "AND", "matchers": [ { "match": "type", "min": 1 }, { "match": "type" }, { "match": "integer" } ] },``` How could anything satisfy that.

gregpovorozniuk

2023-03-23 11:32

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-03-23 14:32

:blobwave: Hey everyone, hope you are doing well today! The latest Pact blog is out. So sit back, relax, and join me for some contract testing in the wild. Hear from community experts and some of the latest initiatives in the Pact ecosystem. You can read it https://docs.pact.io/blog/2023/03/21/pact-open-source-update-mar-2023!

mpalla553

2023-03-23 14:51

has joined #general

sumit.singh

2023-03-23 18:03

has joined #general

kgrady

2023-03-23 18:08

So now I?ve got: ``` provide: ConfigService, useValue: { get: jest.fn((key: string) => { if (key === 'TENANT_BASE_URL') { return new DynamicUrlTestInterceptor(() => mockServerUrl); } }), },``` after implementing the DynamicUrlTestInterceptor. I assign the mockServerUrl in `executeTest()` but then the mockServerUrl isn?t referenced after it is assigned so it seems useless: ``` await mockProvider.executeTest(async mockServer => { mockServerUrl = mockServer.url; const tenant = await lastValueFrom(service.createTenant(requestHeaders, reqBody)); expect(tenant).toStrictEqual(camelCaseObjectKeys(responseBody)); });``` The test result in a connection error I assume is caused by the Url not working properly: ``` + "code": "ECONNREFUSED", + "data": undefined, + "message": "connect ECONNREFUSED ::1:80", + "status": undefined, + "statusText": undefined,```

quinton.miller

2023-03-23 19:18

has joined #general

sushant.soni

2023-03-24 11:05

Hello, So one of the questions I have received is. ```can contract tests ensure the understanding of what is an optional parameter and what is not between provider and consumer (and how)```

tjones

2023-03-24 11:23

Yes, but I think this not really the right question

hurdledatrade

2023-03-24 11:24

has joined #general

tjones

2023-03-24 11:24

Understanding what parameters are optional / not optional is kind of an implementation detail. It?s _one_ solution to ?how do I know if these two services can communicate??

tjones

2023-03-24 11:25

Contract testing side steps the question of optional / not optional by providing clear examples.

tjones

2023-03-24 11:25

If, in the examples, there are any times the client fails to provide the optional parameter, the contract verification will fail.

srijan.c

2023-03-24 15:26

has joined #general

praveen.gangasani

2023-03-26 13:19

has joined #general

yzxu

2023-03-27 07:27

has joined #general

1248124408

2023-03-27 08:59

has joined #general

daniel.redelberger

2023-03-27 09:07

has joined #general

erich.buri

2023-03-27 09:30

This is not what I suggested: ``` provide: ConfigService, useValue: { get: jest.fn((key: string) => { if (key === 'TENANT_BASE_URL') { return new DynamicUrlTestInterceptor(() => mockServerUrl); } }), },```

erich.buri

2023-03-27 09:35

You're ConfigService returning an Interceptor does not make sense. ``` { provide: ConfigService, useValue: { get: jest.fn((key: string) => { if (key === 'TENANT_BASE_URL') { return mockProvider.mockService.baseUrl; } }), },``` Did you try to return the variable mockServerUrl here? You need to show me your Service-Code or find out at what time in the Lifecycle of your service it will call configService.get('TENANT_BASE_URL'). Anyway, if your Service eventually uses Angular HttpClient, you can just add this. ```{ provide: HTTP_INTERCEPTORS, useValue: new DynamicUrlTestInterceptor(() => mockServerUrl), multi: true, },``` Replace `() => mockServerUrl` with `() => { console.log('Will now use url: ', mockServerUrl); return mockServerUrl }` and you will see in your log at what time the Url actually gets used.

mohammed.a.ezzedine

2023-03-27 15:25

has joined #general

mohammed.a.ezzedine

2023-03-27 16:01

Hello, I've been using PACT for HTTP contracts, and it's great. I have some questions regarding its usage with message contracts: - I've noticed that the documentation does not provide a full scenario example of how to write and validate a contract for message target as it does for HTTP ones, does this have any implication on the future development targeted for the message contracts, or is it just not mature enough? - When verifying HTTP contracts, PACT tests the contracts against the controller at the exposed port by the provider. However, for the message contracts, it is as simple as manually building the message object and returning it in a method, which does not really tests the correctness of the provider, since it can be returning a different object than the one being used in reality. Are there any future plans or vision to change this?

yousafn

2023-03-27 17:11

we have a few examples in different languages, which are you looking for? you are correct that message pact is agnostic of the protocol and concentrates on on the message handling, probably of a message processor in your code, if it?s suitably split from the transport layer. we are aware that this is a halfway house and have since introduced the pact plug-in framework to allow for users to construct their own plugins to handle custom matching rules say for different content types, or protocols/transport layers, pact protobuf plug-in being the first allowing for contract testing of proto/grpc messages.

kiran.malsetty

2023-03-27 17:20

has joined #general

kgrady

2023-03-27 18:22

> Did you try to return the variable mockServerUrl here? Yes I had the same error results > Anyway, if your Service eventually uses Angular HttpClient, you can just add this. I?m getting a type mismatch error: ```Type 'InjectionToken<HttpInterceptor[]>' is not assignable to type 'InjectionToken'. Type 'InjectionToken<HttpInterceptor[]>' is missing the following properties from type 'Abstract<any>': prototype, apply, call, bind, and 5 more.``` our main app module is using HttpClient but HttpConfigService is not. The HttpConfigService just determines if we are using local path for dummy data or not, for example: ```constructor(@Inject(MOCK_ENV) private mockEnv: boolean, private configService: ConfigService) {} private baseUrl = this.configService.get('TENANT_BASE_URL'); private tenantUrl = `${this.baseUrl}/tenant`; public getTenant(): string { const config: httpConfig = { path: this.tenantUrl, localPath: '/get-tenant.json', }; return this.getPath(config); }``` which is where configService.get(?TENANT_BASE_URL) is being called

mohammed.a.ezzedine

2023-03-27 18:45

Thanks for the reply! I am using pact with Spring framework in java. Yes, I came across some examples, but finding an example with the same consumer/provider dependencies was quite a hassle, but I figured it out in the end. Thanks for letting me know about the plugin-in framework. I was intending to give it a look anyway. I hope it suits my use case.

rchild

2023-03-27 18:46

has joined #general

asoni

2023-03-27 20:23

has joined #general

yu.xie

2023-03-28 00:08

has joined #general

gamer.fikri

2023-03-28 04:46

has joined #general

gamer.fikri

2023-03-28 04:53

So, I came here from https://docs.pact.io/faq/convinceme .. I am still yet not convinced, because of our current workflow is 180deg different on what pact offer that is Consumer-Driven. But "I have control over the consumer", this mostly internal apps afterall. so 1. Will consumer now dictate the provider endpoint and response ? 2. Then each of my consumer now will write basically some 80% identical tests because most of them require the same response from the same endpoint ?

tjones

2023-03-28 05:04

You don?t have to have the consumer design the provider endpoints. Consumer driven design is different to consumer driven testing.

tjones

2023-03-28 05:04

Consumer driven testing exists because that way you?re testing the parts the consumer is ACTUALLY using, and not anything else

tjones

2023-03-28 05:05

(Side point: Consumer driven design is less common than provider driven design, but I don?t think there?s a good reason for this. After all, who is the provider _for_? Surely it should provide what the consumer needs, not provide what it thinks the consumer needs)

tjones

2023-03-28 05:07

> Then each of my consumer now will write basically some 80% identical tests because most of them require the same response from the same endpoint ? Do they really require the same response? Usually different consumers want different parts of the response from the same endpoint. Without Pact, testing this will still have some duplication. It might indicate that there?s a client library that?s worth splitting out or something.

gamer.fikri

2023-03-28 05:09

> You don?t have to have the consumer design the provider endpoints. Consumer driven design is different to consumer driven testing. Oh, so I could use pact to verify the interaction *after* the spec is laid out ?, so is this an acceptable flow ? 1. provider design first, output via openapi spec 2. consumer view the spec, write the test for their expected response 3. provider then write their own side of pact

gamer.fikri

2023-03-28 05:09

> Without Pact, testing this will still have some duplication. It might indicate that there?s a client library that?s worth splitting out or something. Hmm, I agree

tjones

2023-03-28 05:11

Yes, except that you might be confused, depending on what you meant by step 3 - the provider _doesn?t_ write a pact file, they write a test that verifies the consumer(s) pacts.

tjones

2023-03-28 05:12

A subtlety here is that the openapi spec and the contract file have different purposes. The spec describes the grammar of the requests and responses (useful for implementers), while the contract describes several example request/response pairs in different server states (useful for testing).

gamer.fikri

2023-03-28 05:12

> they write a test that verifies the consumer(s) pacts. Oh sorry, yes I mean this

tjones

You can?t actually take an openapi spec and generate a pact file, and you also can?t take a pact file and generate an openapi spec - even though at first glance it feels like you should be able to.

gamer.fikri

So what I meant is that consumer can have some guidelines to write the pact, and not burden them with designing the api

tjones

They?re different.

tjones

Yes, that?s right

tjones

A consumer driven testing approach doesn?t force you in to a consumer driven design.

tjones

(I personally believe the best practice would be consumer driven design, but a lot of teams don?t want to work that way, for various reasons)

gamer.fikri

> A consumer driven testing approach doesn?t force you in to a consumer driven design. This is maybe what I miss when I read how the pact works

tjones

Right, yeah

gamer.fikri

docs: https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/javascript/docs/graphql

I think its more clearer now

gamer.fikri

2023-03-28 05:15

Thanks a lot

tjones

2023-03-28 05:15

You?re welcome! By the way, I?m working on another tool which lets you write the contract at either end, if you want to do server driven contracts. It?s not at a stable release yet, but you can follow the progress here https://case.contract-testing.io/docs/intro

tjones

2023-03-28 05:19

I would also say that: > because of our current workflow is 180deg different on what pact offer that is Consumer-Driven. This is definitely the most common way to design APIs at the moment, and I?ve worked with teams who are thinking and working this way to successfully use Pact without changing the way they work.

shaun.carmody

2023-03-28 13:23

has joined #general

christianschiepe

2023-03-28 13:50

has joined #general

christianschiepe

2023-03-28 13:53

Hi there. I try to convince my Team, but the argument is still: We use yaml files and an API generator, so what is the real advantage of Pact? For sure, prevent breaking changes! I know that YAML Files still dont prevent Integration Bugs from happening, but what bugs exactly are meant here?

yousafn

2023-03-28 14:02

Yo, An OpenAPI and a client SDK based off it, will tie your consumer and provider in lockstep, and you would have to work with the assumption that every endpoint and every field without an object is used by a consumer, which usually doesn't reflect reality. This lack of visibility into consumers exact use cases, and the data they depend on, means more friction on a provider side when making changes to an api. Do you make everything backwards compatible, what about a breaking change, do you start versioning? Consumer driven contract testing and Pact provides actionable insight on both sides of the fence. All of that is not withstanding that Pact utilised with the Pact Broker allows you to create a matrix of your codebases at point in times (you deploy a point in time instance of your application) and want to know if its compatible with an dependants in an environment at any one time. That can help prevent breaking changes in communication making their way into higher level environments and forcing that conversation around design and intent of the services earlier in the SDLC (which is arguably much cheaper)

aberman

2023-03-28 19:24

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-03-28 22:01

I?ve written a few posts on this topic also: ? https://pactflow.io/blog/schemas-are-not-contracts/ ? https://pactflow.io/blog/should-i-write-contract-tests-for-client-sdks/

tjones

2023-03-28 22:32

Yes, contract testing can still provide value in this scenario. A well-written contract testing approach will: ? Track which versions are compatible with each other ? Protect against deployments that are broken due to communication issues ? Protect against breaking semantic changes (eg Admin vs ADMIN for a field that accepts strings) If your communication code is autogenerated, then you still need a way to track which versions are compatible with each other. You also need a way to track and prevent breaking changes - most schema based approaches do this with manual rigour. Manual rigour is effective, but fallible. All schema approaches are syntactic rather than semantic - for example, gRPC prevents syntactic breaking changes by ensuring that all fields have default values. However, this is a bit like saying ?all our endpoints use json, so we can?t send incompatible responses?. Just because the payload can be parsed by the consumer doesn?t mean it has meaning to the consumer. Technically, you never need any testing, as all tests are just risk reduction. Schema-based approaches provide some safety over manual implementations, so depending on your needs, the risks might be acceptable. The questions are whether you want to live with the risk of deploying breaking API changes, and whether you are successfully avoiding breaking API changes with your current approaches.

tjones

2023-03-28 22:48

My personal experience is - teams who think they don?t need contract testing because they generate everything from a schema also have really really good on-call practices. They got good at on-call because of all the outages. I prefer not to have the outages.

tjones

2023-03-28 22:49

(your milage may vary - there might be a way to use auto-generated APIs for deployment confidence, but I haven?t yet seen it)

ilia

2023-03-28 23:55

:wave: Hi all, apologies if this seems spammy, we just need your help to spread the word :slightly_smiling_face:

0xoscario

2023-03-29 03:38

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-03-29 19:57

This is _such_ a cool opportunity, to get paid to play in open source and drive both feature sets for our commercial and open source users. If you are on the fence, why not have a chat with @ilia and see where it ends up :slightly_smiling_face:

paddyhendy94

2023-03-30 12:48

has joined #general

haroldrobson11

2023-03-30 13:16

has joined #general

xchen

2023-03-30 15:20

Hi All. I have a question on the pact broker config. Everything works fine if I have this annotation used on the provider verification test class. @PactBroker(scheme = "https", host = "company.test.stp.hmlr.zone", port = "443"). But if I changed it to @PactBroker and add config on my build.gradle. ```pact { broker { pactBrokerUrl = 'https://company.test.stp.hmlr.zone/' }``` the pact broker won't be found. Not sure why it does not work. Please help. Thank you.

jfbosca

2023-03-30 15:26

has joined #general

uglyog

2023-03-30 22:04

`@PactBroker` annotation does not work with the config in the Gradle build file, that is only used by the Gradle plugin. You can use system properties with that annotation. Refer to https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-jvm/tree/master/provider/junit#using-java-system-properties but also take note of https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-jvm/tree/master/provider/junit5#important-note-jvm-system-properties-needs-to-be-set-on-the-test-jvm-if-your-build-is-running-with-gradle-or-maven

constantin.jaeck

2023-03-31 09:34

OK so I got it running and it's actually very nice. Basically I'm doing black-box texting in BDD style where Cucumber + Puppeteer do some click testing, and in the end it spawn some pact files which I upload to our broker. But there is something I find inconvinient with the pact-js api. In the past I remember it was possible to start a pact server and add interactions - in the end verify them. Now the api adds a pact and then every verification spawns a new server. Here I neede to hack my way around it and collect the requests with nock and forward them to the pact server. Is there a way to use the old approach?

tjones

2023-03-31 09:37

I?m on mobile, so short response- but can you collect the requests you want to mock and send them all at once?

tjones

2023-03-31 09:37

Also - sounds cool! Do you have a link we can check out?

constantin.jaeck

2023-03-31 09:38

sadly I've built this for a company internal thing - If I find the time I can create a public example on my private sheet

tjones

2023-03-31 09:39

It sounds like it would be generally useful - maybe your company might want to open source it (I know this isn?t always easy or practical, of course)

tjones

2023-03-31 09:39

A good argument would be future proofing- if you have a custom use of an open source tool, but keep it private, it might not stay compatible

constantin.jaeck

2023-03-31 09:42

I wouldn't consider this one an open source tool - It would be more of a collection of configurations / experient :slightly_smiling_face: - Maybe I find the time on the weekend to recreate it as an pet-shop example

ulises.cervino

2023-03-31 13:24

is anybody doing contract testing against graphql endpoints?

ulises.cervino

2023-03-31 13:25

it's all http with funky protocol inside, sure, but I'm curious about things like provider states (IDs, etc.)

ulises.cervino

2023-03-31 13:26

google does return a few hits (mostly blogs posts with a simple request/response pair that are fairly static), so I'm still wondering

tjones

2023-04-01 06:49

Yes. Pact-js has a wrapper to help

tjones

2023-04-01 06:50

Why would this be different with graphql?

daominhdam

2023-04-01 10:04

has joined #general

edudelta

2023-04-03 08:40

Hi all! Sorry, has contract testing to be made at same language of solution side?

matt.fellows

2023-04-03 08:46

I think you're asking if you create a contract in JS does it need to also be verified in JS? The answer to that question is no, they can be different. They in general should match the language of the code you are testing. E.g. if you have a react JS consumer, the tests should also be JS

jordan.r.stewart

2023-04-03 08:58

I've just noticed that our consumer contracts are being committed to version control. This seems like a bad idea -- when someone deletes or renames a contract, since the change is _merged_ to the contract file, we never get rid of the old contract. I took a look through the docs and can't find anything about this one way or the other (I might have missed something though!) so I just wanted to ask here before I remove them from version control, to make sure I'm not doing something silly . . .

xchen

2023-04-03 09:56

Thanks. @uglyog Now I set system properties for pact broker. It works fine. However, the provider's branch name does not show anymore on the pact broker UI. I have these config on build.gradle. ```serviceProviders { fromPactBroker { withSelectors { branch('poc-contract-testing') } } }``` Please give some suggestions. Many thanks.

edudelta

2023-04-03 09:59

Thank you. But imagine you have Consumer in JS and Provider in .NET. Can I build contract testing only with Java, for instance? (both sides)

edudelta

2023-04-03 10:09

I'm asking because as understood I could raise the consumer by some script with everything needed (docker, mocks) to perform tests written in any language.

matt.fellows

2023-04-03 10:30

Yep, usually no need to check them in I'd you have a broker. It can be helpful in some cases (e.g. if used as stubs)

matt.fellows

2023-04-03 10:30

But most people won't need to

jordan.r.stewart

2023-04-03 10:30

:+1: great, thanks :smile:

matt.fellows

2023-04-03 10:31

It's not recommended. Pact should be thought of as a unit testing tool and used in that context

matt.fellows

2023-04-03 10:31

It's strictly not, but that mindset is what I'd recommend as a good starting point to get the scoping right

yousafn

2023-04-03 11:04

testing closest to the code, in the language the code is written in, will provide the shortest feedback loops and provide stronger guarantees that the mock expectations match reality, and are updated when the code under test is updated. Teams who don't will probably find overlap, your dev team will probably have component integration tests, where they are mocking code.

edudelta

2023-04-03 12:00

Indeed. I wonder if QA guys could go ahead with contract testing, but changing with one language to another is not easy. DEV need to help.

matt.fellows

2023-04-03 12:01

Pact is really a tool for Developers, or at least those that have access to the code base. I?ve never really seen it work well when done outside of the code base. It starts off looking ok, but then it becomes a maintenance issue as the system is evolved

edudelta

2023-04-03 12:01

In this way I saw Spring has modularized contrac testing solution. That could fit any language build in Java only.

matt.fellows

2023-04-03 12:04

Yes, but I?m not convinced you won?t run into the same problems listed above. It?s not a technology problem, it?s a people/organisation problem. When other teams write tests for other people?s code, the maintenance cost/pain is much higher. That?s not to say it?s not valuable, but usually the problem we?re trying to solve here is half created by that problem (the other half is the rest of the pain points associated with E2E tests). You might be interested in something like PactFlow?s https://pactflow.io/bi-directional-contract-testing/ which is a lot more decoupled and alleviates many of these pain points, at the cost of being a bit less strict in terms of guarantees (see https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/bi-directional-contract-testing/#trade-offs)

yousafn

2023-04-03 12:09

It would be more advisable for QA teams to look at the overlap of testing currently being performed, and the endpoints which are subject to change / fail often in integration tests, and work with the developers to advise about the value of contract testing, and utilise that in their codebases, as part of their unit testing strategy. This way you can avoid communication style errors pre deployment, leaving your integration tests to look at the useful business value normally spread out over multiple microservices, safe in the knowledge that each individual service can communicate with its dependants

edudelta

2023-04-03 12:09

One problem that appears is about who should test and this is already covered by many researches and, ok devs covering unit. helping with integration but not about e2e. I'm looking for pushing automation crew to contract tests. at some point I can but some limitations.

matt.fellows

2023-04-03 12:10

> I?m looking for pushing automation crew to contract tests what do you mean by this?

edudelta

2023-04-03 12:11

I'm looking for automation crew that write e2e tests to write contract testing as well.

edudelta

2023-04-03 12:12

so far I got it, by myself. right now I'm wondering limitations.

joseph.gately

2023-04-03 14:14

has joined #general

tjones

2023-04-03 15:08

Pact could probably call out to git and warn if this has happened. Not everyone uses git, but most do, and it would be a nice warning for those who are.

kgrady

2023-04-03 16:28

@erich.buri I haven?t been able to figure out how to implement the interceptor due to this type issue. Let me know if you have any input, thank you!

uglyog

2023-04-03 22:46

Use `pact.provider.branch` to set the branch

matt.fellows

2023-04-04 07:16

> I?m looking for automation crew that write e2e tests to write contract testing as well. gotcha. As stated above, I would highly discourage doing the above. If you?re going to write Pact tests, the developers of the feature should write them. SDET?s are also acceptable if they are appropriately embedded, but again, these tests should be written along with the code being written e.g. TDD

bram.harmsen

2023-04-04 07:20

has joined #general

ulises.cervino

2023-04-04 07:36

it's not, I was wondering about libs that make it nicer than hand-crafted json :slightly_smiling_face:

ulises.cervino

2023-04-04 07:37

cool, the docs seem to suggest that V3 is not yet supported, is this correct?

ulises.cervino

2023-04-04 07:37

tjones

2023-04-04 07:37

Ah yeah. Pact-js has a wrapper, but it?s not very first class

tjones

2023-04-04 07:41

I don?t know, sorry.

xchen

2023-04-04 09:04

Thanks.

edudelta

2023-04-04 09:59

Yes, we have access to the solution, but must of QAs are Java only. this is why I raised this thread. Thank you!

sarah.al-hawi

has joined #general

andrei.enache

has joined #general

sohaib.zahid

has joined #general

behrouz.pooladrak

https://docs.pact.io/selectors

has joined #general

amarpal.amrith

2023-04-04 10:57

has joined #general

laszlo.bogardi

2023-04-04 10:57

has joined #general

erich.buri

2023-04-04 11:37

@kgrady The Interceptor is here: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1679495404915779?thread_ts=1679354578.320799&cid=C5F4KFKR8 Add it like this ```let mockServerUrl = undefined; beforeEach(async () => { mockServerUrl = undefined; const app = await Test.createTestingModule({ imports: [ConfigModule, HttpModule], providers: [ TenantService, HttpConfigService, { provide: 'MOCK_ENV', useValue: false, }, { provide: HTTP_INTERCEPTORS, useValue: new DynamicUrlTestInterceptor(() => mockServerUrl), multi: true, }, ...``` In your test: ``` await mockProvider.executeTest(async mockServer => { mockServerUrl = mockServer.url; const tenant = await lastValueFrom(service.createTenant(requestHeaders, reqBody)); expect(tenant).toStrictEqual(camelCaseObjectKeys(responseBody)); });``` There's nothing I can add to that. The Injection-Token HTTP_INTERCEPTORS and the Base-Class HttpInterceptor are from Angular itself. Maybe add a console.log()-Statement in the intercept()-Method of the DynamicUrlTestInterceptor to better understand what happens and to verify that the actual request comes through there.

caroline.thom

2023-04-04 13:20

has joined #general

jeremy.chao

2023-04-04 14:49

has joined #general

bmdk83

2023-04-04 15:51

has joined #general

maithree.uppunda

2023-04-05 07:50

has joined #general

sivamkumar80

2023-04-05 13:34

has joined #general

vanja.ilic

2023-04-05 14:24

has joined #general

proydimonoff

2023-04-05 14:30

has joined #general

proy

2023-04-05 14:33

has joined #general

kevin.moylan

2023-04-05 16:13

has joined #general

vijaykumar.patel

2023-04-06 06:36

has joined #general

ankit.kumar

2023-04-06 10:55

has joined #general

joye.arbuckle

2023-04-06 14:24

has joined #general

buckley

2023-04-06 18:46

~Hello, I was attempting to debug a contract between two of my services in order to replicate a build issue I was having at the time and one of the steps to do so was to delete the PACTs between them. Now when I run my consumer contract tests, it seems to be using a version of the contract which is supposed to have either been updated or deleted despite the UI showing that this contract does not exist. Does anyone know what's going on with that and how to resolve it?~ (resolved see reply)

buckley

2023-04-06 18:54

This has been resolved. The person who updated the contract (me) failed to fully update it and the error was because the interaction wasn't set up correctly.

allison.stone

2023-04-06 19:36

has joined #general

mayank

2023-04-06 22:11

has joined #general

ganesh.walunj

2023-04-07 06:05

has joined #general

jan.krolikowski

2023-04-07 14:39

has joined #general

mragni.majhwar

2023-04-07 17:51

has joined #general

gonzalo.granizo

2023-04-11 10:13

has joined #general

gonzalo.granizo

2023-04-11 10:24

Hi all! Im having an issue with pact integration that i wasn't having before, suddenly this error appeared and configuration on provider test seems correct so i don't know why its not getting the pact from pactflow `http://au.com.dius.pact.provider.junitsupport.loader.NoPactsFoundException: No Pact files were found to verify` `Provider: pss-paymentMethod-api` `Source: Pact Broker https://adidascdc.pactflow.io`

matt.fellows

2023-04-11 10:30

What selectors are you using?

gonzalo.granizo

2023-04-11 10:34

what do you mean by selectors? :sweat_smile:

matt.fellows

2023-04-11 10:46

matt.fellows

2023-04-11 10:46

Can you please share your provider code setup? That will help

matt.fellows

2023-04-11 10:46

(selectors TL;DR - they tell the broker which pacts to find and verify)

gonzalo.granizo

2023-04-11 10:55

this used to find the pact ```@State("get allowed payment methods")```

gonzalo.granizo

2023-04-11 10:57

and for pactbroker im only using this ```pactbroker: url: https://adidascdc.pactflow.io auth: token: ${PACT_AUTH_TOKEN:w6thoBsoU05quJd_sLJNLw}```

matt.fellows

2023-04-11 11:00

> this used to find the pact > ```@State("get allowed payment methods")``` This is just the state annotation.

matt.fellows

2023-04-11 11:01

can you please share the wider java class?

gonzalo.granizo

2023-04-11 11:09

```package com.adidas.pays.orchestration.service.rest.pact; import static org.mockito.ArgumentMatchers.any; import au.com.dius.pact.provider.junit5.PactVerificationContext; import au.com.dius.pact.provider.junitsupport.Provider; import au.com.dius.pact.provider.junitsupport.State; import au.com.dius.pact.provider.junitsupport.loader.PactBroker; import au.com.dius.pact.provider.spring.junit5.PactVerificationSpringProvider; import au.com.dius.pact.provider.spring.junit5.WebTestClientTarget; import lombok.SneakyThrows; import org.junit.jupiter.api.BeforeEach; import org.junit.jupiter.api.TestTemplate; import org.junit.jupiter.api.extension.ExtendWith; import org.mockito.Mockito; import org.springframework.beans.factory.annotation.Autowired; import org.springframework.test.web.reactive.server.WebTestClient; import org.springframework.util.ResourceUtils; import org.springframework.validation.beanvalidation.SpringValidatorAdapter; import reactor.core.publisher.Mono; import com.adidas.pays.orchestration.service.dto.response.checkout.regular.AllowedPaymentMethodsResponse; import com.adidas.pays.orchestration.service.rest.PaymentOrderController; @Provider("pss-paymentMethod-api") @PactBroker class PaymentOrderControllerVerifyPactTest extends AbstractVerifyPactTest { @Autowired PaymentOrderController paymentOrderController; @Override @BeforeEach protected void beforeEach(PactVerificationContext context) { super.beforeEach(context); client = WebTestClient.bindToController(paymentOrderController) .controllerAdvice(exceptionAdvice) .validator(new SpringValidatorAdapter(validator)) .build(); context.setTarget(new WebTestClientTarget(client)); } @TestTemplate @ExtendWith(PactVerificationSpringProvider.class) void verifyPact(PactVerificationContext context) { context.verifyInteraction(); } @State("get allowed payment methods") void getAllowedPaymentMethods() { Mockito.when(allowedPaymentMethodsService.allowedPaymentMethods(any())) .thenReturn(buildAllowedPaymentMethods()); } @SneakyThrows private Mono<AllowedPaymentMethodsResponse> buildAllowedPaymentMethods() { return Mono.just(objectMapper.readValue( ResourceUtils.getFile("classpath:pacts/allowed-payment-methods-response.json"), AllowedPaymentMethodsResponse.class)); } }```

matt.fellows

2023-04-11 11:24

hmm

matt.fellows

2023-04-11 11:24

looks like you?re using the default selectors - that?s probably OK but not ideal

matt.fellows

2023-04-11 11:27

ignoring that for now, could you please set the log levels to debug, and share the output here? (please redact any important info)

matt.fellows

2023-04-11 11:29

(on selectors, see also https://docs.pact.io/provider/recommended_configuration)

theburningmonk

2023-04-11 11:29

has joined #general

helenarodcal

2023-04-11 11:31

has joined #general

gonzalo.granizo

2023-04-11 11:37

2023-04-11 13:34:18.758 DEBUG [orchestration-service, ] 80318 --- [ main] h.i.i.PoolingHttpClientConnectionManager : ep-0000000003 connection released [route: {s}->https://adidascdc.pactflow.io:443][total available: 1; route allocated: 1 of 5; total allocated: 1 of 25]

gonzalo.granizo

2023-04-11 11:38

could this mean that there's 1 pact available?

gonzalo.granizo

2023-04-11 11:39

i also tried putting tag @IgnoreNoPactsToVerify and i get this: `java.lang.NullPointerException: Cannot invoke "http://au.com.dius.pact.provider.junit5.PactVerificationContext.setTarget(http://au.com.dius.pact.provider.junit5.TestTarget)" because "context" is null`

matt.fellows

2023-04-11 11:44

mmm, not sure about that last exception sorry - that might be a question for #pact-jvm

matt.fellows

2023-04-11 11:44

as for the logs, that doesn?t seem like a problem - any chance you could get the entire test run log?

gonzalo.granizo

2023-04-11 11:50

this is the full log

matt.fellows

2023-04-11 11:57

thanks, but i?ve just deleted it, as you didn?t redact the token

matt.fellows

2023-04-11 11:57

(I have a copy locally, but please be careful going forward)

matt.fellows

2023-04-11 12:01

Are you sure that?s the right log? I?m seeing a request for `pss-api` in the logs

gonzalo.granizo

2023-04-11 12:03

thanks for your help Matt! we created a new pact in pactflow with a tag and now specifying the tag in the provider its working :slightly_smiling_face:

enver.yasar

2023-04-11 13:39

has joined #general

christian.ledgard

2023-04-11 13:49

has joined #general

ddongre

2023-04-11 15:09

has joined #general

prajapati.pravesh

2023-04-12 02:55

has joined #general

edwin.raju

2023-04-12 08:13

has joined #general

john.hennigan

2023-04-12 08:16

has joined #general

donald.robertson

2023-04-12 10:42

has joined #general

tam.norris

2023-04-12 10:46

has joined #general

gopijaganathan7

2023-04-13 07:27

has joined #general

varnit.garg2424

2023-04-13 09:55

Hello, I would like your opinion about this use case: We have a provider service that exposes one POST endpoint, let?s say `/makePayment` That endpoint takes in two input parameters i.e, _payment_token_ and _customer_id_ Whenever consumer service hits that endpoint, provider internally calls a third party service(external vendor) to make the payment based on payment token and customer id. And returns the response accordingly. The catch is that each payment_token can be used only once. And 3rd party service doesn?t provide a dummy/static token, and there exists a way to call an endpoint in 3rd party staging env to generate the token. My point is that while generating the contract tests in consumer side, we don?t know have payment_token. So, how should I approach this problem? One way I could think is to mock 3rd party service in provider side and carry out the tests. However, if I would like to avoid mocking and want to call staging env of 3rd party service from provider service, then is it feasible to carry out contract testing?

lewis.prescott079

2023-04-13 10:32

I've just released the latest episode of my podcast. A conversation on OpenAPI specifications: https://www.pactman.co.uk/contract-testing-podcast/episode/1bbcff5c/openapi-specification-with-tobias-muller

matt.fellows

2023-04-13 10:39

You shouldn't rely on the presence of live systems for contract tests, that introduces a level of non determinism. That is, stubbing is the preferred approach here. If you must do so, consider an approach (perhaps using provider states) to dynamically replace the token at verification time

varnit.garg2424

2023-04-13 10:42

Thanks for the response, @matt.fellows If we go with live system - Is it possible to override the data in input request using provider state?

varnit.garg2424

2023-04-13 10:46

Actually, it makes sense to stub out the dependencies! Will proceed that way. Thanks! :slightly_smiling_face:

lukaszmalek90

2023-04-13 11:40

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-04-13 11:52

Awesome, looking forward to giving this a listen buddy. We will share it on our networks too

tjones

2023-04-13 12:43

Yep, usually you would do this with a provider state - like ?`DUMMY_TOKEN` is a valid authentication token? and stub out the dependencies

tjones

2023-04-13 12:43

(you can then also write contract tests for the dependencies, if you want :raised_hands:)

nickwilliamsqa

2023-04-13 16:15

has joined #general

2023-04-13 17:01

This message was deleted.

nickwilliamsqa

2023-04-13 17:02

Example of inheritance & references in the spec: ```"Parent": { "description": "Parent schema", "type": "object", "required": ["id", "activities"], "properties": { "id": { "type": "integer", "example": 3, "enum": [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16], "nullable": false }, "activities": { "type": "array", "nullable": false, "minimum": 1, "items": { "type": "string", "example": "6AA2A3B9-66BD-447C-90C8-A350F60D592B" } } } }, "Child": { "description": "", "allOf": [{ "$ref": "#/components/schemas/Parent" }], "type": "object", "properties": { "id": { "type": "integer", "enum": [3] }, "activities": { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "string", "enum": [ "value", "another value" ] } } } }``` Example of keyword & circular references: ```"properties": { "project_type": { "type": "object", "nullable": true, "oneOf": [{ "$ref": "#/components/schemas/Category" }] } } .... "schemas": { "Category": { "type": "object", "required": ["short_name"], "properties": { "short_name": { "type": "string", "nullable": false, "example": "test" }, "child": { "nullable": true, "allOf": [{ "$ref": "#/components/schemas/Category" }] } } } }```

tjones

2023-04-13 17:05

This is a pactflow feature, you probably want to put it in #pactflow

guozhangliew

2023-04-14 02:03

has joined #general

praboo.p

2023-04-14 07:17

has joined #general

florenciaaldana.rodri

2023-04-14 08:10

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-04-14 11:08

Anyone using webhookless workflows out in the wild?

yousafn

2023-04-14 11:46

Was a great listen Tobias is lovely, his parting comments made me chuckle :slightly_smiling_face:

tjones

2023-04-14 13:08

I have never used the webhooks. AMA

yousafn

2023-04-14 13:09

1. Why are you awake night :owl: :sweat_smile: (jk - pot calling the kettle black) 2. When a consumer contract changes, assuming you are using a regular CDCT flow, where you use Pact to verify your provider, how are you triggering the provider build to return verification results

yousafn

2023-04-14 13:10

oh 11pm that isn't too bad - timezones shifting everywhere at the moment

yousafn

2023-04-14 13:11

Does anyone, or have you used providers on a cron or something similar to pick up contracts requiring verification (via include work in progress pacts) or similar?

pact544

2023-04-14 14:54

I've used webhookless before with Teamcity where the provider has a snapshot and artifact dependency on the consumer, so each time a new consumer version is built the provider automatically runs verification also

taher.kapasi

2023-04-14 15:53

has joined #general

michael385

2023-04-14 16:40

has joined #general

jean.paiva42

2023-04-14 20:26

hey peeps, I was able to use the pact-provider-verifier for a while now, but this week I had to go through a DELETE endpoint and I notice that things on the provider side froze and I couldn?t see any result. Did anyone see this issue before and know how can I avoid it? This DELETE request has a body on it. I read a little on the matter and I saw this open issue: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/484 Considering that I am using the agnostic implementation of the provider, is there anything I could do?

tjones

2023-04-14 23:50

If all services are under active development, you don?t need to trigger verification, you can just wait for a new build to happen. If your contract isn?t changing, you don?t need to trigger verification either. If the contract is changing, but the provider isn?t under active development (unlikely, but does happen), other options I have used: ? you can tie the builds together (I think this was also teamcity, but I don?t remember). This wouldn?t scale well to hundreds of services ? Manual build kickoff (doesn?t scale well at all) ? Schedule the verification to run every X minutes (kind of a hack) Most of the time I?ve been working in the situation where active development is happening in both services, so it?s not really a problem to not use the webhooks. Clearly the webhooks would be better than all of the above, as you?d be able to do immediate deploy checks or whatever. But most of the time I don?t think you need them

tjones

2023-04-14 23:55

the key point is - you only need to kick off the provider verification if: ? you are changing the contract, and ? you want to try to deploy immediately You only need to do this with a webhook if the provider is not under active development. If the provider is not under active development, and is not compatible with the contract, the deploy check will fail anyway. So, the only case that matters is if the provider is _already_ compatible with the new contract - say the development finished before the pact was published. I try to use contract tests in a TDD way, so usually the consumer team have published the contract before the provider team does the work. Which means we?d get no benefit from the webhooks. Which in turn means I have never got around to figuring out how they work - the benefit isn?t worth the investment. If I already knew how the webhooks worked, I?d use them every time, probably. I imagine they?re not difficult to set up.

tjones

2023-04-14 23:57

This webhookless strategy has the advantage that it encourages consumer-driven API development, I suppose.

tjones

2023-04-15 00:01

Yes, you can change the consumer to not send a delete with a body. HTTP doesn?t support this.

tjones

2023-04-15 00:02

certain clients _might_ support it, and certain servers _might_ understand it. But you can?t be sure.

tjones

2023-04-15 00:02

And the http rfc says they don?t have to support it.

matt.fellows

2023-04-15 01:47

Yep, it's all very vague when you send a body on a DELETE or a GET. Best avoiding it I've actually seen a case before where a consumer sends a body but the provider ignores it. It's worth checking, because then you know the body is redundant and you can just do what is explicitly supported by the RFC (and frankly, what is standard practice)

darrenoc3

2023-04-15 03:46

has joined #general

guozhangliew

2023-04-17 00:18

Hi my CI is having the following error when I am using the `pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest` docker image ```/usr/lib/ruby/gems/3.1.0/gems/pact_broker-client-1.66.1/lib/pact_broker/client/hal/http_client.rb:49:in `create_request': undefined method `request_uri' for #<URI::Generic //pact.dev.stackjourney.xyz/contracts/publish> (NoMethodError) request = Net::HTTP.const_get(http_method).new(uri.request_uri) ^^^^^^^^^^^^``` I have searched through all issues in the pact foundation github space this is the docker command I used ```docker run -t -i --rm --init --volume .. --env PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL --env PACT_BROKER_USERNAME --env PACT_BROKER_PASSWORD --env GIT_BRANCH=gz/FEAT-69/brokerclient/1 pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest /bin/sh -e -c $'pact-broker help\npact-broker publish backend/pacts --tag-with-git-branch'```

matt.fellows

2023-04-17 00:28

> ```//pact.dev.stackjourney.xyz/contracts/publish``` > my guess is the URL is ill-formatted

guozhangliew

2023-04-17 00:29

does it need https in front of it? I defined my base url this way `PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL=https://pact.dev.stackjourney.xyz`

matt.fellows

2023-04-17 01:25

Yep, it does

matt.fellows

2023-04-17 01:25

I?d suggest adding the `--verbose` flag to your command. My guess is that the arguments being passed aren?t quite what you were wanting

guozhangliew

2023-04-17 02:25

looks like my broker didnt defined https infront of the url but its working now thanks!

ones.ardo

2023-04-17 07:58

has joined #general

deeptiagrawal

2023-04-17 23:31

has joined #general

madhukar.koratagere

2023-04-18 06:24

has joined #general

mahesh.damavarapu

2023-04-18 06:26

has joined #general

haroldrobson11

2023-04-18 09:48

Hi I noticed on my API the pact verifier is making two sets of requests to run one test: ```2023-04-18 10:44:07 "POST /_pact/provider_states HTTP/1.1" 200 4 "-" "Faraday v1.10.3" 2023-04-18 10:44:07 [INFO] base.py(270): POST http://elasticsearch:9200/battery.notification*/_search [status:200 request:0.024s] 2023-04-18 10:44:07 "GET /battery-notifications?limit=100&offset=0&id=36baa499-ce79-4c03-96e3-93a90fb7f1d9 HTTP/1.1" 200 309 "-" "-" 2023-04-18 10:44:28 "POST /_pact/provider_states HTTP/1.1" 200 47 "-" "Faraday v1.10.3" 2023-04-18 10:44:30 [INFO] base.py(270): POST http://elasticsearch:9200/battery.notification*/_search [status:200 request:0.047s] 2023-04-18 10:44:30 "GET /battery-notifications?limit=100&offset=0&id=36baa499-ce79-4c03-96e3-93a90fb7f1d9 HTTP/1.1" 200 309 "-" "-"``` My provider states endpoint is set to return after a 20 second delay to give my app time to be ready but it seems that the verifier is using the result from the first request before the app was ready, and the test is failing because there is no data available yet. test output for the above log: ```Verifying a pact between fleet and battery-api Given Fleet has a list of notifications a request for notifications with GET /battery-notifications?limit=100&offset=0&id=36baa499-ce79-4c03-96e3-93a90fb7f1d9 returns a response which has status code 200 has a matching body includes headers "Content-Type" which equals "application/json" 1 interaction, 0 failures WARN: Ignoring unsupported combine AND for path $['vehicle_id'][0] WARN: Ignoring unsupported combine AND for path $``` It shows 1 interaction but two are always happening behind the scenes. I can see all my test data is duplicated twice in the local instance of the app. It shows no failure locally because my app is now full of this data but in CI where it is a fresh instance, it always fails with: ```Matching keys and values are not shown 791 { 792 - "notifications": [ 793 - { 794 - "id": "e2490de5-5bd3-43d5-b7c4-526e33f71304", ... 806 - }, 807 + "notifications": [, 808 +``` Can anybody advise me please?

matt.fellows

2023-04-18 09:58

Can you please share the pact file that is being replayed here? Also, please set the logs to debug/verbose and share (redacting any private info)

matt.fellows

2023-04-18 09:59

Please share the full log output, I appreciate you?re trying to be succinct/helpful, but the long form logs will be most helpful I think here

haroldrobson11

2023-04-18 10:26

OK the verbose log in CI actually shows ```Failures: ... 3) Verifying a pact between fleet and battery-api Given Fleet has a list of notifications a request for notifications with GET /battery-notifications?limit=100&offset=0&vehicle_id=36baa499-ce79-4c03-96e3-93a90fb7f1d9 returns a response which includes headers "Content-Type" which equals "application/json" Failure/Error: set_up_provider_states interaction.provider_states, options[:consumer] Pact::ProviderVerifier::SetUpProviderStateError: Error setting up provider state 'Fleet has a list of notifications' for consumer 'fleet' at http://localhost:8000/_pact/provider_states. response status=500 response body={"message": "Internal Server Error"} # ./bin/pact:15:in `<top (required)>' 1 interaction, 1 failure``` That's interesting, I don't get an internal server error in the local Verbose log It's not a Pact issue then it's something to do with my environment.

haroldrobson11

2023-04-18 10:31

Though I would still be curious why it seems to make duplicate requests when running locally

haroldrobson11

2023-04-18 10:32

the verbose log shows two runs but no clear reason why and in the ordinary log that all gets rolled up into one result

haroldrobson11

2023-04-18 10:36

It seems to be running some other version of this pact

matt.fellows

2023-04-18 11:07

ah!

matt.fellows

2023-04-18 11:07

> docker run --net=host -e VERBOSE=?true? -e PACT_DO_NOT_TRACK=?true? pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest verify ?https://pact.dev.somedomain/pacts/provider/battery-api/consumer/fleet/version/a97efee-QE-74-batterycontracts+a97efee.SNAPSHOT.runner-5ybevqbc-project-456-concurrent-3? --pact-broker-base-url=https://pact.dev.somedomain/ --provider-base-url=http://localhost:8000 --provider-states-setup-url=http://localhost:8000/_pact/provider_states --provider=battery-api You?re providing the broker information to _dynamically_ discover pacts, _and_ you?re passing in the specific URL

matt.fellows

2023-04-18 11:08

So it?s discovering two pacts, one dynamically: > The pact at https://pact.dev.somedomain/pacts/provider/battery-api/consumer/fleet/pact-version/912bb33eea2af5694ce93c3c7b5517c4be3e7ad9 is being verified because the pact content belongs to the consumer version matching the following criterion: > * latest version of fleet from the main branch ?develop? (1b87217-featuremoving-status-embedded+1b87217.SNAPSHOT.runner-5ybevqbc-project-456-concurrent-2) and > INFO: Reading pact at https://pact.dev.somedomain/pacts/provider/battery-api/consumer/fleet/version/a97efee-QE-74-batterycontracts+a97efee.SNAPSHOT.runner-5ybevqbc-project-456-concurrent-3 The one you _explicitly_ asked for

matt.fellows

2023-04-18 11:08

If you want to dynamically discover pacts, don?t pass the Pact URL explicitly (and you should pass in additional selectors). If you only want to verify a specific URL, don?t provide the pact broker details

haroldrobson11

2023-04-18 12:07

Ah, thank you Matt that's really helpful. I think in my implementation it makes sense to validate only the explicitly named pact because this is supposed to run in the context of a webhook from the broker to GitLab done at the time the pact changes. So in my mind, a new Pact is generated on the consumer pipeline, and that is the one I want validated, I don't really care about any other version. Does that make sense or am I doing it wrong? How do I stop it retrieving the pacts automatically? I still want the verification results to be published so I would need to provide the broker details for that wouldn't I?

haroldrobson11

2023-04-18 12:14

Maybe it would be easiest to remove the explicitly named Pact if the automatically retrieved one will always be the latest, which it should be. Though I don't necessarily want the latest, I want the one that relates to a specific upstream branch of the consumer build. So I think I am right to pass in the Pact uRL

yousafn

2023-04-18 12:26

How do all! Have you written a post about Pact, created an open source Pact repo or seen any interesting articles lately? If so, let us know :slightly_smiling_face:

haroldrobson11

2023-04-18 12:29

The command in CI is currently ```docker run --net=host -e VERBOSE='true' -e PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL=https://pact.dev.somedomain/ -e PACT_DO_NOT_TRACK=true pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest verify "$PACT_URL" --provider-base-url=http://localhost:8000 --provider-states-setup-url=http://localhost:8000/_pact/provider_states --provider-version=$CI_COMMIT_SHA --publish```

paul.caplan

2023-04-18 14:52

has joined #general

haroldrobson11

2023-04-18 16:49

I am having an issue with publishing verification results because the tag and version don't exist on the broker yet: ```<- "PUT /pacticipants/battery-api/versions/8d80c2b631939740976bcbf27f05049b86a16dcc/tags/ HTTP/1.1\r\nAccept-Encoding: gzip;q=1.0,deflate;q=0.6,identity;q=0.3\r\nAccept: application/hal+json\r\nUser-Agent: Ruby\r\nContent-Type: application/json\r\nHost: http://pact.dev.ieu.intelematics.club\r\nContent-Length: 0\r\n\r\n" <- "" -> "HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found\r\n"``` Can't it create these dynamically?

yousafn

2023-04-18 21:16

Couple of shout outs if those with ARM machines fancy lending a hand testing :+1: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9VHVEDE1/p1681852451573069 https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9VPNUJR2/p1681852532785979

matt.fellows

2023-04-19 02:03

It should create the tag on the version dynamically. That?s what I _think_ that `PUT` is doing. But the URL looks suspect. It has a 0 length content (i.e. no body) so I?d expect the tag to be the last segment in the URL, but it?s missing. My guess is that you haven?t populated the tag value correctly

matt.fellows

2023-04-19 02:04

Can you please add `--verbose` or `DEBUG` level logs, and share the redacted output? My guess is the command is invoked incorrectly

matt.fellows

2023-04-19 02:06

this is AWESOME Yousaf! The yaks that had to be shaved to get this going is :chefkiss:

matt.fellows

2023-04-19 02:20

> How do I stop it retrieving the pacts automatically? I still want the verification results to be published so I would need to provide the broker details for that wouldn?t I? the verification results will be published as long as you set the flag for it. Because the URL is a PactBroker URL, it will have the HAL relations in the response, and the verifier will use that URL to publish results.

matt.fellows

2023-04-19 02:21

To stop it using the dynamic lookup, just drop off the `--pact-broker-base-url` arg

matt.fellows

2023-04-19 02:22

> Maybe it would be easiest to remove the explicitly named Pact if the automatically retrieved one will always be the latest, which it should be. Though I don?t necessarily want the latest, I want the one that relates to a specific upstream branch of the consumer build. So I think I am right to pass in the Pact uRL (edited) that?s right. You?re doing the right thing, but you just _don?t_ want to dynamically retrieve pacts for the webhook (and the reverse for regular builds)

matt.fellows

2023-04-19 02:23

See https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/ci-cd and the specific build that is triggered in that example: https://github.com/pactflow/example-provider/blob/master/.github/workflows/contract_requiring_verification_published.yml and https://github.com/pactflow/example-provider/blob/master/src/product/product.consumerChange.pact.test.js

cars2991

2023-04-19 02:42

has joined #general

vaidas.sieber

2023-04-19 06:42

has joined #general

jonathandelaros

2023-04-19 07:40

has joined #general

priyaranjanmudliar

2023-04-19 09:05

has joined #general

priyaranjanmudliar

2023-04-19 09:11

:wave: Hi everyone!

priyaranjanmudliar

2023-04-19 09:19

My team in the organization works in erlang and we have taken an initiative towards using Pact as a contract testing tool for http communication as well as message based communication between services (which can be erlang based or non erlang based). I along with the help of some other folks in my team has done PoC for this as well, and now we want to create a library ?Pact-erlang? so that other erlang folks in the community can use this as well !! And for that I would need help from you guys :smiley:

tjones

2023-04-19 09:29

What kind of help do you need?

priyaranjanmudliar

2023-04-19 09:38

Hey @tjones, thanks for asking. Firstly, the PoC i have done is on my local machine which is mac, and during consumer side testing (which also will write the pact after all unit tests are complete), i start up the pact-mock-provider service via erlang as part of my unit test initialization and before my unit tests are executed, it should be up and running. I faced issues permission issues when executing the pact-mock-service binary via erlang. I had to manually allow these binaries in system-preferences, and only then i was able to start up the pact-mock-provider. Can you tell me a better way to handle this ?

tjones

2023-04-19 09:39

I?m not actually a maintainer any more, but I can give some pointers.

tjones

2023-04-19 09:39

Which library are you using?

tjones

2023-04-19 09:40

It sounds like you might be using the Ruby service, which is to be deprecated

tjones

2023-04-19 09:40

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference

priyaranjanmudliar

2023-04-19 09:40

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-mock_service I am using this as the mock-provider

tjones

2023-04-19 09:41

Right, yeah. I would recommend using the Rust implementation, as it has more features

tjones

2023-04-19 09:42

It exposes a C API which you can probably link against. This is what pact-js and pact-net do.

tjones

2023-04-19 09:42

And pact-go too, I think

priyaranjanmudliar

2023-04-19 09:42

ohh i see, so you are saying I should use FFIs ?

tjones

2023-04-19 09:43

That?s the pattern, yeah

tjones

2023-04-19 09:43

I think there?s a guide somewhere

tjones

2023-04-19 09:44

Hm, I can?t find the guide

tjones

2023-04-19 09:45

If an example would help, here?s how pact-js does the verification: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js-core/blob/master/src/verifier/nativeVerifier.ts

tjones

2023-04-19 09:46

The consumer is quite a bit more complex: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js-core/blob/master/src/consumer/index.ts

tjones

2023-04-19 09:46

You?ll also need the ability to create matchers. I don?t believe these are documented, but a good resource for them is pact-js?s matcher code. Let me get you a link

tjones

2023-04-19 09:48

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/master/src/v3/matchers.ts

priyaranjanmudliar

2023-04-19 09:50

I have some experience of js, let me go through this implementation then

tjones

2023-04-19 09:51

> I had to manually allow these binaries in system-preferences, and only then i was able to start up the pact-mock-provider. In short, I think you can avoid this by incorporating Pact into your erlang package (module? I don?t know what erlang calls them) instead of invoking a separate binary

tjones

2023-04-19 09:51

The Rust core will do its own spin up and teardown of the server, so you won?t need to muck about in your test harness

tjones

2023-04-19 09:52

I was involved in some (but not all) of the conversion of pact-js to the Rust core, so I should be able to answer some (but not all) of your questions

tjones

2023-04-19 09:52

(if you have them)

priyaranjanmudliar

2023-04-19 09:53

I see, thanks a lot, much appreciated. I guess my first step should be looking the js implementation and take inspiration from there

priyaranjanmudliar

2023-04-19 09:54

as it uses FFIs , which also supports message pacts

tjones

2023-04-19 09:54

I?m also working on an alternative contract testing framework, that is philosophically compatible with Pact (and definitely compatible with the Pact broker). I?m currently working on the cross-language boundary, which isn?t ready for consumption yet. But, it?s designed to be easier to create wrappers for

tjones

2023-04-19 09:54

I would start with Pact, though, as it?s ready today

tjones

2023-04-19 09:55

(and has a well established community)

tjones

2023-04-19 09:56

You can follow it here if you?re interested: https://case.contract-testing.io/docs/intro

tjones

2023-04-19 09:57

it works today in JS, but it?s very beta.

ajaydiwakar.ka

2023-04-19 10:11

has joined #general

meghaagr

2023-04-19 10:13

has joined #general

alanbos

2023-04-19 11:01

Hi - I'm looking for some advice on using pact for contracts between a _library_ and a provider; specifically whether the following approach makes sense. Suppose I've created some library components that contain in-built REST calls to a provider pacticipant. These components would then be used in multiple apps. I want to write consumer pact tests for the library itself and publish the results to the broker, which would then record the contract in the usual way. Then I assume verifying pacts in the provider would work as usual, its just more contracts tagged with a different consumer (the library). Assuming I now have an app _X_ that uses this library _L_. Normally (the non-library case) when I check whether I can deploy a component _X_ to a given environment _E_ I would use `absolute-version` to get the version _V_ of _X_ and then do something like this: ```./pact-broker can-i-deploy --to-environment=E --pacticipant=X --version=V``` However, if my consumer contracts that _X_ relies on are inside the library _L_, I assume the equivalent check would be (assuming _L_ is at versions _Lv_, and that _X_ doesn't have any consumer contracts of its own): ```./pact-broker can-i-deploy --to-environment=E --pacticipant=L --version=Lv``` To make this work, my deployment script for _X_ needs to know the "pact identity" of the library _L_ (which is not a big deal), but also needs to know the the "pact version" of _L_. Typically I have used "git version" for pact versions (i.e. something based on the branch+tag+commits_since_tag) as that unambiguously defines the code state of the pacticipant. In that setup, my deployment script just uses `npx absolute-version` to compute _V_. In the case of a library being the pacticipant, that technique isn't going to work (since the script in running in a git repo for _X_, not _L_). This would mean that _L_ would need a different pact versioning approach that didn't rely on git state (e.g. a maven version or an node package version of the library component itself). Such versions must change if the contracts change in any way; in the git versioning approach above this happens automatically, but in the maven/package versioning approach I must increment the version when I make contract-changing modifications to the library. And then ensure that new version is incorporated into my deploy script for _X_. Does that sound like the right approach, or are there better ways to approach this? tia

haroldrobson11

2023-04-19 12:33

Ah yes, the root cause was because I passed in --provider-version-tag="$CI_BRANCH" instead of --provider-version-tag="$CI_COMMIT_BRANCH"

tjones

2023-04-19 12:43

The important question here is ?is it safe to deploy service X?, - to answer that question whether or not you?re using a library is kind of a side point. What you _could_ do is distribute the Pact with the library, and then publish that artefact from the library on each consumer build - so that the library?s Pact would be associated with the consumer version. I?m not sure if you?d have to rewrite the part of the Pact file that says what the consumer name is (or whether that?s rewritten during upload).

tjones

2023-04-19 12:46

One issue with using the Pact of the library is that you?re not actually testing what the consumer is actually using - you?re now testing what the consumer _might_ use. You could avoid this by writing contract tests in each consumer (regardless of whether or not it?s using a library), but I think that?s a bit clumsy and kind of defeats the purpose of using a library in the first place.

tjones

2023-04-19 12:47

Alternatively - if you know the version of the library at the time of trying to deploy service X, you could use the https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/recording_deployments_and_releases#recording-releases part of can-i-deploy - which is unlike `deployment` in that you can have multiple releases of that application out in one environment.

tjones

2023-04-19 12:49

It?s intended for things like mobile consumers, where you have multiple versions live at once. However, you might have to build a bit of machinery to count the number of applications using each specific version, so that you know when to `record-support-ended`

alanbos

2023-04-19 12:53

Many thanks @tjones for your thoughts; I did consider the contract test in each consumer approach but as you point out it kind of defeats the purpose of having a library and seems very brittle. I like the idea of including the pact with the library, so that each consumer can appropriate the contracts therein and claim them as its own. I'll dig into that approach a little more.

tjones

2023-04-19 12:55

You?re welcome! Let us know how you go

hcummins

2023-04-19 12:58

has joined #general

tjones

2023-04-19 12:59

Also, thanks for using `absolute-version`! Maybe I can ask you a couple questions if you don?t mind - 1) In semver, the prerelease information (between the `-` and the `+`) is supposed to define an order - to this end, I?m thinking I should move the commits since release to be after the branch name. It?s not an exact ordering, because two copies of the same branch might have the same number of (different) commits. This would of course be a breaking change. Do you think it?s an improvement? 2) I?m thinking of replacing the `SNAPSHOT` string with `DIRTY` so that it better reflects the purpose. What do you think? 3) Would a strict mode where it would fail if there was no tags found be useful to you?

michael.dasilva

2023-04-19 13:13

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-04-19 13:14

Hey @hcummins, I wondered at what point you might join us after all the awesome presentations - welcome!

hcummins

2023-04-19 13:15

Thanks!

matt.fellows

2023-04-19 13:15

oh it has a logo - awesome Tim!

alanbos

2023-04-19 13:16

I've not got a strong opinion on (2) or (3), assuming in the latter case the default behaviour is the same as it is now. On (1) I might be misunderstanding what you're saying; in e.g. `2.2.0-develop+2.97baa48` isn't the commits since release (`2`) already after the branch name (`develop`)? That said, from my own perspective I don't think the current format is an issue for the way we are operating with pact, so I would be wary of any changes that broke existing behaviours. On the subject of `absolute-version`, the thing I struggled with was the impact of tagging a release in git on version numbers; e.g. with the above example adding a no-change release tag of `2.2.1` to the `develop` branch means that the versions `2.2.0-develop+2.97baa48` and `2.2.1-develop` are "identical" in contract terms but it took a bit of thinking through to deal with that explicitly in build/deploy scripts.

matt.fellows

2023-04-19 13:17

Thanks for those tips Tim. @priyaranjanmudliar - we are about to kickoff some work around maintainer experience. The key artifacts to emerge from this will be a guide for maintainers, and a BDD suite to use as a basis to test your implementation. In lieu of that, your best bet is to follow a previous implementation (as Tim has suggested) and jump in #libpact_ffi-users - we can help. There are a few others on this journey, such as @tien.xuan.vo working on PHP. We?re here to help, it might be a little bumpy given the lack of good maintainer docs. But you?re not the first to do it

tjones

2023-04-19 13:31

for 1 - yes, it is after, but _technically_ it should be `2.0.0-develop.2+97baa48`, because the prerelease part is supposed to define an ordering, but the build metadata after `+` doesn?t. I do agree, though. I don?t like the idea of mucking with the format too much. > the impact of tagging a release in git on version numbers Ah yeah. That?s something I?ve been meaning to call out in the documentation. It?s absolute in that each version number identifies (in a human readable way) one specific unique place in the repository history. But one specific unique place in the history might have more than one absolute-version.

tjones

2023-04-19 13:31

That subtlety wasn?t obvious to me when I wrote it, either :laughing:

tjones

2023-04-19 13:35

> are ?identical? in contract terms but it took a bit of thinking through to deal with that explicitly in build/deploy scripts. There?s a neat Broker subtlety too - if you upload identical contracts, it doesn?t need to re-verify them. But you?re right in that if you go: ? Publish contract ? Bump version ? Can-i-deploy Then the broker will say it doesn?t know that version :confused:

alanbos

2023-04-19 13:38

Yeah let's just say it has been a "learning experience" dealing with the fallout from tagging release versions :slightly_smiling_face: On the other point, if I understand correctly that the format difference is just between using `.` and `+` in the version string at that point, I would avoid breaking it if it doesn't need fixing. Or, add a new optional switch to `absolute-version` which can force the new format if there are important justifications for it?

tjones

2023-04-19 13:42

I?m keen to avoid increasing the API surface to support lots of options (I?m even nervous about a `--strict` option). The use case for the `.` to `+` change is if anyone is using the between-release versions to (slightly inaccurately) programatically reason about which version is more recent. One advantage of leaving it like it is is that people won?t be encouraged to do that :joy: Thanks for the chat. I reckon I?ll leave it as-is.

tjones

2023-04-19 13:42

I?ll make a note to fix up the documentation, though

ivana.lazic

2023-04-19 14:04

has joined #general

vakong13

2023-04-19 16:15

has joined #general

cars2991

2023-04-19 18:36

Is the can I deploy tool available with the OSS version?

matt.fellows

2023-04-19 21:16

Yep!

ravinder.kadiyan

2023-04-20 09:56

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-04-20 11:12

woop woop! pact erlang sound very cool! no overly familiar with erlang but you might want to take a look at https://github.com/elitau/pact_elixir

yousafn

2023-04-20 11:14

i haven?t used it or studied the code so your mileage might vary. we?ve had a fair few over the last couple of weeks asking about the ffi implementation, details on how to use it as a consumer and some reference documentation. the code for me has always been the best source of truth, but appreciate its hard if you don?t know where to look. i?m going to look at setting up an bit of an intro / workshop and tutorial, can i assume that you would be interested? cc: @adam.cox i think you asked about this re pact-cplus-plus

adam.cox

2023-04-20 13:05

@yousafn yes a few people in my team have been using the ffi in C++ to create sync message pacts. intro / workshop and tutorial with some reference documentation would be much appreciated on our side I think. We have managed to put something together by reading the source code but it has been a bit trial and error

alfredo.castro

2023-04-20 13:27

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-04-20 13:57

Let?s make it happen. Great idea Yousaf

priyaranjanmudliar

2023-04-20 13:59

I would be very much interested in this if it happens !!

priyaranjanmudliar

2023-04-20 14:01

But before that I would want to go through the JS implementation myself, so that i have context before any such session

priyaranjanmudliar

2023-04-20 14:04

@yousafn Any intro/workshop/tutorial for the ffi implementation would be much appreciated

yousafn

2023-04-20 15:35

solid, will see what we can rustle up. i?ll be sure to cover from the ground up, so you can come in relatively fresh, and we can build it up over a few sessions

yousafn

2023-04-20 15:37

i?m out at the moment but will put together some initial pointers on a docs page which shows where the reference code ( the pact ffi library lives ), which platforms we aim to support, how we can test it and which implementations currently use it, and where exactly in the code is it done. it will help us identify gaps between implementations, and hopefully feed into the cores design decisions as anything emergent arises

yousafn

2023-04-20 15:43

some architecture details on the ffi https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/blob/master/rust/pact_ffi/ARCHITECTURE.md examples of loading the shared library in various languages https://github.com/YOU54F/hello_ffi the install.md has instructions on how to run on various platforms some raw examples in python and php which call the ffi methods directly https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/pull/269/files these are normally wrapped in a dsl which is idiomatic for the client language, but ultimately should expose the same feature set across all the client libs. there are some blurred lines as some functionality a ) needs to reside in the client libs to handle talking to the ffi and the user as an intermediary b ) some func is in the client only, and not exposed in the core, which can lead to apparent feature disparity between languages.

lluis.casals

2023-04-20 17:07

has joined #general

paul.caplan

2023-04-20 18:07

Prove me wrong: Pact (or any form of consumer-driven contract testing) provides little to no value for testing GraphQL APIs. According to https://docs.pact.io/faq/convinceme, ?OpenAPI can be used as a contract testing framework in a similar way to Pact?. I would make the argument that the same applies for GraphQL. In both cases, the APIs have a schema with strongly typed definition of field names, types, etc. Testing guidelines on https://docs.pact.io/consumer recommend loose matching (field names and data types only). The example on https://pactflow.io/blog/contract-testing-a-graphql-api/ follows this approach. Assuming I have a way to ensure that there are *no breaking changes* to the provider?s schema (e.g. by static analysis), *what value at all is this contract test providing?* Again, please prove me wrong. My organization has all the problems that contract testing purports to solve. I want to make a case for adopting it. But so far I am disappointingly unable to. If I were to follow recommended practices, it would require a LOT of development overhead to implement consumer driven contract tests that provide little to no value given the existence of a strongly typed API with prevention of breaking changes already in place. The *only* case I can see right now for consumer driven contract tests providing value is if we can use them in place of functional / integration tests for our front end layer. Right now these are heavily reliant on VCR cassettes but are not providing value because the cassettes are brittle and not frequently re-recorded. If we could use contracts in place as the mocking layer, that would ensure that the mocking layer of the consumer integration tests is in sync with the actual APIs. However, that approach is *strongly discouraged* in https://docs.pact.io/consumer, especially in the video on that page; to quote presenter: ?the teams that have done it have really regretted it?.

darrenoc3

2023-04-20 21:33

Is there a way to ensure that when a consumer's behaviour is modified, the pact gets updated? We are introducing contract testing, but I'm worried about the case where a developer changes the consumer's real interactions with the provider but forgets to update the contract. So the functionality could be broken, but the contract test would still pass. I haven't seen this risk mentioned anywhere, so maybe I'm missing something

cars2991

2023-04-20 21:44

Pact broker? I think isnt it the purpose of pact broker to manage contracts?

bas

2023-04-20 21:49

That?s why you need tests that verify the implementation of your consumer AND drive the generation of your contracts. It?s still not 100% fool-proof but at least you?d be consciously working on / thinking about the expectations you?ve got about provider behaviour.

darrenoc3

2023-04-20 21:59

@bas I agree, but just having functional tests doesn't ensure that when the functional test is modified in a way that makes it incompatible with the provider, the contract test is also modified. They can fall out of sync if the developer isn't aware of, or forgets the need to also modify the contract test. This can obviously have disastrous consequences as the pact broker would release a version of the consumer thats incompatible with the provider. Right?

matt.fellows

2023-04-20 22:59

@myao might have something to add, do I recall you testing a graphql service recently-ish?

matt.fellows

2023-04-20 23:00

The other point to make is that static analysis is a from of schema testing, and schemas are not contracts https://pactflow.io/blog/schemas-are-not-contracts/amp/

2023-04-20 23:00

https://pactflow.io/blog/schemas-are-not-contracts/

dprawatya

2023-04-21 01:11

has joined #general

mbutt

2023-04-21 01:11

has joined #general

bas

2023-04-21 04:46

You?re right, that?s exactly why I said it wasn?t fool-proof :) Even with contract testing, there are no guarantees. We might get even closer when there would be some kind of mutation-testing-for-contract-tests kind of thing but that doesn?t exist as far as I know.. And even then that probably wouldn?t prevent all the failures

priyaranjanmudliar

2023-04-21 06:26

I think that?s why in functional tests/ unit tests, we should mock things as less as possible and actually execute the function/method that calls the api during the test execution. But yeah again, it can?t be forced and not fool proof

matt.fellows

2023-04-21 07:58

> We might get even closer when there would be some kind of mutation-testing-for-contract-tests kind of thing but that doesn?t exist as far as I know Oh, I like the sound of that!

matt.fellows

2023-04-21 08:01

The other approach I?d like to explore is instrumentation, to discover discrepancies between tests (expected behaviour) and actual (possibly expected, maybe unexpected behaviour)

matt.fellows

2023-04-21 08:01

Another approach to ensure consistency, is to re-use the same test data fixtures in your contract tests and other layers of tests. This way, you can reduce potential drift

matt.fellows

2023-04-21 08:02

the other rule of thumb of course, is to have a corresponding contract test wherever you stub/mock out your service layer in other forms of testing

tjones

2023-04-21 08:17

> Prove me wrong: Pact (or any form of consumer-driven contract testing) provides little to no value for testing GraphQL APIs. Why?

tjones

2023-04-21 08:18

We?ve written and spoken about this lots.

tjones

2023-04-21 08:18

If you don?t find it compelling, don?t use it.

tjones

2023-04-21 08:19

https://case.contract-testing.io/docs/faq#do-we-need-contract-testing-if-we-use-schemas-like-swagger-graphql-or-grpc-to-generate-our-communication-code

tjones

2023-04-21 08:19

tl;dr: Yes, contract tests provide value on top of graphql. No, you don?t have to use it.

tjones

2023-04-21 08:20

> Assuming I have a way to ensure that there are no breaking changes to the provider?s schema (e.g. by static analysis) As far as I know, there are no static analysis tools that can do this.

tjones

2023-04-21 08:21

If you think there are, I suspect that you don?t understand the value of a contract test - which goes beyond the schema.

tjones

2023-04-21 08:21

From my link above: > for example, gRPC prevents syntactic breaking changes by ensuring that all fields have default values. However, this is a bit like saying ?all our endpoints use json, so we can?t send incompatible responses?. Just because the payload can be parsed by the consumer doesn?t mean it has meaning to the consumer.

tjones

2023-04-21 08:26

Perhaps I?m misinterpreting the tone you meant to convey in your question, but no one is telling you you need to use contract testing. If you don?t like it or don?t see why it?s valuable: 1) There are a lot of resources that explain why contract testing will help you. 2) You don?t have to use it. I don?t have to prove anything to you.

tjones

2023-04-21 08:27

Really, it comes down to - contract testing will let you confidently deploy your API on a friday from the pub. If you have an alternative implementation that gives you the same confidence, that?s fine too. If your alternative suits you and your team better, you should use it.

myao

2023-04-21 08:41

We used GraphQL and graphql-codegen to generate the ts-code via the remote schema (we targeted staging API). We've hooked it with husky and found it saved us time to generate code we need in our desired format before we push the changes. Well that is just the GraphQL part, it doesn't provide enough confidence running things on the CI environment as the integrations can still break in any environment when there's a breaking change on the provider side, which are not reflected immediately when we generated the code via the deployed version on staging (which is old). And it happened a few times when the app grows, it got worse. Pactflow came to help with the additional step to check the above before any deployment happens on every environment - what @tjones said, yes you can deploy on Friday with the beer.

darrenoc3

2023-04-21 12:00

Thanks Matt, very helpful. Another approach I had in mind was to try and combine the consumer functional tests with the consumer contract test. Tell me if this sounds crazy or not: ? Modify functional test to replace Mockito mock of provider with Pact mockServer instead ? Annotate functional test with @PactTestFor Is there any merit to this approach, or is it infeasible or otherwise a bad idea to mix contract and functional testing in this way? I guess it's similar to your idea of sharing test fixtures between the two, but trying to go one step further to ensure they're in-step. I'm still new to contract testing, so there may be obvious reasons this can't work that I'm not seeing yet

marcia.meira

2023-04-21 12:43

has joined #general

raubreysmith

2023-04-21 12:46

has joined #general

haroldrobson11

2023-04-21 13:44

Hi, if I use the contract_requiring_verification_published webhook lets say I have the following scenario: 1. consumer contract asks for fields that dont yet exist in provider 2. contract is published 3. webhook verifies it 4. verification fails 5. when we run the consumer pipeline again, the contract has not changed, so it will never be verified again ? 6. provider implements the new field how does the contract get re verified for the new provider version? I'm sorry if this is a stupid question. I don't want the webhook to simply trigger every time a contract is published whether it changes or not because that would be excessive. I guess I am wrong about step 5, it should be verified again when a new version of the provider is built, but if I don't see this behaviour, what has gone wrong?

paul.caplan

2023-04-21 14:05

The schema vs contract articles are exactly the explanations I was looking for, thank you!! I was not trying to make a case against Pact, I was trying to understand whether & why it provides value in my case. Sorry if tone did not properly convey that.

ksenia.vasileva

2023-04-21 15:02

has joined #general

jack.amico

2023-04-21 15:48

has joined #general

tanyaryzhova93

2023-04-21 16:18

Hi Team! Could you please let me know if `--state-change-url` of the https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/tree/master/rust/pact_verifier_cli accepts several urls? For example, if there are two provider states endpoints as `/app_one/pact/provider_states` and `/app_two/pact/provider_states`

cheng.ngai

2023-04-22 00:55

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-04-22 01:15

It does not. How would the verifier know to send the request to one or the other URL?

matt.fellows

2023-04-22 01:15

What's the use case?

tanyaryzhova93

2023-04-22 01:19

The case is that our microservice talks to two services which live in monolith. And I added provider states. endpoint for each mono app because it will be easy when we start tearing apart the monolith.

tanyaryzhova93

2023-04-22 01:19

and of course I would like to add the verification with monolith to the ci/cd pipeline

matt.fellows

That's what a regular provider build is for. You would setup the selectors to verify the usual pacts. If the pact in question is a feature branch, you would use WIP pacts to pull in new contracts to check

matt.fellows

See the cicd workshop in howtolearn

Here are a number of useful hands-on labs that teach all of the key concepts: https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops and https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/workshops

tanyaryzhova93

https://youtu.be/ICwB_H1nyW4

and I was wondering if I can put these two verifications (microservice <> mono 1 & microservice <> mono 2) to one ci/cd job

tanyaryzhova93

2023-04-22 01:24

of course I can do something like: ```script: - >- pact-verifier --broker-url="$PACTFLOW_URL" --token="$TOKEN" --provider-name="monolith" ----state-change-url=http://mono_app_one/pact/provider_states --publish - >- pact-verifier --broker-url="$PACTFLOW_URL" --token="$TOKEN" --provider-name="monolith" ----state-change-url=http://mono_app_two/pact/provider_states --publish``` but it doesn?t look nice and it will grow..:neutral_face:

tanyaryzhova93

2023-04-22 01:27

but now I think I can use `matrix` in gitLab, and will be something like: ```parallel: matrix: - PATH: [mono_app_one, mono_app_two] script: - >- pact-verifier --broker-url="$PACTFLOW_URL" --token="$TOKEN" --provider-name="monolith" ----state-change-url=http://${PATH}/pact/provider_states --publish ``` maybe it will work. If it works, it will create 2 parallel jobs with different provider states endpoints

matt.fellows

2023-04-22 01:33

Are you testing against a live microservice connected to the monolith?

tanyaryzhova93

2023-04-22 01:34

yes, monolith provides data to microservice

matt.fellows

2023-04-22 01:36

You should stub that out in your pact test and then have separate pact tests from each of your microservices to each monoloth

matt.fellows

2023-04-22 01:36

You shouldn't do pact testing against a live environment ideally, especially one with live dependencies

tanyaryzhova93

2023-04-22 01:40

> You should stub that out in your pact test and then have separate pact tests from each of your microservices to each monoloth yes, it?s implemented like this. I am wondering if I can put different provider states endpoints into one ci/cd job. I?ll try implement it with matrix, let?s see if it works

matt.fellows

2023-04-22 02:31

Sweet, glad it helped! I did a presentation on a related topic last year albeit in the end I didn't call out graphql

matt.fellows

2023-04-22 02:33

tjones

2023-04-22 03:41

I?m with Matt in that this doesn?t sound like the appropriate approach to this problem- but if you are really faced with it, I would put a prefix on the state string, and do the separation inside the controller for the state change endpoint

aforeman

2023-04-24 00:48

*Based in Melbourne* :flag-au:*? Join upcoming in person event with the Pact/PactFlow crew at DiUS on Thurs 4 May at 4:30pm.* Expert speakers will discuss the benefits of automated testing and deployment strategies, including CI/CD practices to build the confidence to execute. Plus, there will be beer, pizza and swag to be won and a bunch of your Aussie-based Pact/PactFlow team will be there too (@ilia@matt.fellows! :point_right:https://smartbear.com/lp/events/smartbear-dius-event/ :point_left:

aditya.kashyap

2023-04-24 05:13

has joined #general

iustina.gavrila

2023-04-24 09:15

has joined #general

juliemarierosok

2023-04-24 13:29

Hi, I already wrote in the pact-jvm channel, but I guess it's also a general question, so I'm trying here as well. I am looking for a way to specify that we expect either attribute A to be present, OR attribute B. Is there a way to specify this with pact? I have tried with the combine : "OR", but I suspect this is rather for specifying multiple rules for one attribute... Would appreciate any help!

haroldrobson11

2023-04-24 13:31

Thanks, do you know how the ```${pactbroker.providerVersionBranch}``` var is set? I am using this one for the verification that happens when the Pact file changes. The version of the provider in UAT would be on the develop branch and the version in prod would be on the master branch but how can my Pact broker know this?

haroldrobson11

2023-04-24 13:39

I saw this but I am not sure this is what I want because the verify step is where I want to find the branch not set it ```pact-provider-verifier \ --provider "Example API" \ --provider-app-version $GIT_COMMIT \ --provider-version-branch ```

haroldrobson11

2023-04-24 13:52

I believe this is what I needed ```docker run --net=host -e VERBOSE='true' -e PACT_DO_NOT_TRACK=true pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest pact-broker create-or-update-pacticipant --broker-base-url=https://pact.dev.ieu.intelematics.club/ --name=battery-api --main-branch=master```

yousafn

2023-04-24 14:12

use provider states to assert each state, if you had an or, your provider may only ever provide you one of the values and pass the verification successfully, never returning the or'd value in real life

yousafn

2023-04-24 14:37

> Is there a way to ensure that when a consumer's behaviour is modified, the pact gets updated? > We are introducing contract testing, but I'm worried about the case where a developer changes the consumer's real interactions with the provider but forgets to update the contract. Automation can't replace good engineering practises, nor good review practises. It is possible to suffer from consumer drift, whereby the consumer drift drifts in some way from the underlying code, usually this isn't the case as they are an output of your unit test, but it all too easy to encode in extra fields into the contract which aren't relevant for a particular consumer test. By avoiding abstraction layers, and testing closest to the collaborating code, you can make it easier to detect these discrepancies. As Matt said, these contracts can then be reused in other areas of your testing, knowing that they are a good source of truth, although not infallible. Still better than no mocking (you can test in insolation) and better than full mocking (you share some idea of your expectations with others) Depending on your ecosystem and team make-up, teams can share factories/fixtures https://docs.pact.io/consumer#in-dynamic-languages-ensure-the-models-you-use-in-other-tests-could-actually-be-created-from-the-responses-you-expect we used similar approaches in typescript, through shared types and a test data service

juliemarierosok

2023-04-24 14:37

Thanks for the suggestion. The idea would be that I define the message twice (once with attribute B set, and once with attribute A), and provide two different provider states (with the .given method of the builder? This also would work with asynchronous messages?

yousafn

2023-04-24 14:39

> but I'm worried about the case where a developer changes the consumer's real interactions with the provider but forgets to update the contract. The contract is generated as part of a unit test run, therefore if the underlying behaviour of the consumer changes, and the outward behaviour of the SUT changes, there would need to be changes in the developers tests for it to pass, or they would need to update the data in the pact expectations, in order to setup their mock provider in the correct state. if they can change the underlying behaviour of their code, without changing the expectations in their test, they probably aren't testing their actual code.

yousafn

2023-04-24 14:45

> We might get even closer when there would be some kind of mutation-testing-for-contract-tests kind of thing but that doesn?t exist as far as I know I like the idea of being able to use a pact mock provider, on the consumer side, to act as my http mock and test cases that I wouldn't necessarily want to share with a provider, maybe a flag, write to pact. Or here is my happy request, send some garbage and see how my collaborater code behaves On the provider side, as a pact verification provides a good amount of test coverage of the SUT, it could be nice to create a contract to functionally test your provider (with a use case that could represent how your consumers could use the api) utilising pact to act as the mock consumer. That could serve as documentation for potential consumers, and there could be analysis done to see divergence from real consumers, and the providers own view of a consumer, which may highlight new emergent use cases that the providing team didn't expect (and now want to cater for)

darrenoc3

2023-04-24 15:53

@yousafn I really appreciate you engaging with my question in so much detail, I think you've helped me identify a fundamental misunderstanding I may have about where Pact sits in the test pyramid. My testing for my service `Foo` currently looks like: 1. Functional tests for `Foo`: verify that when my application runs, it takes an input and makes the expected API calls to two downstream services (one we control called `Bar`, and another that is a public cloud API) 2. Consumer test for `Foo`: invokes the `BarClient` of `Foo` directly to generate the contract using provided example requests 3. Provider test for `Bar`: verifies the contract from step 2 2 isn't really a test in this setup, it's more of a scaffold for generating the contract so that it can be used for 3. I think what you're saying is that 1 and 2 should be combined right? I.e. Pact annotations should be added to the existing functional tests, rather than writing new tests purely for the sake of generating the Pact as I've done.

tjones

2023-04-24 17:00

Yes

tjones

2023-04-24 17:01

You write two examples - one with the field, and one without. The reason for this is that a test which allows optional fields would still pass even if the field was never present. You wouldn?t be sure that your provider could ever generate that missing field.

vandana.aveva

2023-04-24 18:24

has joined #general

vandana.aveva

2023-04-24 18:26

Hi, I'm trying PactFlow on my local machine. But I'm not able publish my contract. The publish command: npm run pact:publish, throws error '.' is not recognized as an internal or external command

matt.fellows

2023-04-24 22:39

See this article for more howtooptional

2023-04-24 22:39

https://docs.pact.io/faq#why-is-there-no-support-for-specifying-optional-attributes

matt.fellows

2023-04-24 22:40

Can you please provide a little more info? It sounds like the way you're invoking the command on windows is wrong

lucas

2023-04-25 00:01

has joined #general

vandana.aveva

2023-04-25 01:22

So I tried opening the solution in vs code. And I ran the command in the terminal of vs code.

yousafn

2023-04-25 10:31

Please provide as much detail as you can https://docs.pact.io/help/how_to_ask_for_help for alternative ways of publishing, you can use our pact-cli tools https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/client_cli/readme

szydlakus

2023-04-25 11:19

has joined #general

sarah.hutchins

2023-04-25 12:48

has joined #general

kristoffer

2023-04-25 13:31

has joined #general

jack.drake

2023-04-25 15:40

has joined #general

vandana.aveva

2023-04-25 15:52

I've cloned the git hub repo for 5-minute guide on my local. I've created a pactflow broker using the plug and play broker option provided in that guide. I'm running these steps in the terminal of visual studio code: 1. npm run test:consumer (it worked great) 2. npm run pact:publish This throws an error '.' is not recognized as an internal or external command I hope this helps. Let me know if any other information is needed.

mathivanan.kailasam

2023-04-25 16:15

has joined #general

seb983

2023-04-25 17:16

At a talk I gave last week, someone asked a question which I didn?t feel confident to answer: ?How would you handle a situation where the consumer, C, called service P1 and then passed the results onto service P2? C only cares about the result of the call to P2.? I can see how to contract test P1, but I?m not sure how to contract test the transitive nature of the relationship. I?d appreciate any perspective you might have.

yousafn

2023-04-25 17:21

You can use the docker image https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/client_cli/readme#publish or via the pact ruby standalone https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases/tag/v1.92.0 which offers a windows executable or use git bash, which provides the ability to understand linux commands https://gitforwindows.org/

hornc

2023-04-25 18:00

has joined #general

hulia.suliman

2023-04-25 18:07

has joined #general

tjones

2023-04-26 03:48

You?d typically do this with two interactions: C -> P1 C -> P2 You would make sure the expectations you?re setting up for P1 and P2 match

juliemarierosok

2023-04-26 09:35

Hi again everyone. I asked a question a couple of days ago, and I am almost done implementing the tests with different provider states as suggested by you! However, if I could get some more support I would be very thankful. I am currently adding datetime validation for my pact, but for some reason pact seems to add 2 hours to the example I provide: ```root.datetime("lastModifiedDate", DATETIME_FORMAT, DateUtil.toInstantFromDatetime("2022-06-27T12:30:10.767Z"))``` JSON output from this is 2022-06-27T14:30:10.767Z. Can someone explain to me how I can fix this?

mwilso29

2023-04-26 10:36

Hi all, random question. When the webhook exists in both consumer and provider pipeline, how do you prevent an infinite loop of calling the webhook when the other pipeline is ran? one method I thought of was using a separate branch that does not include the webhook on the 'called' pipeline. However if its calling a separate branch it will be generating a contract that is not on master which may be old and not current. What is the best practice for this scenario?

tjones

2023-04-26 10:42

Why would there be an infinite loop? Consumer publishes a contract (triggering provider verification) Provider verification runs ?. triggering nothing

tjones

2023-04-26 10:43

Or, if you want to trigger can-i-deploy, it would look like: Consumer publishes a contract (triggering provider verification) Provider verification runs ?. triggering verification published Consumer deploy runs, triggering nothing

mwilso29

2023-04-26 10:44

So the webhook to call the consumer should not be on the provider? What if you implement a change on the provider side? Would you look to compare what is uploaded to the broker for the consumer contract?

tjones

2023-04-26 10:44

huh?

tjones

If you implement a change on the provider side, you already have the consumer contract

tjones

you don?t need a new contract

tjones

https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/webhooks

tjones

The diagrams here might help

mwilso29

https://docs.pact.io/blog/2021/10/11/contract-requiring-verification-published-webhook-event

Ok that makes sense

tjones

2023-04-26 10:46

When the provider runs the verification, it asks the broker what the relevant contract(s) are

tjones

2023-04-26 10:46

(I think maybe the webhooks get told which specific contract to pull - I don?t actually know, I?ve never used them)

mwilso29

2023-04-26 10:47

Yeah that makes sense thanks

tjones

2023-04-26 10:48

You?re welcome. I?d like to diagram this better, but it?s kinda hard to find a diagram that works for all the different CI practices that people already have

mwilso29

2023-04-26 10:51

The most common use case for webhooks is to trigger a provider build every time a pact changes, and to trigger a consumer build every time a verification is published. So here it mentions triggering the consumer build from a verification being published i.e. the provider has changed. So should the webhook only exist from one perspective and not both?

yousafn

2023-04-26 10:51

you use webhooks to trigger provider verification tasks based on pact url, when a consumer contract changes

tjones

2023-04-26 10:52

They?re different webhooks. Because the contract is written by the consumer, you might want to kick off the provider build (to verify the consumer?s contract). At this point you probably can?t deploy (if the contract is new). When the contract is verified, you might want to kick off the consumer deploy.

yousafn

2023-04-26 10:52

you run a verification task based on consumer version selectors when the provider changes (or doesn't change, just on commit) - this pulls back any contracts matching the selectors, we recommed deployedOrReleased true and matchingBranch true

yousafn

2023-04-26 10:53

> trigger a consumer build every time a verification is published. you could trigger a consumer can-i-deploy after a verification, return a status check to github, or slack

yousafn

2023-04-26 10:53

provider verification result wouldn't trigger another consumer build of publishing pacts (even if it did, it would then be verified by the provider, so a new webhook wouldn't be triggered)

yousafn

2023-04-26 10:55

> When the webhook exists in both consumer and provider pipeline The same webhook wont exist in both (as a trigger) , consumer event triggers a webhook, which in turn triggers the provider verification. if you are talking about different webhooks you should be more specific in your question :)

yousafn

2023-04-26 10:56

> (I think maybe the webhooks get told which specific contract to pull - I don?t actually know, I?ve never used them) They do, they provide a pact url of the pact to be verified, if you use the new contract_requireing_verification_published event/webhook, then the provider side also gets a webhook fired for any deployed or released versions of the provider plus the head of the main branch. previously webhook `contract_content_changed` would only trigger against the head of master

yousafn

2023-04-26 10:57

tjones

2023-04-26 10:59

> and to trigger a consumer build every time a verification is published. ^ I think this is misleading. It should say ?trigger a potential consumer deploy every time?.? I see why you thought there was a circular dependency :grimacing:

markus.nakhlah

2023-04-26 13:44

has joined #general

jean-francois.renaud

2023-04-26 21:09

has joined #general

jakazzy

2023-04-27 06:16

has joined #general

rahulpandey8920

2023-04-27 10:14

Hello! Has anyone tried contract testing between micro frontends ?

matt.fellows

2023-04-27 11:42

OK I read this whole thread, and was confused - but this exact point is the problem! I personally don?t like that framing, and wouldn?t recommend it myself. I personally wouldn?t trigger any consumer build related actions from webhooks. I think you?re better off publishing verification events to tools like Github for status checks to unblock PRs to say the consumer build is ?mergeable? or ?deployable?

matt.fellows

2023-04-27 11:45

see https://docs.pact.io/blog/2018/07/16/publishing-pact-verification-statuses-to-github

matt.fellows

2023-04-27 11:55

A similar question was asked here before: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/discussions/1075

matt.fellows

2023-04-27 11:56

Hello!

matt.fellows

2023-04-27 11:57

Looks like a JVM question so might be best asking in #pact-jvm. What?s the DATETIME_FORMAT? Is it possible that?s playing a part here? Strange!

alfredo.castro

2023-04-27 15:22

Hello, is there any documentation that explains Pact in the context of a BFF or an application that is a consumer and a provider at the same time?.

matt.fellows

2023-04-27 22:56

It?s because https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-5-minute-getting-started-guide/blob/919519a5faafd49adb37cfcb2b9618f82ce50dbb/package.json#L20 uses a shell script, and needs a bash-like environment and git installed. Hopefully Yousaf?s suggestion help

matt.fellows

2023-04-27 22:56

There is really nothing to be explained. The BFF Is a provider for a consumer and it is a consumer of other apps. It should verify any consumers, and publish pacts for any of its providers. Is there something in particular that you?re concerned/want to know about?

matt.fellows

2023-04-27 23:03

> var is set? I am using this one for the verification that happens when the Pact file changes. The version of the provider in UAT would be on the develop branch and the version in prod would be on the master branch but how can my Pact broker know this? It knows this, because you use your provider should be https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/recording_deployments_and_releases to the environments it is deployed to

matt.fellows

2023-04-27 23:03

The webhook event knows this, and triggers builds for each of the deployed versions of your app, and also the main branch.

matt.fellows

2023-04-27 23:04

lewis.prescott079

2023-04-28 07:09

Next episode has just dropped! Graphql and Web3. https://www.pactman.co.uk/contract-testing-podcast

matt.fellows

2023-04-28 07:11

If only you posted this an hour ago, I would have listened at the gym :stuck_out_tongue: Great to see the series kicking off again Lewis

tjones

2023-04-28 07:35

Thanks for sharing! I?ll definitely check it out

matt.fellows

2023-04-28 07:46

I reckon Lewis would love to have you on the podcast btw, maybe worth talking about Case and "team contract testing"?

tjones

2023-04-28 07:47

Definitely keen, would be a great thing to do once I?ve got a first release going

juliemarierosok

2023-04-28 10:08

Hi Matt. DATETIME_FORMAT is "yyyy-MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss.SSS'Z'", I don't think this is relevant though. The DateUtil method toInstantFromDatetime is delivering this date in this format, in UTC. However Pact is somehow using the local time, instead of UTC. I was able to get it to work now by setting my system time to UTC with the runtime argument -Duser.timezone="UTC". I would however prefer if I could tell Pact which timezone to use. Is this possible? Edit: Also posted in #pact-jvm

matt.fellows

2023-04-28 11:34

Thanks!

matt.fellows

2023-04-28 11:35

The core maintainer of JVM is on PTO at the moment, so might be worth a follow up Tuesday next week once he?s landed back here.

matt.fellows

2023-04-28 11:35

That?s an interesting insight though, perhaps it?s something Pact can?t control and is a Java system thing. Not sure

juliemarierosok

2023-04-28 12:26

Alright, would be happy to get some more insights as well. I'll wait and see if some more answers come next week then :)

alfredo.castro

2023-04-28 13:08

Hello Matt!, I just wanted to be sure until this point I just followed examples with a single consumer and provider. If I added a bff in the middle then, the consumer will have it's pact with the BFF and the BFF will have it's own pact with the provider? Apart from that, is there any consideration that I should have for implementing Pact in my Pipeline in the context of 3 participants? (Consumer, BFF, Provider)

srinivas.nali

2023-04-28 14:27

has joined #general

dmitriy.tarasevich

2023-04-28 16:00

has joined #general

jigish.mehta

2023-04-28 16:00

has joined #general

juan.felix

2023-04-28 16:01

has joined #general

himesj

2023-04-28 17:25

has joined #general

itsforbabu

2023-04-29 14:25

has joined #general

tea.trader168

2023-04-30 02:04

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-04-30 23:31

That?s right!

lori.maurais

2023-05-01 15:27

has joined #general

damola.thompson

2023-05-02 07:26

has joined #general

ivan.v.kurlovich

2023-05-02 13:01

has joined #general

ckulkarni

2023-05-02 14:22

has joined #general

aurel.pintea

2023-05-02 14:55

has joined #general

ariveros142

2023-05-02 20:03

has joined #general

cody.jenkins

2023-05-03 04:48

has joined #general

ashish.tilara

2023-05-03 06:08

has joined #general

alfred.brose00

2023-05-03 08:17

has joined #general

dibya.dhar

2023-05-03 09:04

has joined #general

ronnie.kilsbo

2023-05-03 09:28

has joined #general

caitriona.gallagher

2023-05-03 15:18

has joined #general

majhwar.mragni

2023-05-03 17:03

has joined #general

michael.fenstermaker

2023-05-03 20:56

has joined #general

man.tse

2023-05-03 20:58

has joined #general

tristan

2023-05-04 03:27

has joined #general

haiyang.huang

2023-05-04 09:23

Hi everyone, quick question, does pact consumer/provider version have a character limit?

michal.kopriva

2023-05-04 11:03

has joined #general

hulia.suliman

2023-05-04 17:33

Hi, pact-foundation team, I recently joined the community and need some :blob_help: I see in the https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases/tag/v2.0.0 that breaking changes are mentioned for naming conventions and I can confirm that the old consumer tests that used to work with previous versions, are not passing any more with the latest version 2.0.0. 1. I would like to understand why the naming conventions change impacts the test execution 2. there is a way to specify the version for the https://github.com/pact-foundation/homebrew-pact-ruby-standalone install command line? currently, the latest version is pulled. there is any other solution/suggestion to fix this? :thankyou:

yousafn

2023-05-04 17:45

Hey @hulia.suliman Please can you raise the exact errors you are seeing, as an issue on the pact-ruby-standalone repository, There is a link to a pull request on the release notes, that show the extent of the changes (major bump in ruby runtime from 2.4 -> 3.2 ) and the build system that packages it, hence the major version bump

yousafn

2023-05-04 17:47

2. there is a way to specify the version for the https://github.com/pact-foundation/homebrew-pact-ruby-standalone install command line? currently, the latest version is pulled. there is any other solution/suggestion to fix this? no there isn't it is a limitation with homebrew, you need to have different versions formulas and install different versions something like https://github.com/isen-ng/homebrew-dotnet-sdk-versions obviously that isn't helpful to you now if you check the previous releases, release notes, you will see instructions on how to install that fixed version :+1:

yousafn

2023-05-04 17:54

assuming your are on osx ```export PACKAGE_VERSION=1.92.0 curl -LO https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases/download/v$PACKAGE_VERSION/pact-$PACKAGE_VERSION-osx.tar.gz tar xzf pact-$PACKAGE_VERSION-osx.tar.gz cd pact/bin ./pact-mock-service --help start```

hulia.suliman

2023-05-04 18:00

@yousafn thank you, we will try to figure it out, and come back if needed.

yousafn

2023-05-04 18:04

If you could just try and let us know by raising an issue, with at least the operating system, how you are using it, which tests are failing and what error messages you are seeing, that would be helpful, we have CI runs across several architectures at the moment that are saying it is working. I helped participate in the upgrade from 2.4 from 3.2 of Ruby and have an open pul l request on the build system that supports it, so it would be beneficial to share, so we can fix forward. For homebrew you could fork the repo, and revert the latest change installing it on any machine with ```brew tap yourgithubname/pact-ruby-standalone brew install pact-ruby-standalone``` You might need to ```brew untap pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone```

hulia.suliman

2023-05-04 18:22

now, we have encountered another issue with v1.91.0 - it is not working on the new m1 mac. are u aware of a possible issue?

yousafn

2023-05-04 18:22

yes you need rosetta on an non m1 mac for versions less than 2.0.0

yousafn

2023-05-04 18:24

OSX ARM (M1/M2) Machines will require Rosetta tools, as the Ruby binaries as currently built for x86_64. If you don't already have it installed, you can use the following command ```sudo softwareupdate --install-rosetta --agree-to-license```

yousafn

2023-05-04 18:24

it was in the readme for homebrew prior to having this PR merged https://github.com/pact-foundation/homebrew-pact-ruby-standalone/pull/92/files

yousafn

2023-05-04 18:24

hope that helps for the time being :slightly_smiling_face:

yousafn

2023-05-04 18:26

could I ask how you are using the standalone in your tests? traditionally it would be used by client libraries, and anyone using the standalone tools have usually transitioned over to the rust based tools verifier https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/cli#native-binary-new mock server https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/rust/pact_mock_server_cli

hulia.suliman

2023-05-04 18:37

I know, I am from crowdstrike, and we use the pact-go and as far as I can see, there is no stable version that implements the rust core

yousafn

2023-05-04 18:38

pact-go hasn't been updated to use the latest version

yousafn

2023-05-04 18:38

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/commit/3dc7736bb67d20a060ff647725ee3a0f4ddb3207

yousafn

2023-05-04 18:38

it's pinned to use less than 2.0.0

yousafn

2023-05-04 18:39

why or how have you installed that version?

yousafn

2023-05-04 18:39

in your pact-go tests? I'm not super familiar with v1 pact-go and how it downloads the right package, but that gives me more to go on :slightly_smiling_face:

hulia.suliman

2023-05-04 18:40

it was installed by a peer on his local machine

hulia.suliman

2023-05-04 18:40

it is not used in the ci pipeline

yousafn

2023-05-04 18:40

ok so there is no issue

yousafn

2023-05-04 18:41

pact-go hasn't been updated to use the latest binaries

hulia.suliman

2023-05-04 18:41

yes

hulia.suliman

2023-05-04 18:41

thank you for your support

yousafn

2023-05-04 18:42

If your colleagues wishes to support the new binary packages in pact-go, they are welcome to raise an issue and/or pull request :+1: and pleasure

yousafn

2023-05-04 18:47

Ahhh I see the issue for end users they are told to install the latest version via our install script which will pull the latest 2.0.0 version https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go#installation-on-nix Going to test this out now

james.jenks

2023-05-04 19:09

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-05-04 19:12

working okay for me with latest of pact-go, pulling down the repo. Looks like it just shells out to the standalone tools on the path, so you should be able to run the tools outside of pact-go just on the path. It would be good to tell us what the error the user is seeing, that was with a fresh brew install of the standalone on an arm64 (m1) mac

hulia.suliman

2023-05-04 19:27

did u have rosetta installed on this m1 mac?

yousafn

2023-05-04 19:47

Yes, Is this the issue your user is seeing https://github.com/pactflow/example-consumer-golang/actions/runs/4886667716/jobs/8722304524#step:4:43 ```2023/05/04 19:44:25 [INFO] checking pact-mock-service within range >= 3.5.0, < 4.0.0 2023/05/04 19:44:25 [INFO] checking pact-provider-verifier within range >= 1.31.0, < 2.0.0 2023/05/04 19:44:25 [INFO] checking pact-broker within range >= 1.22.3 2023/05/04 19:44:26 [INFO] mock WARN: Please note: we are tracking events anonymously to gather important usage statistics like Pact-Ruby version and operating system. To disable tracking, set the 'PACT_DO_NOT_TRACK' environment variable to 'true'. 2023/05/04 19:44:26 [INFO] INFO WEBrick 1.8.1 2023/05/04 19:44:26 [INFO] INFO ruby 3.2.2 (2023-03-30) [x86_64-linux] 2023/05/04 19:44:26 [INFO] INFO WEBrick::HTTPServer#start: pid=3796 port=41789 2023/05/04 19:44:26 [INFO] INFO: Writing pact before shutting down 2023/05/04 19:44:26 [INFO] 2023/05/04 19:44:26 [INFO] Writing pact for pactflow-example-provider-golang to /home/runner/work/example-consumer-golang/example-consumer-golang/pacts/pactflow-example-consumer-golang-pactflow-example-provider-golang.json 2023/05/04 19:44:26 [INFO] ERROR ThreadError: can't be called from trap context\n\t/home/runner/work/example-consumer-golang/example-consumer-golang/pact/lib/ruby/lib/ruby/3.2.0/timeout.rb:184:in `synchronize' 2023/05/04 19:44:26 [INFO] INFO going to shutdown ... 2023/05/04 19:44:27 [INFO] INFO WEBrick::HTTPServer#start done. --- PASS: TestConsumer (1.95s) PASS ok http://github.com/pactflow/example-consumer-golang 1.958s``` The tests pass but it fails to write the pact file, It looks be a change in ruby behaviour in 3.1+ https://github.com/rapid7/metasploit-framework/issues/17593 which is causing this issue, I can recreate that above issue on my mac. It isn't clear if that is the issue you are seeing as you haven't provided the error message, but that is a good start for me

yousafn

2023-05-04 19:48

it is working on the provider side in the test here https://github.com/pactflow/example-provider-golang/actions/runs/4886624979/jobs/8722202587

hulia.suliman

2023-05-04 19:52

I fw your messages to our slack channel I will let u know tomorrow about the results, now it is already late for me thank you again for your help :hugging_face:

hulia.suliman

2023-05-04 20:03

ok, so, the consumer tests pass, but he is not able to publish the contract to local broker ```2023/05/04 13:28:49 [ERROR] service: Could not load existing consumer contract from /...../pacts/xxxxxx.json due to undefined method `key?' for nil:NilClass. Creating a new file.```

abdurrahman.muratt

2023-05-04 20:50

has joined #general

hulia.suliman

2023-05-04 20:53

sorry, there was an invalid command executed? it may be ok now :smile:

svetoldo444ka

2023-05-05 15:35

has joined #general

priyaranjanmudliar

2023-05-06 10:59

Thanks a lot for all the pointers @yousafn, after going through this pr https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/pull/269/files i think i understood how i would implement something like this in erlang. Its a great resource for the ffi library usage. Now the only part i think i would need to understand is how i will introduce the cbinding thing in erlang.

priyaranjanmudliar

2023-05-07 05:23

Hi, I am getting this error when i try to load the libpact_ffi.so in erlang vm that i got from pact_ffi release page: ```"No driver init in dynamic library"``` I have tried multiple ways to load the pact ffi shared library but getting errors similar to the above one, any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!

uglyog

2023-05-07 23:12

a quick Google turns up: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/54371108/error-opening-c-shared-library-as-erlang-port-driver > From the documentation https://erlang.org/doc/man/erl_ddll.html, `erl_dll:load_driver` is to load a linked in driver. Linked driver's are libraries built with a specific set of interfaces...which I guess the shared library would not have implemented. > One option is to create a NIF's using the shared library and call the NIF's from erlang. The NIF's just need to wrap the functions you would like to use from the shared library

matt.fellows

2023-05-08 00:50

mind sharing how you?re setting up / loading the library?

matt.fellows

2023-05-08 00:51

ah, let?s avoid the cross post and continue here :point_right: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C02BXLDJ7JR/p1683440950514139

arjun.gowda

2023-05-08 17:07

has joined #general

valencianaad

2023-05-09 15:04

has joined #general

marlon.jimenez

2023-05-09 17:53

has joined #general

erollins

2023-05-09 18:49

has joined #general

marcos.aruj

2023-05-09 23:39

has joined #general

meritxell.rodriguez

2023-05-10 06:33

has joined #general

jaswanth.ooty

2023-05-10 07:13

Hey team :wave: I'm almost certain that the answer is no, but wanted to triple check before I share with my team. *When you write consumer side tests, is it possible to specify multiple provider states in the given block ?* For example, how would you go about creating a given block for a scenario that required --> given _"a product with ID 10 exists"_ & _"a user with ID 5 exists"_ ? Any help appreciated. Ta!

matt.fellows

2023-05-10 07:45

well you?re cause for minor uncertainty is valid - because _you can_.

matt.fellows

2023-05-10 07:46

see example here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/master/examples/v3/e2e/test/consumer.spec.js#L141-L142

matt.fellows

2023-05-10 07:46

In the Pact Spec V3, you can have multiple provider states (that may optionally also contain parameters)

jaswanth.ooty

2023-05-10 08:17

Thanks Matt! I knew that my research wasn?t sufficient. Appreciate the timely help :raised_hands::skin-tone-2: :pray::skin-tone-2:

yana.kliuch

2023-05-10 08:58

has joined #general

james.brown

has joined #general

mark.bursnall

has joined #general

alexandru.simion

has joined #general

giulio.giovannini

has joined #general

alexandru.simion

2023-05-10 14:03

Hi everybody - nice to meet you! :slightly_smiling_face: when we use the _pactBuilder to mock a service, on which endpoint do we create the server? and is that configurable? (host + port)? Thanks!

razvan.grigorescu

2023-05-10 14:04

has joined #general

alexandru.simion

2023-05-10 14:05

2. when writing contract tests - do you recommend using the actual deployed service (always running) or starting up the service on the spot?

alexandru.simion

2023-05-10 15:30

I think this should solve it: _pactBuilder = _pact.WithHttpInteractions(port: 8081) Please let me know if there is other method / any other documentation

henry.rutman

2023-05-10 18:28

has joined #general

simondemartini

2023-05-10 19:53

has joined #general

simondemartini

2023-05-10 20:08

Hey all :wave: I have some questions about migrating from tags to native environments/branches with pact-broker, since https://docs.pact.io/pact_nirvana/step_7: On a PR branch, the https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/recording_deployments_and_releases recommend running `can-i-deploy` against all environments on the main branch, which makes sense to me, but: 1. From that PR branch CI pipeline, do we also need to run `can-i-deploy` against a main branch to catch any merged-but-not-deployed changes? 2. Is it still recommended to setup a webhook to trigger a provider verifications with native environments/branches? Since that doesn't sound like it recommends actually deploying those services changes from that

tjones

2023-05-10 22:31

You probably want to ask this in the channel for your language

tjones

2023-05-10 22:32

For the test (where you define the contract) you don?t spin up anything For verification (where you check the contract written earlier) usually you spin it up locally

abubics

2023-05-10 23:43

1. I think that's a good idea, but not necessary for "can I deploy" reasons.

abubics

2023-05-10 23:45

2. I'm not quite sure what that means, maybe someone else will know the answer :sweat_smile:

matt.fellows

2023-05-11 05:38

for 2, yes - the ?contract requiring verification published? event will consider branches/environments automagically for you. See https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/webhooks#the-contract-requiring-verification-published-event and https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/webhooks#using-webhooks-with-the-contract_requiring_verification_published-event.

matt.fellows

2023-05-11 05:39

also, sorry that the Nirvana guide hasn?t been updated with environments/branches. We had an excellent PR last year from a community member, and now we need to do something at least as good with environments/branches

alexandru.simion

2023-05-11 07:11

ok, thanks

alexandru.simion

2023-05-11 07:11

great, thanks! :slightly_smiling_face:

stefan.kemp

2023-05-11 07:42

has joined #general

tam.norris

2023-05-11 11:14

Hi. I am just looking at the provider-example https://github.com/pactflow/example-provider/blob/master/src/product/product.providerChange.pact.test.js. This might be a stupid question but I just want to confirm is this just using a dummy (mock) provider? In a real provider contract test would this be making calls to an actual api?

yousafn

2023-05-11 12:04

it makes calls to the real provider api, which is started up as part of the test

yousafn

2023-05-11 12:06

https://github.com/pactflow/example-provider/blob/594529a11b188f55d6dc86d95355f8a947d357b3/src/product/pact.setup.js#L14-L21 this is where is starts express and loads in the routes and middleware

supersmile2009

2023-05-11 12:06

has joined #general

tam.norris

2023-05-11 12:24

ok, thanks Yousaf. I think I was thrown by the stateHandlers function. I thought it was returning dummy responses.

simondemartini

2023-05-11 17:17

Ah thank you! And yeah the nirvana guide is still pretty excellent

simondemartini

2023-05-11 17:19

For #1 is that just using `can-i-deploy --branch <main|master> ...` without any `--to` or `--to-environment`? Or should I continue using tags to tag the main branch and use `can-i-deploy --to myMainBranchTag`?

lknaresh2

2023-05-11 18:20

has joined #general

tjones

2023-05-12 01:24

So many :taco: s for @yousafn for this incredible investigation and diagrams of the Pact ecosystem: https://github.com/pact-foundation/devrel/issues/10

siddharth12345

2023-05-12 09:47

has joined #general

siddharth.shetty

2023-05-12 09:51

has joined #general

siddharth.shetty

2023-05-12 10:17

Hi, I am currently using the C++ FFI to generate PACT contracts for some synchronous interactions and trying to understand why I am seeing multiple entries in the contract for identical request-responses. Have posted example interactions below ```auto syncInteraction1 = pactffi_new_sync_message_interaction( pact, "Interaction"); pactffi_given( syncInteraction1, "Given" ); pactffi_upon_receiving( syncInteraction1, "Upon receiving" ); pactffi_with_body( syncInteraction1, InteractionPart::InteractionPart_Request, "application/json", R"({"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":{"value":3,"pact:matcher:type":"type"}}); pactffi_with_body( syncInteraction3, InteractionPart::InteractionPart_Response, "application/json", R"#({"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":{"value":3,"pact:matcher:type":"type"}})#"); auto syncInteraction2 = pactffi_new_sync_message_interaction( pact, "Interaction"); pactffi_given( syncInteraction2, "Given" ); pactffi_upon_receiving( syncInteraction2, "Upon receiving" ); pactffi_with_body( syncInteraction2, InteractionPart::InteractionPart_Request, "application/json", R"({"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":{"value":4,"pact:matcher:type":"type"}}); pactffi_with_body( syncInteraction2, InteractionPart::InteractionPart_Response, "application/json", R"#({"jsonrpc":"2.0","id":{"value":4,"pact:matcher:type":"type"}})#");``` The above 2 interactions are the same except that the id field(in the request/response) has different values but is matched by type. So, I was expecting this to generate only 1 entry in the contract for both interactions which the provider can verify. But in the contract, there are 2 entries. I suppose this is because there are 2 unique keys generated for each of the 2 interactions? Any ideas how we can get around this so we can have only 1 entry in the contract for such duplicated interactions when using the C++ FFI to write PACT consumer tests would be much appreciated.

yousafn

2023-05-12 10:30

why do you need only 1 entry? I imagine you want a state handler with a param, and that param being the id used in the test (if you really need to fix for the provided id) so you would have two interactions, given there are two states, one where there is a product with id 3, and one where there is a product with id 4

yousafn

2023-05-12 10:31

Also Pact not PACT :slightly_smiling_face:

yousafn

2023-05-12 10:31

Thanks for sharing the code snippet, could you confirm which client library? (link to the codebase?) is it this? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-cplusplus

yousafn

2023-05-12 10:37

Yes it's on my never ending list of things to update. WIP is here https://github.com/pact-foundation/docs.pact.io/pull/189/files#diff-5e838a062066c7a67db8e2c20c6e37245d118b9a28187da841989938a341a830R39

yousafn

2023-05-12 10:39

The CI/CD workshop has been updated https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/ci-cd/ to use our current best practise with branches / recording-deployments so might be useful

yousafn

2023-05-12 10:41

> For #1 is that just using `can-i-deploy --branch <main|master> ...` without any `--to` or `--to-environment`? Believe so ```Usage: pact-broker can-i-deploy -a, --pacticipant=PACTICIPANT -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL Options: [--branch=BRANCH] # The branch of the version for which you want to check the verification results``` > Or should I continue using tags to tag the main branch and use `can-i-deploy --to myMainBranchTag`? You could use tags, but ideally you have that main/master branch, set as a `mainBranch` in the pact broker (this is configurable per application) You want environments here ```Usage: pact-broker can-i-deploy -a, --pacticipant=PACTICIPANT -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL Options: [--to-environment=ENVIRONMENT] # The environment into which the pacticipant(s) are to be deployed``` some background for a can-i-merge https://pact.canny.io/feature-requests/p/add-can-i-merge-functionality

yousafn

2023-05-12 10:42

We've actually got that as an open PR to add into the tool https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker-client/pull/117

siddharth.shetty

2023-05-12 10:43

@yousafn We need 1 entry because both the interactions(response/request pair) is the same to the provider who is verifying the contract. We were hoping the provider would not be replayed the same request multiple times with different ID`s. So my question was more along the lines that if Pact is creating the key from the interactions, should it not be ignoring the fact that we are looking to match the ID by value type only and not the actual value itself? Which means the generated key should be the same for both interactions? Also we are not using the pact-cplusplus library, we are using the following C++ https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases/tag/libpact_ffi-v0.4.4 because we need v4 contracts as we have written our own websocket plugin.

yousafn

2023-05-12 10:49

> We were hoping the provider would not be replayed the same request multiple times with different ID`s. I don't understand why you have two tests, that cover the same scenario, with the same description and state. these tests don't seem different, if they are different, they should be named as such. It might be scope creep into functional testing, it just seems an odd case. Anyway that aside, maybe it should dedupe in this instance, but the interaction key that the pact core adds, might be stopping that. I would raise this in the pact-reference repo I think as a question. Ahhh SkyComcast and the WS Plugin I presume? @adam.cox mentioned engineers were using the FFI directly

yousafn

2023-05-12 10:50

There is also `pactffi_given_with_param` for using a given state, with parameters ```/** * Adds a provider state to the Interaction with a parameter key and value. Returns false if the interaction or Pact can't be * modified (i.e. the mock server for it has already started) * * * `description` - The provider state description. It needs to be unique. * * `name` - Parameter name. * * `value` - Parameter value. */ bool pactffi_given_with_param(InteractionHandle interaction, const char *description, const char *name, const char *value);```

yousafn

2023-05-12 10:51

The notes state for `pactffi_given` that the `description` must be unique ```/** * Adds a provider state to the Interaction. Returns false if the interaction or Pact can't be * modified (i.e. the mock server for it has already started) * * * `description` - The provider state description. It needs to be unique. */ bool pactffi_given(InteractionHandle interaction, const char *description);```

yousafn

2023-05-12 10:52

If they should be unique, I wonder if Pact should clobber one of them and warn the user

yousafn

2023-05-12 10:53

It's plausible that its an incorrect use of the library, I would check out one of the implemented versions of a client library (pact-net, pact-js-core, pact-go@v2 etc that use the FFI, to determine what they do)

siddharth.shetty

2023-05-12 10:57

> I don't understand why you have two tests, that cover the same scenario, with the same description and state. So we have multiple unit tests for testing a single API/Method for ensuring code coverage for every statement/condition in the method. Which means the websocket request would be called multiple times with different ID`s depending on the state of the object under test.

siddharth.shetty

2023-05-12 10:58

> Ahhh SkyComcast and the WS Plugin I presume? @adam.cox mentioned engineers were using the FFI directly Yes thats right :slightly_smiling_face:

yousafn

2023-05-12 11:00

ok so you want the full coverage on the consumer side, using the pact ffi to facilitate the unit testing, but only want to selectively verify some of them in the provider, as otherwise there is duplication

siddharth.shetty

2023-05-12 11:01

```The notes state for pactffi_given that the description must be unique``` I tried this as well, but dont think it matters in what we are trying to acheive here. I mean having a unique description for each interaction will not create the 1 entry in the contract right?

yousafn

2023-05-12 11:02

1. Pact tradtionally is used in a unit testing framework and you would use Pact for capturing cases that have semantic meaning to a consumer, and you might use another mocking tool for testing all the code paths. There is duplication here and I think there could be value is marking a test as not to encode a contract file, as you just want to use Pacts powerful mock server functionality to replace any other types of mocks 2. You could filter by description or something on the verifier side, so despite several contracts being created you only pick specific interactions to verify

yousafn

2023-05-12 11:04

I remember there being an issue about it tracking, going to do some digging :slightly_smiling_face:

siddharth.shetty

2023-05-12 11:04

> ok so you want the full coverage on the consumer side, using the pact ffi to facilitate the unit testing, but only want to selectively verify some of them in the provider, as otherwise there is duplication Yes we are writing unit tests which use the pact framework to standup a mock websocket server and respond to requests as the tests progress. Which is why there might be multiple requests which are similar except they differ in ID value`s. So the provider does not have to verify redundant requests which differ only in ID`s.

adam.cox

2023-05-12 11:28

It would be possible to argue that the function under test is doing too much and should be broken up into smaller functions which could be unit tested separately and we would avoid this issue. However this is the state of the code we are trying to test at the moment and we have the following two scenarios: Scenario 1 uses Request A, B and C Scenario 2 use Request D, E, F, G and C The request and response payloads have an id field in them to correlate a request with a response. This id is incremental in the order in which they are sent. As scenario 2 uses request C in position 5 instead of position 3 we end up with a "duplicate" interaction for request C.

yousafn

2023-05-12 11:28

I can't find the issue at the moment, but the simple answer, is Pact is a contract testing, not unit testing framework, therefore you wouldn't expect to cover these types of duplicate cases. Quickest way would be to give a unique description and verify by that description, or exclude certain interactions from being uploaded (you might need to manually remove)

yousafn

2023-05-12 11:30

But worth raising as a discussion point somewhere :slightly_smiling_face: as there are additional use cases out there, and maybe it makes sense to cover them

yousafn

2023-05-12 11:30

Thanks for the additional context Adam, that seems like a wild ride for a Friday afternoon :smile:

adam.cox

2023-05-12 11:31

Haha, every day is a wild ride at the moment :wink:

yousafn

2023-05-12 11:33

I found this issue whilst hunting, I love the idea of api fuzzing, so if I could do it with Pact, but agree with Ron, it blurs the lines ? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-jvm/issues/432 and contract testing already is a confusing topic (suppose its highly overloaded as a term)

adam.cox

2023-05-12 11:34

We really do want contracts for requests A-G so I think for now if the provider has to verify request C twice then that might be the current state we have to accept. > If they should be unique, I wonder if Pact should clobber one of them and warn the user This would solve our current use case I think. Might cause issues for other people elsewhere but if it should be unique then there should be only one

yousafn

2023-05-12 11:40

Yeah I think that is something that should be addressed in the core, I'll raise something to track to find out what the correct behaviour should be then (if there isn't one already) I note the ffi exposes this function to filter verifications, there isn't an exclude filter (I don't think), but you can include by consumer name ```void pactffi_verifier_set_filter_info(VerifierHandle *handle, const char *filter_description, const char *filter_state, unsigned char filter_no_state);``` It would probably be easy to add an exclude filter method into the codebase, which would allow your verification runs just to exclude certain states or descriptions (unit test / xyz)

adam.cox

2023-05-12 11:51

For the verification side we are using the Pact Standalone Verifier which I think does expose filtering options

lukemstorey

2023-05-12 13:52

has joined #general

simondemartini

2023-05-12 16:24

Ahhh thank you! That's super helpful. So if I'm reading that right, it sounds like if my PR just checks a real `can-i-deploy` to all deployed environments, I don't really need the mainBranch check?

yousafn

2023-05-12 16:25

I believe that is the `TL;DR` of my ramblings :sweat_smile:

simondemartini

2023-05-12 16:25

Not ramblings at all :sweat_smile: Ok cool I think we can just go all in on that approach here

yousafn

2023-05-12 16:28

If you use the new webhook checks, when a consumer published a contract that requires verification, it checks against deployed, released and the head of your main branch, so those results all exist in the broker to be queried. If you provider wasn't compatible with deployed or released of consumers, it would fail verification and wouldn't get to can i deploy consumer side, they would still be valid to deploy if they were compatible with deployed or released, but not with provider HEAD of their main branch (and provider would have been stopped from deploying this anyway)

yousafn

2023-05-12 16:29

This table is a good summary https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/webhooks#using-webhooks-with-the-contract_requiring_verification_published-event and Beth's post when it was introduced https://docs.pact.io/blog/2021/10/11/contract-requiring-verification-published-webhook-event

simondemartini

2023-05-12 16:30

Ok thank you! And yeah I was looking at that too, I think the part I was missing was just documention for the whole "big picture" workflow of the new stuff -- I think your updated Nirvana guide will help with that a lot

tjones

2023-05-13 00:32

I confess I?m not following completely, but can?t you inject the ID with provider state?

rana

2023-05-13 20:56

has joined #general

anatoliy.ganzyuk

2023-05-14 20:15

has joined #general

minhajsid

2023-05-15 10:18

has joined #general

minhajsid

2023-05-15 10:23

Hi .. Do we have any case studies or POCs done to integrate PACT with Azure CD pipeline?

matt.fellows

2023-05-15 12:44

There shouldn?t be anything difficult/controversial about it

matt.fellows

2023-05-15 12:44

there is a webhook template for it https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/webhooks/template_library#azure-devops---trigger-build

artur.ashyrov984

2023-05-15 16:01

has joined #general

jerson.zuniga

2023-05-15 20:25

has joined #general

sekumar

2023-05-15 21:05

has joined #general

jzunigacoayla

2023-05-15 21:41

has joined #general

matthieu.saleta

2023-05-16 09:31

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-05-16 09:56

:ralph-wave: How do everyone, happy Tuesday!

carls.stfleur

2023-05-16 12:20

has joined #general

dale

2023-05-16 16:01

has joined #general

curb1968

2023-05-17 03:41

has joined #general

curb1968

2023-05-17 03:46

Is https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-cplusplus still supported? I attempted to install per the README.md, but I'm apparently not downloading the conanfile.txt. _conan remote list_ _conancenter: https://center.conan.io [Verify SSL: True, Enabled: True]_ _*pact-foundation: https://pactfoundation.jfrog.io/artifactory/api/conan/pactfoundation-conan [Verify SSL: True, Enabled: True]*_ _conan install . --build missing_ _*ERROR: Conanfile not found at /home/harveys/pact/conanfile.txt*_

uglyog

2023-05-17 04:16

It should still work, but has not been updated in quite a while. The conan recipes are not hosted anywhere, so you will have to use the ones checked into the repository.

aforeman

2023-05-17 08:30

*Get contract testing certified!* :every_days_a_school_day: The team at SmartBear have created a three-part introduction to contract testing course for developers who are new to contract testing (and their teams) to learn the basics, covering: 1. *Introduction to contract testing* :cool-dog: - _what is it, why it is needed (vs over-reliance on E2E tests)_ 2. *Introduction to Pact* :pact-logo-white: - _what it is, how it works, how to get started and automate_ 3. *Introduction to PactFlow* :pactflow: - _compare Pact OSS vs PactFlow, benefits of PactFlow - exclusive features such as directional contract testing and more for enterprises_ They are short, bite-sized and accessible courses with exam questions so you?ll finish up with a contract testing certification - all from the team that created Pact and PactFlow! To take the courses, simply sign up here https://smartbear.com/academy/pactflow

robert.turner

2023-05-17 12:26

has joined #general

tjones

2023-05-18 01:33

Awesome!

curb1968

2023-05-18 04:04

Ok, I pulled down the git repo and attempted to install the dependencies via the commands in the README.md. This is what I see from the conan install ../conanfile.txt --build missing: *ERROR: Version conflict: cpprestsdk/2.10.15->boost/1.80.0, None->boost/1.72.0.*

curb1968

2023-05-18 04:04

the conanfile.txt is as follows:

curb1968

2023-05-18 04:05

[requires] gtest/1.10.0 boost/1.72.0 cpprestsdk/2.10.15 pact_ffi/0.0.0@pact/beta nlohmann_json/3.7.3 [generators] cmake

uglyog

2023-05-18 04:06

Try updating boost to 1.80.0

curb1968

2023-05-18 04:06

ERROR: Version conflict: websocketpp/0.8.2->boost/1.81.0, None->boost/1.80.0.

uglyog

2023-05-18 04:07

_Whack a dependency mole ..._

curb1968

2023-05-18 04:21

I hate to say this but it appears as cpprestsdk is the culprit (creates a dependency on websocketpp), I think the codebase is no longer usable. The cpprestsdk website states it's no longer supported (hasn't been updated in 3 years). As such, unless I'm missing something the only solution I can think of is to replace cpprestsdk with an alternative (i.e. libcurl?).

curb1968

2023-05-18 04:23

Is there an alternative to using pact with c++?

curb1968

2023-05-18 04:23

we're locked into that language for a variety of reasons.

uglyog

2023-05-18 04:24

If you have a way of invoking your C++ code, you could use another language that can call it. I.e., using FFI on the consumer side, and use the verifier CLI on the provider side

uglyog

2023-05-18 04:26

You can also try using libcurl instead of cpprestsdk, it would be good to get some fresh eyes over that code base

nada

2023-05-18 07:42

Hi? does someone has implementation example of consumer test with Vitest? Thank you

jsanthakumar

2023-05-18 09:47

has joined #general

rmodrego

2023-05-18 09:47

has joined #general

clm.whyte

2023-05-18 09:48

has joined #general

fdonald

2023-05-18 09:52

has joined #general

mgarcia

2023-05-18 09:53

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-05-18 10:06

we don?t have one in code but there was some discussion about it here https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/965#issuecomment-1348185596

lsantarelli

2023-05-18 10:25

has joined #general

tjones

2023-05-18 11:26

Yep. There should be no reason that the jest examples don?t work for you. Vitest isn?t fully compatible with Jest- but only in the way that?s mentioned in that thread. I opened an issue with them and sent a PR that fixes that problem. They have, of course, ignored it. Anyway, give it a go, and post in #pact-js if you have any problems

bdocherty

2023-05-18 11:56

has joined #general

srikanth_vemuri

2023-05-18 12:08

has joined #general

perera.x.roshni

2023-05-18 12:16

has joined #general

mohitkrishna.s.s12

2023-05-18 13:23

has joined #general

dwayne.sykes

2023-05-18 16:23

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-05-18 19:40

:goodnews: Good news everybody! *TL;DR* > You can now get multi-platform images by appending `-multi` to your `pact-cli`<https://hub.docker.com/r/pactfoundation/pact-cli > | Docker tag> Original tag remains a vanilla `amd64` image. :chefkiss: *ARM64* ```?docker run --rm --platform=linux/arm64 -it pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest-multi /bin/sh -c 'uname -sm' Unable to find image 'pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest-multi' locally latest-multi: Pulling from pactfoundation/pact-cli Digest: sha256:d0f8f7d47796cc33c5c47ef328bb1ba42685d4c7005dece026ea8363f9d3ce65 Status: Downloaded newer image for pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest-multi Linux aarch64``` *AMD64* ```?docker run --rm --platform=linux/amd64 -it pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest-multi /bin/sh -c 'uname -sm' Unable to find image 'pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest-multi' locally latest-multi: Pulling from pactfoundation/pact-cli Digest: sha256:d0f8f7d47796cc33c5c47ef328bb1ba42685d4c7005dece026ea8363f9d3ce65 Status: Downloaded newer image for pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest-multi Linux x86_64``` *ARM* ```? docker run --rm --platform=linux/arm -it pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest-multi /bin/sh -c 'uname -sm' Unable to find image 'pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest-multi' locally latest-multi: Pulling from pactfoundation/pact-cli Digest: sha256:d0f8f7d47796cc33c5c47ef328bb1ba42685d4c7005dece026ea8363f9d3ce65 Status: Downloaded newer image for pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest-multi Linux armv7l```

tjones

2023-05-18 23:04

Very cool!!

yousafn

2023-05-18 23:06

I am not going to lie, I was banging my head on the table as to why I kept getting an amd64 image, and _forgot_ I had re-enabled my shell workaround to fix the platform to `linux/amd64`

kancharla.g

2023-05-19 03:31

has joined #general

joseantonionmfilho

2023-05-19 17:46

has joined #general

anenada

2023-05-20 08:06

has joined #general

anenada

2023-05-20 08:08

Hi all. I am using http://pactflow.io as a broker. I am uploading OAS as the provider-contract. When writing consumer-pacts, is it possible to validate those consumer-pacts locally, before actually uploading those to http://pactflow.io?

tjones

2023-05-20 11:08

I?m not sure what you?re asking exactly, but this sounds like a #pactflow question, not a pact question.

tjones

2023-05-20 11:11

If by ?consumer pacts? you mean regular consumer driven pact, the workflow is: 1) Define the examples for the consumer tests 2) Run the consumer tests (where the provider is mocked by Pact) 3) If successful, a pact file will be written Then you upload that to a broker, to be verified by the provider later

tjones

2023-05-20 11:12

If you meant anything else, you?ll want to ask in #pactflow as I think it?s not a pact question.

rabrosimov

2023-05-20 20:11

has joined #general

priyaranjanmudliar

2023-05-21 05:59

Hi all Created the lib pact-erlang for erlang/elixir(very basic but works), thanks to everyone who helped https://github.com/silverblaze404/pact-erlang

matt.fellows

2023-05-21 09:05

Thanks for sharing! I wonder if we should pop another entry for ?Erlang? (and Elixir? Can an Elixir project use it?) under ?Other Languages? here https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/other_languages We could link to your repository as a ?community supported? one.

priyaranjanmudliar

2023-05-21 09:17

@matt.fellows Oh yes! that would be great, and yes it does support elixir as well due to its interoperability with erlang, the installation is similar as well

matt.fellows

2023-05-21 09:18

nice, will follow up tomorrow then

priyaranjanmudliar

2023-05-21 09:21

Also, I know the pact matchers module is not yet there, will add it incrementally as I get time for it

tjones

2023-05-21 14:55

This is awesome!

tjones

2023-05-21 14:55

Thanks for all your hard work!

arm.arturpetrosyan

2023-05-22 10:37

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-05-22 11:34

Awesome, :taco: for @priyaranjanmudliar! > Also, I know the pact matchers module is not yet there, will add it incrementally as I get time for it This is ideal when you are starting a library out and don't have consumers, no need to get everything in straight way. I would suggest some `DEVELOPING.md` style docs to help others, help build out the library with you :slightly_smiling_face: Nice work, we've love to shout about it in this months open source blog if you'd like?

adra_verma

2023-05-22 12:11

has joined #general

p.keshav.chainani

2023-05-22 12:13

has joined #general

divya.s.parappanavar

2023-05-22 12:13

has joined #general

priyaranjanmudliar

2023-05-22 12:14

thanks @yousafn !! Why not, would love the library to be featured in the blog :grin: as for the suggestion sure, I will add the developing guide as well.

n.duran

2023-05-22 14:38

has joined #general

garry.wilson

2023-05-23 12:28

has joined #general

verevad

2023-05-23 13:04

has joined #general

jon.arambarri

2023-05-24 07:34

has joined #general

yonatany

2023-05-24 08:14

has joined #general

scoplin

2023-05-24 20:02

has joined #general

matt.fellows

2023-05-25 06:59

Love this @adam.cox https://docs.pact.io/users/community_corner/adam_cox_interview_may2023 !

adam.cox

2023-05-25 08:16

It was my pleasure

yousafn

2023-05-25 13:07

:ralph-wave: Yo yo, The Pact Open Source Blog - May 2023 edition is now live, Check it out https://docs.pact.io/blog/2023/05/25/pact-open-source-update-may-2023

yousafn

2023-05-25 13:10

You are live in this months Pact Open blog my friend https://docs.pact.io/blog/2023/05/25/pact-open-source-update-may-2023#pact-erlang

yousafn

2023-05-25 13:11

Yes! Thank you so much for this Adam, in marking the first post in our dedicated community corner section. It was announced in our latest post https://docs.pact.io/blog/2023/05/25/pact-open-source-update-may-2023#community-corner---adam-cox For any others reading, who wish to add your own, please free free, its all of our platform, an online contract testing wikipedia if you will :slightly_smiling_face:

aemanuelson

2023-05-25 23:41

has joined #general

sreenivas.chaitanya

2023-05-26 08:29

has joined #general

sreenivas.chaitanya

2023-05-26 08:32

Hi All, iam a new user to pact , iam using pact with message queues , iam trying to follow the dog example on the github

sreenivas.chaitanya

2023-05-26 08:32

iam getting error in node js

sreenivas.chaitanya

2023-05-26 08:34

this is my handler ```export type LogIds = { session_id: string, client_id: string, persistent_session_id: string, client_session_id: string, request_id: string, }; export function auditApiHandler(logIds: LogIds): void { if (!logIds.client_id || !logIds.client_session_id || !logIds.persistent_session_id || !logIds.request_id || !logIds.session_id ) { throw new Error('Missing fields in the Audit Message '); } return; }```

sreenivas.chaitanya

2023-05-26 08:34

in my spec class iam getting error on synchronousbody handler

sreenivas.chaitanya

2023-05-26 08:34

```verify(synchronousBodyHandler(auditApiHandler)); - error TS2345: Argument of type '(logIds: LogIds) => void' is not assignable to parameter of type '(body: AnyJson | Buffer) => void'. Types of parameters 'logIds' and 'body' are incompatible. Type 'AnyJson | Buffer' is not assignable to type 'LogIds'. Type 'null' is not assignable to type 'LogIds'. 39 .verify(synchronousBodyHandler(auditApiHandler));```

tigrandza

2023-05-26 08:46

has joined #general

tle

2023-05-26 09:56

has joined #general

adam699

2023-05-26 13:35

has joined #general

tjones

2023-05-27 06:25

If you update to the latest version of pact-js, this should go away

mariusz.kapczynski

2023-05-29 12:10

has joined #general

kazimierz.zarychta

2023-05-29 12:10

has joined #general

pierre.zeidan

2023-05-30 13:10

has joined #general

shkothari

2023-05-30 14:55

has joined #general

bwang

2023-05-30 16:55

has joined #general

dev.talha.akbar

2023-05-31 09:45

has joined #general

yousafn

2023-05-31 11:20

Happy Wednesday everyone :slightly_smiling_face:

msiles

2023-05-31 13:50

has joined #general

msiles

2023-05-31 13:54

GM guys, is there a project structure standard / template we should follow for contract testing? a git example would be great :slightly_smiling_face: Thanks

tjones

2023-05-31 14:18

There are git examples in each pact-supporting language?s repository

tjones

2023-05-31 14:18

which language are you using?

tjones

2023-05-31 14:18

Also, generally, there?s no need to do anything special for Pact, structurally

tjones

It?s good to clear out the contract file directory before the test run

msiles

js, I was checking one example from the Test Automation University repo

tjones

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/tree/master/examples

tjones

https://pact.canny.io/feature-requests/p/ability-to-tell-the-broker-whether-a-missing-consumer-or-missing-provider-is-saf

there are many examples here

msiles

2023-05-31 14:20

thanks @tjones, I?ll take a look

tjones

2023-05-31 14:20

Pactflow also have some examples I believe, if you look on their github and filter by `example`, you?ll find many

msiles

2023-05-31 14:22

thanks, I was using this one as a guide but I?ll take a look at the other examples https://github.com/rafaelaazevedo/tau-pact-nodejs-course

tjones

2023-05-31 14:25

Cool. That?s an outdated version, but the concepts haven?t changed much

tjones

2023-05-31 14:25

the latest version supports much better provider state setup

msiles

2023-05-31 14:33

good to know, Thanks @tjones

eli.thorkelson

2023-05-31 18:14

has joined #general

dimundo

2023-06-01 10:23

hi! i have some tricky question :slightly_smiling_face: lets imagine we have 2-week sprints ? on monday FE as a consumer waits for BE as a provider to be deployed on dev env ( everything is fine ) ? on tuesday BE deploys, FE is unblocked -> FE deploys ( still everything is fine ) ? on wednesday BE as a consumer waits for FE as a provider to be deployed on dev env ( everything is fine ) ? on thursday FE deploys, BE is unblocked -> BE deploys ( still everything is fine ) ? on friday we have a release to be deployed on pre-prod environment but got a deadlock :hide-the-pain-harold: ? BE as a consumer waits for FE ? FE as a consumer waits for BE how to deal with such deadlocks ?

tjones

2023-06-01 13:12

This might be a dumb question, but why is your sprint cadence relevant?

tjones

2023-06-01 13:17

Also, I don?t think I understand the scenario, sorry

tjones

2023-06-01 13:20

Oh, is the scenario that you have two interdependent services: A -> B B -> A they?re deployed fine to a dev environment, but now you want to promote them both to pre-prod (for the first time), and you can?t because they?re interdependent?

tjones

2023-06-01 13:20

So, my question would be - is it possible to deploy one without the other?

tjones

2023-06-01 13:21

For example, with HTTP endpoints, you can deploy a provider without a consumer

tjones

2023-06-01 13:21

But with say SQS messages, you can deploy either end safely without the other (as long as the queue exists, which Pact doesn?t assert)

tjones

2023-06-01 13:22

This exposes a hole in Pact?s reasoning. Pact assumes that providers can deploy without the consumer, which isn?t always true. It also assumes that consumers can?t deploy without the provider - which also isn?t always true

tjones

2023-06-01 13:24

If your scenario wouldn?t be fixed by the ability to tell Pact which end can deploy with the other end missing, then I think you have a real deadlock - and Pact is just exposing it.

tjones

2023-06-01 13:25

For example, if you have two services which are both HTTP clients and servers, with A -> B, and B -> A ,it?s not possible to deploy one without the other without (at least a moment of) broken state.

tjones

2023-06-01 13:26

That deadlock exists in the process, regardless of whether or not Pact is stopping you.

dimundo

2023-06-01 13:31

only thing - make can-i-deploy be not fullstopper

dimundo

2023-06-01 13:31

but this is scary and make all contract testing useless :disappointed:

dimundo

2023-06-01 13:32

A and B are just FrontEnd and Backend

dimundo

2023-06-01 13:33

and while there is no continuous deployment - this happens

tjones

2023-06-01 13:33

Right, but how is your backend a consumer of the frontend?

dimundo

2023-06-01 13:33

we have ws messages contracts

dimundo

2023-06-01 13:34

so communication is in both directions

dimundo

2023-06-01 13:35

but those could be 2 http services as well ( as we have bunch of microservices )

tjones

2023-06-01 13:35

Right

tjones

2023-06-01 13:36

So, I think this _is_ the scenario for which you?d need to be able to tell Pact that it?s ok to deploy one without the other

tjones

2023-06-01 13:36

because a WS server that is a consumer is safe to deploy with no clients

tjones

2023-06-01 13:37

However, if your situation is: A and B are already in preprod, but this is a breaking change, then Pact is correctly stopping you from deploying

tjones

2023-06-01 13:37

without Pact, a deploy would induce a broken state

tjones

2023-06-01 13:46

tjones

2023-06-01 13:46

I created this ticket that you can vote for if you like (I also would like this feature, but for a different reason - I have an alternative tool that uses the broker, where a regular HTTP client might be the provider - since it provides requests)

yousafn

2023-06-01 14:07

We have a range of examples here https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/workshops#examples As stated by Tim, the repo is using a 9.x version of pact and hasn't had any of the dependencies touched in a while, but there isn't much code so shouldn't be hard to update. I would note that it is publishing with `tags` where we prefer publishing with `branches` and deploying to `environments` - Tags previously were used for both, but now we have first class concepts. https://github.com/rafaelaazevedo/tau-pact-nodejs-course/blob/233d856433ff75bea904d1ceb43f747f53e51b4e/__tests__/helpers/publish.js#L9 We would also recommend use of the Pact CLI tools rather than the pact's JS api wrapper for the standalone client.

yousafn

2023-06-01 14:09

Tim's real point, it is always best to look at the projects source code and supporting site for examples, although I do note we do reference that site in our courses section, so it would be both apt and correct for the author to update and for us to help nudge them to do so.

yousafn

2023-06-01 14:10

Whilst external examples are brilliant and we love community users sharing them, I would be mindful of the date stamps of commits and the package versions, comparing them against the latest released versions. Even some of our own aren't always up to date, it is a large estate to manage. We would love support in helping update any, so I am sure a pull request against that course, with an update to the latest version of pact, axios, jest and the like wouldn't go amiss :+1:

yousafn

2023-06-01 14:13

note if you have an existing project, and you are introducing contract testing, I wouldn't worry too much about following other example structures personally and just look to get a test working, within the unit testing framework that exists, where one is mocking out a provider.

dimundo

2023-06-01 14:20

> However, if your situation is: A and B are already in preprod, but this is a breaking change, then Pact is correctly stopping you from deploying this could be not a breaking change

dimundo

2023-06-01 14:20

just 1 _new_ message/endpoint on _each_ side simultaneously

dimundo

2023-06-01 14:20

and - tadaa

dimundo

2023-06-01 14:22

so need some rule, which can handle such "big bang"

tjones

2023-06-01 14:28

This is a break, right?

tjones

2023-06-01 14:29

Because if you can produce a message that can?t be consumed, then it?s not safe to deploy

tjones

2023-06-01 14:29

and if both sides do that at once, it?s not safe to deploy

tjones

2023-06-01 14:37

I think websockets might be a bit complex, in terms of safety :thinking_face:

tjones

2023-06-01 14:37

What do you think?

tjones

2023-06-01 14:37

I?m not super familiar with them

dimundo

2023-06-01 17:55

No, it isn?t break

dimundo

2023-06-01 17:56

Just 2 features

dimundo

2023-06-01 17:57

If they are deployed 1 by 1 ( theoretically in any order) everything is fine

dimundo

2023-06-01 17:57

But at once

dimundo

2023-06-01 18:07

Exact example :all_the_things:

tjones

2023-06-01 22:10

yes, that?s what I?m saying - Pact is just telling you that it?s not safe to do that

tjones

2023-06-01 22:11

if you didn?t have Pact, this deployment strategy would let you deploy, but it would be broken for at least a time during that deploy

abubics

2023-06-02 01:56

Sounds like the current best solution (which Pact is only indirectly surfacing) is to deploy more granularly.

bas

2023-06-02 05:16

Cross-posting here from talks-and-conferences after a hint from Matt.

matt.fellows

2023-06-02 06:05

Any Canadian :flag-ca: ?s aboot - Bas comes highly recommended, not just for contract testing but testing practices more generally.

dimundo

2023-06-02 06:08

its not possible with release pace

dimundo

2023-06-02 06:10

only hack/workaround i found - if pairs A->B and B->A are green I tag one of pacticipants as deployed, then c-i-d says yes

dimundo

2023-06-02 06:10

pact cli helps a lot :smile:

abubics

2023-06-02 06:10

if you have feature toggles, you can still deploy one at a time

abubics

2023-06-02 06:11

I can see how you would get tied up if you're delivering that fast, and not releasing often.

tjones

2023-06-02 06:11

Right, yeah. But that hack still results in a broken state momentarily

dimundo

it shouldnt

dimundo

if both pairs are green - why should it fail ?

abubics

Breakage will occur in the window where one is deployed and the other isn't.

tjones

Why not? If A(v2) depends on B(v2), and B(v2) isn't deployed, it's not safe.

tjones

You have a deadlock, regardless of what you do with Pact

dimundo

ah, yes, but for now deploys are with downtimes

abubics

2023-06-02 06:13

If you're already comfortable with downtime, then this stops being a problem.

abubics

And I'd say can-i-deploy has reduced value for you, too

dimundo

but it will go away soon :pepe_naruto:

tjones

When it goes away, I think you'll have a problem here too.

tjones

What you could do, though I haven't thought about this and it might make you nervous when you go to prod, is to make a deploy queue

dimundo

c-i-d has value, as apart from prod version, we have some other long-living version in the wild - apps, and a backward compatibility is very needed

tjones

where each thing you deployed to dev is put in a queue of deploys

tjones

I guess from your original question that you're deploying once per sprint

tjones

which I'm not wild about, but I see why you might want to do it

dimundo