elliot.chen7
2018-07-03 18:58
Is the README out of sync? I?m getting `undefined: dsl.MapMatcher` when using the example and I?m running v0.0.13 revision 1567bdaba1c9bccb747cfba1ade5e09b9ccf5eea
matt.fellows
2018-07-03 21:34
@elliot.chen7 it shouldn't be, but it's possible. I'll take a look this morning
elliot.chen7
2018-07-03 21:37
Thanks, also do I need to have a daemon running? From the looks of the doc it says pact-go shouldn?t need one?
matt.fellows
2018-07-03 21:40
No you shouldn't need one. It's all just the usual `go get`, but you do need some binaries on the PATH as per readme
yamad
2018-07-07 12:02
i'd like to ask few questions.
i was trying `pact-go/examples`. but i've got some troubles.
1. how to execute `./pact-go daemon`. is the file exists in pact-go repogitory?
2. i couldn't run `consumer_test.go` and `provider_test.go`. i've got these message. is this example not recent?
```
$ go test -v -run TestProvider
# _/Users/dorako321/pact-go/examples
./consumer_test.go:22: unknown field 'Port' in struct literal of type dsl.Pact
./consumer_test.go:55: cannot use "/foobar" (type string) as type dsl.StringMatcher in field value:
string does not implement dsl.StringMatcher (missing GetValue method)
./consumer_test.go:56: cannot use map[string]string literal (type map[string]string) as type dsl.MapMatcher in field value
./consumer_test.go:61: cannot use map[string]string literal (type map[string]string) as type dsl.MapMatcher in field value
./provider_test.go:28: unknown field 'Port' in struct literal of type dsl.Pact
FAIL _/Users/dorako321/pact-go/examples [build failed]
```
matt.fellows
2018-07-08 05:02
I?ll take a look @elliot.chen7 @yamad. We?re transitioning to a new API, so it?s quite possible
matt.fellows
2018-07-08 05:36
OK yep, there was definitely a couple of examples out of date - funnily enough, the only 2 that don?t run as part of CI.
alex.bednarczyk
2018-07-10 13:24
is there a golang version of pact I need to install to pact test golang code?
alex.bednarczyk
2018-07-10 13:25
I tried this command `go get -d http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go` and it executed without error but when I run `go test-v .` i get an error
```
:> go test -v .
=== RUN TestPact_GoKitProvider
2018/07/10 08:24:29 [DEBUG] pact setup logging
2018/07/10 08:24:29 [DEBUG] pact setup
2018/07/10 08:24:29 [DEBUG] checking CLI compatability
2018/07/10 08:24:29 [INFO] checking pact-mock-service within range >= 2.6.4, < 3.0.0
2018/07/10 08:24:29 [DEBUG] running binary pact-mock-service
2018/07/10 08:24:29 [ERROR] CLI tools are out of date, please upgrade before continuing
FAIL http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/examples/go-kit/provider 0.027s
```
matt.fellows
2018-07-10 13:35
It's a bit misleading, I'll update that first section of the docs. But you need to first have some tools in your path first
alex.bednarczyk
2018-07-10 14:00
the `some tools` isnt clear. i assumed that `go get -d http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go` would install everything i need but it didnt seem to work
elliot.chen7
2018-07-10 16:21
I had the same understanding as @alex.bednarczyk and got the same error when I first tried
matt.fellows
2018-07-10 21:01
@alex.bednarczyk ah, I see the problem in our docs. We have a links section with all of the re-usable links but they aren?t rendering for some reason. I?ll take a look. Apologies
matt.fellows
2018-07-10 21:02
the `[CLI Tools]` should link to https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases
alex.bednarczyk
2018-07-10 23:39
I tried NPM install pact, the instructions don?t have the global arg so i?m a little confused how pact would be available gloally
alex.bednarczyk
2018-07-10 23:41
also tried the ruby standalone but i cant find the error i got from that
alex.bednarczyk
2018-07-10 23:41
`go get -d http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go` might have done something but `pact` didnt work after so a step might be missing
matt.fellows
2018-07-10 23:52
Those three steps are all you need:
1. Download the appropriate zip file for your platform from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases
2. Ensure the files in the extracted `bin` dir are on your `PATH`
3. then you can go get
matt.fellows
2018-07-10 23:52
is there somewhere that says to use npm? If so, it?s confusing and it needs to be corrected
alex.bednarczyk
2018-07-10 23:55
let me look at the readme again. ill have some feedback tomorrow. thanks for responding
alex.bednarczyk
2018-07-11 00:03
I unzipped the tgz and moved all files in the bin directory to /Users/alex/bin which is in my path
```:> pact
/Users/alex/bin/pact: line 27: /Users/alex/lib/ruby/bin/ruby: No such file or directory```
bethskurrie
2018-07-11 00:04
@alex.bednarczyk the easiest way to install the standalone is to use https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/blob/master/install.sh
bethskurrie
2018-07-11 00:05
Also, @alex.bednarczyk @matt.fellows let's move this to a thread so we're not spamming the whole channel.
bethskurrie
2018-07-11 00:07
```
bethtemp $ curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/master/install.sh | bash
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
100 612 0 612 0 0 652 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 652
100 7435k 100 7435k 0 0 651k 0 0:00:11 0:00:11 --:--:-- 1376k
bethtemp $ ./pact/bin/pact
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
```
alex.bednarczyk
2018-07-11 00:07
```:> ./install.sh
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
100 612 0 612 0 0 2398 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 2390
100 7435k 100 7435k 0 0 1248k 0 0:00:05 0:00:05 --:--:-- 1552k```
alex.bednarczyk
2018-07-11 00:08
```:> curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/master/install.sh | bash
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
100 612 0 612 0 0 2235 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 2241
100 7435k 100 7435k 0 0 1943k 0 0:00:03 0:00:03 --:--:-- 2369k```
alex.bednarczyk
2018-07-11 00:11
```:> pact/bin/pact
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```
alex.bednarczyk
2018-07-11 00:14
```:> go test -v .
=== RUN TestConsumer
2018/07/10 19:14:53 [INFO] checking pact-provider-verifier within range >= 1.12.0, < 3.0.0
2018/07/10 19:14:53 [ERROR] CLI tools are out of date, please upgrade before continuing
FAIL http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/examples 0.025s```
bethskurrie
2018-07-11 00:20
@alex.bednarczyk look at the readme in the top pact dir. It will list all the versions used.
alex.bednarczyk
2018-07-11 00:23
```This version (1.49.0) of the Pact standalone executables package contains:
* pact gem 1.28.0
* pact-mock_service gem 2.9.1
* pact-support gem 1.6.2
* pact-provider-verifier gem 1.14.4
* pact_broker-client gem 1.16.0
* pact-message gem 0.4.5```
matt.fellows
2018-07-11 00:31
you need to add that folder (l?m just guessing, but from what you?ve been saying it will be something like: `~/projects/test/pact-ruby-standalone/pact/bin/`) to your `PATH`:
e.g.
```
PATH="${PATH}:~/projects/test/pact-ruby-standalone/pact/bin/"
```
alex.bednarczyk
2018-07-11 13:11
```:> go test -v .
=== RUN TestConsumer
2018/07/11 08:09:31 [INFO] checking pact-provider-verifier within range >= 1.12.0, < 3.0.0
2018/07/11 08:09:32 [INFO] checking pact-broker within range >= 1.14.0, < 2.0.0
2018/07/11 08:09:33 [INFO] checking pact-mock-service within range >= 2.6.4, < 3.0.0
2018/07/11 08:09:34 [ERROR] service: [2018-07-11 08:09:34] INFO WEBrick 1.3.1
2018/07/11 08:09:34 [ERROR] service: [2018-07-11 08:09:34] INFO ruby 2.2.2 (2015-04-13) [x86_64-darwin13]
2018/07/11 08:09:34 [ERROR] service: [2018-07-11 08:09:34] INFO WEBrick::HTTPServer#start: pid=15046 port=58415
Test Passed!
2018/07/11 08:09:34 [ERROR] service: [2018-07-11 08:09:34] INFO going to shutdown ...
2018/07/11 08:09:34 [ERROR] service: [2018-07-11 08:09:34] INFO WEBrick::HTTPServer#start done.
2018/07/11 08:09:34 [INFO] INFO: Writing pact before shutting down
2018/07/11 08:09:34 [INFO]
2018/07/11 08:09:34 [INFO] Writing pact for MyProvider to /Users/alex/go/src/github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/examples/pacts/myconsumer-myprovider.json
--- PASS: TestConsumer (3.04s)
=== RUN TestProvider
2018/07/11 08:09:34 [INFO] checking pact-provider-verifier within range >= 1.12.0, < 3.0.0
2018/07/11 08:09:35 [INFO] checking pact-broker within range >= 1.14.0, < 2.0.0
2018/07/11 08:09:35 [INFO] checking pact-mock-service within range >= 2.6.4, < 3.0.0
=== RUN TestProvider/has_status_code_200
=== RUN TestProvider/has_a_matching_body
=== RUN TestProvider/"Content-Type"_which_equals_"application/json"
--- PASS: TestProvider (2.23s)
--- PASS: TestProvider/has_status_code_200 (0.00s)
pact.go:314: Verifying a pact between MyConsumer and MyProvider Given User foo exists A request to get foo with GET /foobar returns a response which has status code 200
--- PASS: TestProvider/has_a_matching_body (0.00s)
pact.go:314: Verifying a pact between MyConsumer and MyProvider Given User foo exists A request to get foo with GET /foobar returns a response which has a matching body
--- PASS: TestProvider/"Content-Type"_which_equals_"application/json" (0.00s)
pact.go:314: Verifying a pact between MyConsumer and MyProvider Given User foo exists A request to get foo with GET /foobar returns a response which includes headers "Content-Type" which equals "application/json"
PASS
ok http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/examples 5.292s```
matt.fellows
2018-07-11 21:09
I'll double check. There was a bug a while ago where things were being interpreted as if they were from stderr.
matt.fellows
2018-07-12 02:02
btw is this one you https://github.com/alexeits? Is this also yours? https://medium.com/@sagansystems/integration-testing-our-microservices-for-fun-and-profit-b749ef42703b
bethskurrie
2018-07-12 09:06
@matt.fellows I've worked out how to send that log to stdout. It's in the latest standalone 1.51.0
bethskurrie
2018-07-13 06:18
> ? 2e0f236 - upgrade(broker): allow pb:pacts and pacts HAL links to be followed (Matt Fellows, Sun May 20 13:15:52 2018 +1000)
? 808ebfa - fix(broker): use 'pb:pacts' instead 'pacts'. See #82 (Matt Fellows, Fri May 18 22:55:20 2018 +1000)
Thank you for noticing @matt.fellows!
bethskurrie
2018-07-13 06:35
I want to move the pact retrieval into the ruby standalone so that I can put the WIP pacts stuff into there and roll it out to all the languages. it will help the problem where we have to configure the ssl for both the wrapper language and the ruby code as well.
bethskurrie
2018-07-13 06:36
From what I've seen in the js, the configuration options are the provider name, and a list of tags?
bethskurrie
2018-07-13 06:48
Rashi has actually already done the ruby code, i just have to hook it up to the command line
rabih
2018-08-10 07:05
Hello,
I am working with pact hosted broker. I have a golang docker image with pact installed in it.
I build the image and when try to run consumer integration tests it fails, knowing that when running it independently it works and upload the contracts to the broker. I think it is an issue in creating json contracts locally. Any help regarding this issue would be appreciated :question:
rabih
2018-08-10 11:42
I believe this issue is related to the below
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/154
madu.alikor
2018-09-27 09:15
my provider test does not seem to ever end and i'm forced to terminate the process can anyone help?
madu.alikor
2018-09-27 09:16
```
// +build contract
package rest
import (
"encoding/json"
"fmt"
"log"
"net/http"
"os"
"path/filepath"
"testing"
"http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/dsl"
"http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/types"
)
var port = 8000
var dir, _ = os.Getwd()
var pactDir = fmt.Sprintf("%s/../../../pacts", dir)
var logDir = fmt.Sprintf("%s/logs", dir)
func TestProvider(t *testing.T) {
// Start provider API in the background
go startServer()
// Create Pact connecting to local Daemon
pact := &dsl.Pact{
Consumer: "client",
Provider: "paymentService",
Host: "localhost",
LogDir: logDir,
PactDir: pactDir,
DisableToolValidityCheck: true,
}
// log.Println("Start verify ", []string{filepath.ToSlash(fmt.Sprintf("%s\\buildreader-bringon.json", pactDir))},
// fmt.Sprintf("http://localhost:%d/setup", port), fmt.Sprintf("http://localhost:%d", port), fmt.Sprintf("%s\\buildReader-bringon.json", pactDir))
// Verify the Provider with local Pact Files
_, err := pact.VerifyProvider(t, types.VerifyRequest{
ProviderBaseURL: fmt.Sprintf("http://localhost:%d", port),
PactURLs: []string{filepath.ToSlash(fmt.Sprintf("%s/client-paymentservice.json", pactDir))},
ProviderStatesSetupURL: fmt.Sprintf("http://localhost:%d/setup", port),
})
if err != nil {
t.Fatal("Error:", err)
}
}
func startServer() {
mux := http.NewServeMux()
lastName := "billy"
mux.HandleFunc("/foobar", func(w http.ResponseWriter, req *http.Request) {
w.Header().Add("Content-Type", "application/json")
fmt.Fprintf(w, fmt.Sprintf(`{"name":"billy", "lastName":"%s"}`, lastName))
// Break the API by replacing the above and uncommenting one of these
// w.WriteHeader(http.StatusUnauthorized)
// fmt.Fprintf(w, `{"s":"baz"}`)
})
// This function handles state requests for a particular test
// In this case, we ensure that the user being requested is available
// before the Verification process invokes the API.
mux.HandleFunc("/setup", func(w http.ResponseWriter, req *http.Request) {
var s *types.ProviderState
decoder := json.NewDecoder(req.Body)
decoder.Decode(&s)
if s.State == "User foo exists" {
lastName = "bagr"
}
w.Header().Add("Content-Type", "application/json")
})
log.Fatal(http.ListenAndServe(":8000", mux))
}
```
rabih
2018-11-06 16:47
hello, any help regarding the below issue:(note that I am using option PactFileWriteMode: ?update?)
/pact/lib/ruby/lib/ruby/gems/2.2.0/gems/bundler-1.9.9/lib/bundler/shared_helpers.rb:78: warning: Insecure world writable dir /go/bin in PATH, mode 040777
matt.fellows
2018-11-08 08:59
I've seen it before on a wercker build. It's a warning, so shouldn't affect any builds
matt.fellows
2018-11-08 09:00
The answer is in the warning - it's telling you /go/bin had insecure permissions on it. Make it more secure, and it will go away
rabih
2018-11-08 09:56
I have 2 micro-services, first one has GET rest APIs and the other has the POST APIs. Is there a way that the two services could update the same pact consumer and provider? Since what is happening now is that the last integration tests ran will override pacts. Any advice regarding this issue?
rabih
2018-12-12 13:36
Hi all,
I have issue in Message pact testing,
So the contract has a message with contents, when the provider try to validate this message the dsl.Message is an empty struct, so the question here, the message should have been parsed with the json message found in the contract?
stein
2018-12-19 17:40
Hi, quick question.
When verifying a pact using the go provider, e.g.
```
res, err := pact.VerifyProvider(...)
```
If no consumers have published pacts the provider verification fails with an ambiguous error - ?Pact URLs is mandatory?. Is this the expected behavior? From memory (I might be wrong) the same scenario in the jvm verifier just skips the test if no consumers are defined. How might I achieve this in go since it?s quite convenient when setting stuff up initially? Cheers
matt.fellows
2018-12-19 23:31
hmm I recall this coming up before, but can?t quite remember the discussion :smile:
matt.fellows
2018-12-19 23:32
one the one hand, not finding any consumers might be a signal something is wrong. On the other hand, perhaps you?re searching for tags (andn therefore consumers) that don?t yet exist, and therefore it isn?t a problem yet.
rabih
2018-12-21 06:40
Hi @matt.fellows,
actually no, I am still getting an empty dsl.Message. You can find the below code for your reference. Please advice how MQ pact works.
```
"an event created": func(m dsl.Message) (interface{}, error) {
myEvent := m.Content.(*MyEvent) // This is not working, only getting state and message description in m
//The below is working since it is comparing it with the message in the contract
myCreatedEvent, err := prepareEvent()
return myCreatedEvent, err
},
```
matt.fellows
2018-12-21 06:49
The provider will never receive the message - it's the one sending it to a queue in the first place!. Pact will invoke that function and expect it to populate the returning interface {} with the response, which is then compared to the contract.
matt.fellows
2018-12-21 08:11
Do you think we could make this clearer on the docs? If so, what do you think we should do differently?
rabih
2018-12-21 08:17
I?d suggest to have more related examples to message queueing like integration with RabbitMQ, Nats, Kafka. Since the example provided for messages is translated from the API examples, which I think is not a valid use case for message queueing.
Thank you
lucas.beier
2019-01-10 12:41
I saw the server I start is starting in a port (eg 55756) and the mock service on other one (eg 55757)
lucas.beier
2019-01-10 12:42
In `client.go` we can find this code:
```
port := getPort(request.ProviderBaseURL)
waitForPort(port, p.getNetworkInterface(), p.Address, fmt.Sprintf(`Timed out waiting for Provider API to start
on port %d - are you sure it's running?`, port))
```
lucas.beier
2019-01-10 12:43
In the `for select` on `waitForPort`, the first time the `net.Dial` dials to the correct port (57420, for example), but the second time it dials to 0
matt.fellows
2019-01-11 01:55
hi @lucas.beier, thanks for raising the issue. I can?t quite reproduce your code but will publish to our test broker and go from there
matt.fellows
2019-01-11 01:56
The port `0` doesn?tt look deliberate, so i?s possible something else has gone awry before that point to cause issues.
matt.fellows
2019-01-11 01:56
During consumer side testing, the mock service is what records the interactions and is your ?dummy? provider. It?s not used on provider verification, however.
matt.fellows
2019-01-11 02:01
OK,. I?ve just published your pacts to our hosted broker (http://test.pact.dius.com.au)
rabih
2019-01-16 10:30
Hello,
I have a question, is it possible to test 2 different consumer against same provider?
matt.fellows
2019-01-16 12:43
Can you elaborate on what you mean? You'll need to ensure you setup so that each test directs the interactions at separate mock providers
rabih
2019-01-16 12:46
so we are initializing two pacts, the first is for Consumer1 and Provider1, the second is for Consumer2 and Provider1, we have a TestMain function and multiple testing functions where we are adding the function mapping in each unit tests with the specific pact, and at the end of the TestMain we are calling provider validation
matt.fellows
2019-01-18 02:58
I?m not sure this is a good idea. Each consumer/provider testing should be done in isolation from one another. Is there are reason why they are coupled like this?
rabih
2019-01-18 07:51
so according to CQRS, we have command service and query service, where command ones can consume events from multiple query services
matt.fellows
2019-01-18 10:31
Sure, but you can still separate out the tests for the query and command consumers. Perhaps if you could share some code that would help. In short, you can most definitely share multiple consumers for a single provider
rabih
2019-01-21 15:48
my issue is resolved, so instead, I used one pact for the provider without specifying a consumer, so now it is validating all consumers with one provider
rabih
2019-03-04 15:48
Hi, is it possible to force the name for consumer/provider instead of getting this message(other than creating manually):
The name ?ServicesProvider? is very similar to the following existing consumers/providers:
* providers_api
If you meant to specify one of the above names, please correct the pact configuration, and re-publish the pact.
matt.fellows
2019-03-05 02:57
Best asking this in the #pact-broker channel, but the answer is yes (maybe).
matt.fellows
2019-03-10 12:22
Hi folks, I've made a few significant changes to pact go tonight and am looking for feedback.
matt.fellows
2019-03-10 12:25
1. Deprecated need for the annoying states setup URL in favour of registering simple state handler functions
2. Added before and after hooks to invoke during test lifecycle
3. Added Request Filter middleware where you can intercept requests to the provider, enabling use cases such as updating bearer tokens
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/tree/feat/hooks-api
matt.fellows
2019-03-10 12:25
This is based on feedback on forums as well as usage and adoption in the JS dsl which I also maintain.
drewbailey5
2019-05-02 17:12
Hello! has anyone ever worked with building query params to allow for the rails flavor of arrays in params?
meirosuandreea
2019-07-18 09:59
Hi, I am pretty new to PACT and I find myself stuck with the following situation:
I want to match a stream response of type text/plain which looks similar to:
{"Id": 1224, "Name": "Ana", "Age": 5}
{"Id": 34, "Name": "Lele", "Age": 4}
I know it can be done with regex but I am interested in actually checking if each row is of a certain object type, similar to EackLike("Person") which works if response is json - array of objects.
Do you have any suggestion? Or how a custom Matcher would look like?
meirosuandreea
2019-07-18 09:59
has anyone tried something similar or is there any post with more details on custom matcher in go? and how would the pact file be interpreted by a provider in another language (like Java) if the matcher is not built in type?
matt.fellows
2019-07-18 10:30
One option would be to parse it into JSON before handing it off to Pact, but that has its drawbacks
matt.fellows
2019-07-18 10:31
(also I saw your note in gophers, but the real Pact audience is here...)
meirosuandreea
2019-07-18 10:54
yes, I was trying to get an answer and the gophers was the first channel I saw, then I red about this one. But if I change the response to json it means I am not testing the actual response of the provider
matt.fellows
2019-07-18 11:13
> But if I change the response to json it means I am not testing the actual response of the provider
Yes, that is the drawback :wink:
matt.fellows
2019-07-18 11:28
You?ll need to weigh up the value of maintaining the tests vs potential for reality to get out of sync.
matt.fellows
2019-07-18 11:29
Obviously, it would be ideal to do the plain text match. There is currently no (published) way to add / extend the matchers, and if you did, you?d need to somehow make the pact file it generates compatible with other implementations, else it wouldn?t work if it needed to be verified by, say, Java
matt.fellows
2019-07-18 11:29
The specification for the pact file is https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/
meirosuandreea
2019-07-18 11:33
ok, got it. thank you for the response. Ideally, I would have wanted something like the EachLike and check for a object type, since with regex order is important and it's hard to cover optional fields and values, but I will reconsider probably the enforcement on the response
matt.fellows
2019-07-18 11:33
Currently, all of the matching logic is performed by a Ruby process (for consistency with the other Pact implementations)
matt.fellows
2019-07-18 11:34
In theory, you could add matchers to it by modifying that code (https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby)
matt.fellows
2019-07-18 11:34
But, probably, a better option would be to add a new matcher to Pact Go somehow that simply is syntatic sugar that spits out a bunch of regexes under the hood, keeping things compatible
matt.fellows
2019-07-18 11:35
It?s been a while since I?ve had my head in the depths of the code base, but you?d probably want to be looking at https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/dsl/matcher.go as a starting point
matt.fellows
2019-07-18 11:36
I would absolutely welcome a PR. BUT, I would like to know a bit more about your use case to justify expanding any interface, to see how it could benefit the community going forward
meirosuandreea
2019-07-18 11:39
I looked on it and I was pretty much sure that the custom matcher would have to use the built in types in the end just to support cross language integration but wanted double check.
matt.fellows
2019-07-18 11:41
I?ll be honest, the next 2 weeks i?m flat out (2 talks, 2 interstate trips and client work), but will do what I can.
meirosuandreea
2019-07-18 11:42
thank you again. will come back here if any further questions on the road
fergusstrange764
2019-07-30 23:23
I think this message is displayed when the CLI tools can?t actually be found either. You need to install https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone beforehand and make sure al the executables are available on your path
marius.maaland
2019-08-21 15:36
I have a question about provider states. I understand that when I can't run the API locally, you need to have an endpoint or similar you can call that will insert the test data into my datasource before the interaction is replayed against the provider. Now, for provider states in a local API, how would they work, exactly? Do they still interact with the datastore, only locally? The only examples I've seen have been really simple and general
matt.fellows
2019-08-21 23:03
The only difference is how the states get setup. You can instrument your running API with extra endpoints (e.g. `/pact/setup`) that will handle the state, or you can pass a function to the Pact runner and that will do a similar thing
matt.fellows
2019-08-21 23:04
People didn?t like having to add extra endpoints to their APIs - they felt they were cheating or potentially modifying the code in such a way that it reduced their confidence in what was actually going to production. For some, appending new endpoints/handlers to the API was problematic also
marius.maaland
2019-08-21 23:20
I see.
And the I presume then will happen right before the interaction is actually run, so the `/pact/setup` endpoint is called, the mock data gets injected into the database, the request is replayed and the provider sees that "Oh, TestUser123 does exist" and responds accordingly
marius.maaland
2019-08-21 23:21
Now, this would have to be cleaned up. It doesn't sound like that can happen in the `setup` endpoint, is this the purpose of the `AfterEach` handler?
matt.fellows
2019-08-21 23:24
Pretty much, albeit in most cases you can have a default case in the setup endpoint enough yelled care of initialisation/cleanup
matt.fellows
2019-08-21 23:24
In most cases, a cleanup is not necessary and the new state setup can just set it as needed
matt.fellows
2019-08-22 00:13
> Pretty much, albeit in most cases you can have a default case in the setup endpoint enough yelled care of initialisation/cleanup
Apologies was on the phone and obviously this misspelled. What I meant to say was?
Pretty much, albeit in most cases you can have a default case in the setup endpoint that takes care of initialization/cleanup
marius.maaland
2019-08-26 23:56
Quick question: where in the `pact-go` source is the consumer side request parsed? I.e. where the mock receives the request and creates the response
bethskurrie
2019-08-26 23:59
It uses the ruby mock service that has been packaged so it can be used independently.
marius.maaland
2019-08-27 00:03
The reason I am asking is: my client creates the request body in a POST request by calling `json.Marshal()` on a struct instance, and calling `bytes.NewReader(body)` before sending it as an input in `http.NewRequest()`.
marius.maaland
2019-08-27 00:03
In the interaction setup I am describing the body with a `MapMatcher`.
marius.maaland
2019-08-27 00:04
The problem I am having is, when executing the test, pact says that the interaction does not match the request, because the request body it gets has doubly escaped quotation marks, while the interaction does not
marius.maaland
2019-08-27 00:05
I can, of course, just `json.Marshal` the interaction setup as well, but that is the deprecated way of doing it according to the source code
marius.maaland
2019-08-27 00:06
Yep, my logs are showing this:
```
Key: - is expected
+ is actual
Matching keys and values are not shown
{
- "body": {
- "proofRequestId": "someId"
- }
+ "body": "{\"proofRequestId\":\"someId\"}"
}
```
bethskurrie
2019-08-27 00:07
it only tries to parse the body to json if the content type contains "json"
marius.maaland
2019-08-30 23:21
What is the purpose of this check? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/dsl/pact.go#L416
It's causing my `BeforeEach` to be skipped
matt.fellows
2019-08-30 23:40
Hmm I see the issue. I'm assuming you are setting a remote provider states endpoint? The idea is that we need a way to avoid duplication of calling that before each hook. The current rule is to only execute on proxy setup endpoint. We might need to enhance that logic
marius.maaland
2019-09-03 18:40
I am not setting a provider states endpoint, I was just trying to use a `BeforeEach` to run before my test
marius.maaland
2019-09-03 19:56
So the idea is that `BeforeEach` statements are only run if a proxy setup endpoint is set?
matt.fellows
2019-09-04 09:06
No, it should happen only once per interaction. It just so happens to be done when the setup endpoint is called - which should _always_ happen (unless you set a specific remote endpoint for that)
marius.maaland
2019-09-05 17:44
Right, so if I don't set a setup endpoint, pact should still call the `/__setup` endpoint, thus allowing the `BeforeEach` to be run?
matt.fellows
2019-09-10 02:47
@marius.maaland apologies, have been away for a few days. Managed to do this on the plane: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/compare/fix/enable-external-https-requests?expand=1
matt.fellows
2019-09-10 02:48
Basically, allow somebody to specify a TLS configuration for their needs. There is an example in there for a self-signed certificate, but to simply disable verification is also very easy
matt.fellows
2019-09-10 02:49
Would you mind providing more detail on this bug? It should definitely be called, unless there is a new bug in there
matt.fellows
2019-09-10 06:38
It?s still not ready from prime time, but I?d rather have real users play with it before I invest too far
marius.maaland
2019-09-16 23:22
Hi @matt.fellows, sorry I've been busy. I'll try to type up an MVP showing the problem asap. But here's a short description: I tried to setup `BeforeEach`, but it wasn't run, because that `if` statement I linked to wasn't entered, since I did not specify any `ProviderStatesSetupURL`
matt.fellows
2019-09-16 23:26
Thanks Marius. It should be the other way around. If you _don?t_ specify that URL, we will do the provider states mapping: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/dsl/pact.go#L345
matt.fellows
2019-09-16 23:26
in any case, if you get around to raising an issue that?d be great. Then we can track it appropriately
marius.maaland
2019-10-01 18:50
Hi @matt.fellows, just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgot about this, I've just had to focus on other things. Will get back to this soon
marius.maaland
2019-10-08 23:11
Finally got around to checking this out, thanks for your patience @matt.fellows. The PR looks fine, I don't think we're going to use the self-signed certificate functionality because it provides little extra benefit for our testing. Simply disabling the verification works just fine for us
mauricio.galeas
2019-10-09 17:44
Hello. I'm new in pact-go. I'm testing the examaples of the pact-go documentation, but appears always the same error.
```2019/10/09 14:34:26 [DEBUG] starting service
2019/10/09 14:34:26 [ERROR] service exec: "pact-mock-service": executable file not found in $PATH
2019/10/09 14:34:26 [DEBUG] waiting for port 55073 to become available
2019/10/09 14:34:36 [ERROR] Expected server to start < 10s. Timed out waiting for Mock Server to start on port 55073 - are you sure it's running?
panic: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference```
marius.maaland
2019-10-09 18:55
Did you install the CLI tool? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go#installation
marius.maaland
2019-10-09 21:20
Is `pact/bin` in your `$PATH` ? `pact-go` does not seem to find `pact-mock-service` so I suspect it might not be
mauricio.galeas
2019-10-09 21:59
You were right. I didn't set the pact/bin correctly, but now i did it. Thx!
mauricio.galeas
2019-10-11 17:56
Hello i'm tryng to build a project with pact-go in travis/trusty, but when it starts to run test files this error appears:
```2019/10/11 17:52:57 [ERROR] service: /home/travis/pact/lib/ruby/bin/ruby: line 6: /home/travis/pact/lib/ruby/bin.real/ruby: No such file or directory
--- PASS: TestProvider (0.13s)```
matt.fellows
2019-10-14 21:45
Looks like I'll be doing some work on a client that used Go soon, and they are very keen for Pact. So I'll iron out any wrinkles I experience when there
matt.fellows
2019-10-31 05:50
First cut at a Pact workshop for Go: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go
Feedback welcome!
matt.fellows
2019-11-11 00:14
we have a new feature available to Pact Go to remove the pain point of consumers breaking a provider build with new / changed contracts. If you?d like to opt-in to a beta of this, please DM me.
mauricio.galeas
2019-11-12 21:02
hey. Which is the right way to build a consumer test with a query param?
mauricio.galeas
2019-11-12 21:02
```// Package main contains a runnable Consumer Pact test example.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"log"
"net/http"
"strings"
"testing"
"http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/dsl"
)
// Example Pact: How to run me!
// 1. cd <pact-go>/examples
// 2. go test -v -run TestConsumer
func TestConsumer(t *testing.T) {
type UserOutput struct {
Name string `json:"fullname"`
Phone string `json:"cellphone"`
Gender string `json:"gender"`
Country string `json:"country"`
Region string `json:"region"`
Commune string `json:"commune"`
}
// Create Pact connecting to local Daemon
pact := &dsl.Pact{
Consumer: "consumer",
Provider: "prov",
Host: "localhost",
}
defer pact.Teardown()
// Pass in test case
var test = func() error {
u := fmt.Sprintf("http://localhost:%d/api/v1/user/basics?mail=hola@mail.com", pact.Server.Port)
req, err := http.NewRequest("GET", u, strings.NewReader(`{"mail":""}`))
// NOTE: by default, request bodies are expected to be sent with a Content-Type
// of application/json. If you don't explicitly set the content-type, you
// will get a mismatch during Verification.
req.Header.Set("Content-Type", "application/json")
if err != nil {
return err
}
if _, err = http://http.DefaultClient.Do(req); err != nil {
return err
}
return err
}
// Set up our expected interactions.
pact.
AddInteraction().
Given("A user").
UponReceiving("A request to get user").
WithRequest(dsl.Request{
Method: "GET",
Path: dsl.String("user/basics?mail=hola@mail.com"),
Headers: dsl.MapMatcher{"Content-Type": dsl.String("application/json")},
Body: map[string]string{
"mail": "",
},
}).
WillRespondWith(dsl.Response{
Status: 200,
Headers: dsl.MapMatcher{"Content-Type": dsl.String("application/json")},
Body: dsl.Match(&UserOutput{}),
})
// Verify
if err := pact.Verify(test); err != nil {
log.Fatalf("Error on Verify: %v", err)
}
fmt.Println("Test Passed!")
}
```
mauricio.galeas
2019-11-21 20:09
Hello! Which is the best way to retrieve a specific contract from pact-broker without extra information ?
mauricio.galeas
2019-11-21 20:28
I'm currently trying to obtain the "response" tag of a retrieved pact-test, from the broker. But it's pretty messy.
steffen.vulpius
2020-03-18 00:07
Hi, I'm having an issue with the pact workshop. I dont see a pact file being created in step 3.
steffen.vulpius
2020-03-18 00:08
Here is the output (after adding -v and fmt.Println(os.Getenv("PACT_DIR")) in the test):
```--- ?Running Consumer Pact tests
go test -v -tags=integration -count=1 http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/consumer/client -run
'TestClientPact'
/home/Steffen/code/pact-workshop-go/pacts
2020/03/17 17:05:28 [INFO] INFO WEBrick 1.3.1
2020/03/17 17:05:28 [INFO] INFO ruby 2.2.2 (2015-04-13) [i386-mingw32]
2020/03/17 17:05:28 [INFO] INFO WEBrick::HTTPServer#start: pid=11104 port=62467
=== RUN TestClientPact_GetUser
=== RUN TestClientPact_GetUser/the_user_exists
--- PASS: TestClientPact_GetUser (0.06s)
--- PASS: TestClientPact_GetUser/the_user_exists (0.06s)
PASS
ok http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/consumer/client 4.179s```
matt.fellows
2020-03-18 02:13
It looks like you might be running in a Windows-like environment, but somehow it seems to start the mock service - so that?s a good start!
matt.fellows
2020-03-18 02:16
There should be a log file somewhere also - if you could dig that up and share that would be ace
steffen.vulpius
2020-03-18 17:20
```$ make consumer
--- ?Running Consumer Pact tests
go test -v -tags=integration -count=1 http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/consumer/client -run
'TestClientPact'
Starting test
/home/Steffen/code/pact-workshop-go/pacts
2020/03/18 10:13:47 [INFO] INFO WEBrick 1.3.1
2020/03/18 10:13:47 [INFO] INFO ruby 2.2.2 (2015-04-13) [i386-mingw32]
2020/03/18 10:13:47 [INFO] INFO WEBrick::HTTPServer#start: pid=12612 port=51529
=== RUN TestClientPact_GetUser
=== RUN TestClientPact_GetUser/the_user_exists
--- PASS: TestClientPact_GetUser (0.06s)
--- PASS: TestClientPact_GetUser/the_user_exists (0.06s)
PASS
2020/03/18 10:13:47 [DEBUG] pact setup logging
2020/03/18 10:13:47 [DEBUG] pact setup
2020/03/18 10:13:47 [DEBUG] pact write Pact file
2020/03/18 10:13:47 [DEBUG] mock service write pact
2020/03/18 10:13:47 [DEBUG] teardown
2020/03/18 10:13:47 [DEBUG] client: stop server
2020/03/18 10:13:47 [DEBUG] stopping service with pid 11876
ok http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/consumer/client 4.177s```
steffen.vulpius
2020-03-18 17:21
I guess the file is written somewhere, but not in the expected place, maybe because its trying to use cygwin path name as a Windows path name?
matt.fellows
2020-03-18 21:13
Thanks Steffen - given all of that seems to be working fine, I?m also guessing that the pact files will be written somewhere else too!
steffen.vulpius
2020-03-20 20:53
Now that I have it working, the output I get when verifying the provider is different from the doc:
steffen.vulpius
2020-03-20 20:53
```--- ?Running Provider Pact tests
go test -count=1 -tags=integration http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/provider -run "TestPactProvider"
2020/03/20 13:48:06 API starting: port 61622 ([::]:61622)
--- FAIL: TestPactProvider (0.90s)
pact.go:416: Verifying a pact between GoAdminService and GoUserService Given User sally exists A request to login with user 'sally' with GET /users/10 returns a response which has a matching body
user_service_test.go:33: Pact test failed
FAIL
FAIL http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/provider 1.129s
FAIL
make: *** [provider] Error 1```
matt.fellows
2020-03-20 22:14
yes I?ve seen this issue recently. I think the latest standalone breaks it because of the wey the output
bethskurrie
2020-03-20 23:31
I didn't think I made a backwards incompatible change, but let me know if you need something fixed @matt.fellows
matt.fellows
2020-03-20 23:39
It was the change that sent output from stdout to stderr or something like that.
matt.fellows
2020-03-20 23:40
I'll fix it on the go side because I think that's where it belongs. I need to look a bit more carefully though and will let you know what I find
bethskurrie
2020-03-20 23:46
There might have been an unintentional release while we were working out the right format.
matt.fellows
2020-03-21 00:02
@bethskurrie so just got home from swimming and did a quick test (outside of go).
Start a web server on a port so you get passed the connection refused erors (e.g. `python -m http.server 8080` (python 3) or `python -m SimpleHTTPServer` (python 2), then point your verifier at any old pact file with the json formatter enabed:
``` ./pact/bin/pact-provider-verifier -f json --provider-base-url http://localhost:8080 ./examples/pacts/consumer-httpbin.json | jq .```
matt.fellows
2020-03-21 00:04
With the JSON formatter, neither in stdout/stderr do you get the formatted diffs. This used to be the case, but seems to have disappeared.
Current version of the verifier from latest standalone is `1.30.0` . But I?m pretty sure the regression came in a few releases ago
bethskurrie
2020-03-21 02:05
It was a while ago that disappeared. I hadn't realised that go was relying on that part of the json for the mismatches, and I'd removed it because of the noise of the backtrace.
matt.fellows
2020-03-21 02:16
I'll have a look but I'm fairly confident we weren't using a JSON field to print the failure - it was in stderr/stdout somewhere and we just printed it verbatim
matt.fellows
2020-03-21 02:16
Let me confirm, I've just put toddler down for a nap and will jump online in 5
bethskurrie
2020-03-21 02:19
Using git@github.com:pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone-e2e-example.git is the easiest way to go back in time.
matt.fellows
2020-03-21 02:37
ok cool yep, we were just printing `example.Exception.Message` - so thanks for adding it back in. I recalled a while back me doing some magic on the strings in `stderr`/`stdout` and hence my initial suspicion. The only magic now is the JSONL formatted parsing of `stdout` that goes on to get the JSON.
matt.fellows
2020-03-21 02:43
@steffen.vulpius delete the `./pact` folder in the workshop and try running the step again. It should automatically pull down the latest standalone with a fix for that message. Thanks for raising it!
steffen.vulpius
2020-03-21 20:40
Cool. I'll reinstall it. I setup pact broker locally and have a python client publishing to a Go service. Can't wait to demo it to my org next week.
braddle
2020-03-25 11:47
Is there a way to make the example content for Errors empty for this struct??
```type Status struct {
Status string `json:"status" pact:"example=OK"`
Errors []string `json:"errors"`
}```
I am looking for something like this:
```{
"status": "OK,
"errors": []
}```
matt.fellows
2020-04-20 12:29
Sorry, I ended up going to bed - late night. Did I see that you?d moved on from Sainos?
bheemreddy181
2020-04-20 21:12
Hey , Pact Gophers - How dow you handle a session based authorization on a API while verifying contracts on the provider Example : there is a session API which is used to create a token and that token is an Authorization for another request API , and that session lasts only for some time
matt.fellows
2020-04-20 23:32
I usually replace any tokens with a valid token using request filters https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go#request-filtering
matt.fellows
2020-04-20 23:33
Step 8-10 cover off this exact scenario. See https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/tree/step10 for the solution to the problem
bheemreddy181
2020-04-21 00:42
@matt.fellows@matt.fellows@matt.fellows will I be able to do this for each state say good state where the session is valid and invalid state where the session is invalid some thing like that ?
matt.fellows
2020-04-21 00:47
you can handle that in many ways - state handlers are the main one though
bheemreddy181
2020-04-21 00:53
The above example adds it to all requests which is slightly different from our case
matt.fellows
2020-04-21 00:54
So use the state handlers to set a variable that the request filter uses
bheemreddy181
2020-04-23 14:57
I am slightly confused matt here , can we append request filters from the state handlers ?
matt.fellows
2020-04-23 23:14
No, the request filter is a function that has to be declared in advance of running the verification. That function can close over variables however in the outer scope (e.g. a top-level test variable like `var authorization bool` ). You could then use the state handlers to enable/disable authorization by setting the value to what you need
bheemreddy181
2020-04-24 01:55
the idea is the authorization header value changes based on the endpoint what we test , for one API thee header value is static where as for other API the value is dynamic , the dynamic value is what we want to override in the statehandlers
bheemreddy181
2020-04-24 01:56
Typically the value for the Dynamic API is generated from static API endpoint basically its all session based
bheemreddy181
2020-04-24 01:59
here is an example what we trying , we haven?t tested this but
```func (suite *FunctionalTestSuite) TestProvider() {
token, err := uuid.NewUUID()
if err != nil {
suite.FailNow(err.Error())
}
suite.authToken = token
f := func(next http.Handler) http.Handler {
return http.HandlerFunc(func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
if strings.Contains(r.RequestURI, "requests") {
r.Header.Add("Authorization", suite.authToken.String())
next.ServeHTTP(w, r)
}
})
}
// Verify the Provider - Tag-based Published Pacts for any known consumers
_, err = suite.pact.VerifyProvider(suite.T(), types.VerifyRequest{
ProviderBaseURL: os.Getenv("PACT_BASE_URL"),
Tags: []string{"master", "prod"},
FailIfNoPactsFound: true,
BrokerURL: os.Getenv("PACT_BROKER_URL"),
BrokerUsername: os.Getenv("PACT_BROKER_USERNAME"),
BrokerPassword: os.Getenv("PACT_BROKER_PASSWORD"),
BrokerToken: os.Getenv("PACT_BROKER_TOKEN"),
PublishVerificationResults: true,
StateHandlers: suite.getPactStateHandlers(),
RequestFilter: f,
})
if err != nil {
suite.FailNow(err.Error())
}
}
func (suite *FunctionalTestSuite) getPactStateHandlers() types.StateHandlers {
return types.StateHandlers{
"a session exists for requests API ": func() error {
_, err := persistSession(exampleSession(), suite.authToken)
if err != nil {
return err
}
return nil
},
}
}```
bheemreddy181
2020-04-24 02:00
if you look at the statehandlers here we are trying to persist the token what we are passing in the RequestFilter for Authorization
matt.fellows
2020-04-24 02:34
I can?t validate that your code works obviously, but something like that should work
matt.fellows
2020-04-24 02:34
you have all of the tools you need to modify the request based on a state handler.
matt.fellows
2020-04-24 02:35
> Typically the value for the Dynamic API is generated from static API endpoint basically its all session based
Do you mean you have to go out to another API to get the session value? You may want to consider mocking that component out
bheemreddy181
2020-04-24 03:47
Will give a try for sure , the reason I shared the implementation is to check whether is this the recommended way to implement this or is there a better way for this
matt.fellows
2020-04-24 03:51
So I don?t fully appreciate the authentication layers going on in the app, but what you?re doing there looks fine to me
bheemreddy181
2020-04-28 01:18
It is going good just that the examples were slightly confusing - ruby implementation was quite straight forward compared to Go, same with setup as well
bheemreddy181
2020-04-30 01:38
Mainly interms of spinning up the application for running pact tests , major Go Application just serve the HTTP requests user mux router they don?t spin up the app on local host.
bheemreddy181
2020-04-30 01:39
we don?t have file structure like this
```go test -count=1 -tags=integration http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/provider -run "TestPactProvider"```
how do we run tests when the file structure is really flat ? and we all use GO MODS
matt.fellows
2020-04-30 01:48
> Mainly interms of spinning up the application for running pact tests , major Go Application just serve the HTTP requests user mux router they don?t spin up the app on local host. (edited)
I would like to add support for that. It shouldn?t actually be very hard, but at the moment, starting it up shouldn?t be terribly difficult
matt.fellows
2020-04-30 01:48
> how do we run tests when the file structure is really flat ? and we all use GO MODS
That?s up to you. I can?t answer how you want to structure your tests. It?s very common to use build tags, if you don?t want to use build tags, remove the tags
bheemreddy181
2020-04-30 01:50
Even Developers are taking longer time for setting up pact either on provider and consumer the examples help a lot but more documentation should help
matt.fellows
2020-04-30 01:52
The workshop using `go mod`, so that shouldn?t be an issue - have you looked at that?
matt.fellows
2020-04-30 01:52
We?ve found that more documentation doesn?t necessarily help, it would be great to know what challenges they have specifically, and then we can address that
bheemreddy181
2020-04-30 01:55
Sounds good we are giving our best to understand the tests , the setup is slightly different from Examples to our Applications. I will ask my dev to ask questions here
bheemreddy181
2020-04-30 01:56
Does holding a go protobuf registry ( which holds all the schema for multiple services ) as a library for a group of services eliminate Contract Tests ?
bheemreddy181
2020-04-30 01:58
The Schema defined in the library is used by multiple services , typically everyone should use the same package and import schema from it and fill the data and emit messages out
matt.fellows
2020-04-30 02:07
See https://pact.canny.io/feature-requests/p/support-grpc and the protobufs feature. Keen for more feedback (but the short answer I think is ?no?)
bheemreddy181
2020-04-30 20:58
Is there a way we can read request headers in State Handlers for Go Implementation ? Our use case is more like we want session passed in as header for an API and store that in the DB ( for Authorization ) before verifying the request
matt.fellows
2020-04-30 22:04
Request filter is the only opportunity to read from or modify a request. Can't you create the session header from a state handler, and then inject it using a request filter?
matt.fellows
2020-04-30 22:05
If not, I'd recommend just not including authorization in your tests because it is sounding like you're making it too complicated. It shouldn't be the case
bheemreddy181
2020-04-30 23:01
the idea was we want to keep a session sitting in thee contract file and then use that session in the state handlers to persist in the db , as you said it is getting complicated
matt.fellows
2020-04-30 23:05
when you say ?session in the contract files? what do you mean? A long lived session? How long will the session be valid for?
matt.fellows
2020-04-30 23:05
It all sounds like a recipe for confusion and unmaintainable tests, if you ask me
matt.fellows
2020-04-30 23:05
I?d start to question the value of including auth in pact tests if you can?t make it more simple (and also, if your auth need be this complicated in the first place)
matt.fellows
2020-04-30 23:06
presumably, auth is common to all of your services. So in that case, you could fallback to other types of tests (good functional coverage on the provider, and any synthetic/smoke tests for consumers)
matt.fellows
2020-04-30 23:07
FWIW it usually isn?t this hard, so my instincts are telling me something else is wrong - e.g. the code base isn?t modular enough to deal with it etc.
bheemreddy181
2020-04-30 23:17
makes sense , i will move away the auth from contract and just handle them directly in state handlers
bheemreddy181
2020-04-30 23:18
is this a right matcher for matching on string ?
``` },
"response": {
"status": 200,
"headers": {
"Content-Type": "application/json; charset=utf-8"
},
"body": {
"request": {
"id": "4c8e646e-2e19-4796-81ea-c1ec5f45d156"
},
"matchingRules": {
"$.body.request.id": {
"match": "type"
}
}
}
}
}
],
"metadata": {
"pactSpecification": {
"version": "2.0.0"
}
}```
bheemreddy181
2020-04-30 23:19
like the response body.request.id needed to be a string and can be anything assume my consumer has written some wrong matchers i feel
matt.fellows
2020-04-30 23:27
Yep, that is a string matcher in this case. Is the request id supposed to be a string or something else?
bheemreddy181
2020-04-30 23:29
Error
```Description of differences
--------------------------------------
* Expected a Hash (like {"request"=>{"id"=>"4c8e646e-2e19-4796-81ea-c1ec5f45d156"}, "matchingRules"=>{"$.body.request.id"=>{"match"=>"type"}}}) but got a String ("{\"request\":{\"id\":\"e8393004-8b37-11ea-9596-dca90488bbb8\",\"type\":\"access\",\"status\":\"initial\",\"error\":\"\"}}") at $```
matt.fellows
2020-05-01 00:04
The matching library is getting a content type that?s not JSON, so it?s interpreting the result as a string
bheemreddy181
2020-05-01 00:07
Another question when ever we have multiple clients using the same API , does that mean we write multiple TestProvider https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/examples/provider_test.go#L22 each with its own provider consumer config and its own request filters ?
matt.fellows
2020-05-01 00:11
No, just one provider test is all that is required, and you fetch all contracts registered for that provider
bheemreddy181
2020-05-01 00:19
For ruby we have done only one combo , but we provide the consumer name as part of the rake JOB
bheemreddy181
2020-05-01 00:20
I see that we provider the combo like this while doing the setup
```suite.pact = &dsl.Pact{
Consumer: os.Getenv("CONSUMER_NAME"),
Provider: os.Getenv("PROVIDER_NAME"),
LogLevel: "INFO",
}```
bheemreddy181
2020-05-01 00:46
Here is an issue what i am seeing @matt.fellows , for some reason i have to append and header while writing response thats ok i will check with dev why thats happening . but if you look at the below response even with a matcher it is trying to match the exact value
``` {
"request": {
- "id": "4c8e646e-2e19-4796-81ea-c1ec5f45d156"
- },
- "matchingRules": {
- "$.body.request.id": {
- "match": "type"
- }
+ "id": "87eb23f8-8b44-11ea-9602-dca90488bbb8"
}
}
Description of differences
--------------------------------------
* Expected "4c8e646e-2e19-4796-81ea-c1ec5f45d156" but got "87eb23f8-8b44-11ea-9602-dca90488bbb8" at $.request.id
* Could not find key "matchingRules" (keys present are: request) at $```
matt.fellows
2020-05-01 00:47
hangon, how did the matching rules get added to the `body`? Are you hand coding the pact?
bheemreddy181
2020-05-01 00:48
```{
"consumer": {
"name": "consumer"
},
"provider": {
"name": "provider"
},
"interactions": [
{
"description": "a request for request creation",
"providerState": "a session exists for requests API",
"request": {
"method": "post",
"path": "/public-api/requests",
"headers": {
"Content-Type": "application/json",
"Accept": "application/json",
"Authorization": "4c8e646e-2e19-479s6-81ea-c1ec5f45d156"
},
"body": {
"request_type": "access"
}
},
"response": {
"status": 200,
"headers": {
"Content-Type": "application/json; charset=utf-8"
},
"body": {
"request": {
"id": "4c8e646e-2e19-4796-81ea-c1ec5f45d156"
},
"matchingRules": {
"$.body.request.id": {
"match": "type"
}
}
}
}
}
],
"metadata": {
"pactSpecification": {
"version": "2.0.0"
}
}
}```
matt.fellows
2020-05-01 00:50
the error message above is 100% looking for a field called `matchingRules` in the body.
matt.fellows
2020-05-01 00:51
It seems to me somebody has manually modified that Pact file, or is using a broken pact consnumer code
bheemreddy181
2020-05-01 00:51
Oh ok which is weird let me generate a new PACT file then and test with that
bheemreddy181
2020-05-01 12:42
i assume there is an issue with `pact-support gem 1.14.3` where it is not able to read the pact file with a matcher from pact broker
```2020/05/01 07:37:56 [DEBUG] executing after hook
2020/05/01 07:37:56 [DEBUG] teardown
--- FAIL: TestFunctionalTestSuite (3.40s)
--- FAIL: TestFunctionalTestSuite/TestProvider (3.39s)
contract_test.go:59:
Error Trace: contract_test.go:59
Error: Expected nil, but got: &errors.errorString{s:"error verifying provider: exit status 1\n\nSTDERR:\nINFO: Fetching pacts for provider_name from http://pact-broker-poc.dev.com for tags: latest master\nINFO: Reading pact at http://pact-broker-poc.dev.com/pacts/provider/provider_name/consumer/consumer_name/version/1.0.0\nError reading file from \nNo such file or directory @ rb_sysopen - /Users/bvennapureddy/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-support-1.14.3/lib/pact/consumer_contract/pact_file.rb:51:in `read'\n/Users/bvennapureddy/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-support-1.14.3/lib/pact/consumer_contract/pact_file.rb:51:in `get_local'\n/Users/bvennapureddy/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-support-1.14.3/lib/pact/consumer_contract/pact_file.rb:41:in `render_pact'\n/Users/bvennapureddy/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-support-1.14.3/lib/pact/consumer_contract/pact_file.rb:22:in `read'\n/Users/bvenn```
the same pact file works when i reference it from my local using PACT_URL?s , correct me if i am wrong
bheemreddy181
2020-05-01 12:45
i am using CURL command to push contracts to broker manually which is something like this
```curl -v -XPUT \-H "Content-Type: application/json" -d@consumer_name-provider_name.json http://pact-broker-poc.dev.com/pacts/provider/provider_name/consumer/consumer_name/version/1.0.0```
bheemreddy181
2020-05-01 12:53
below is how my provider setup looks like
```// Verify the Provider - Tag-based Published Pacts for any known consumers
_, err := suite.pact.VerifyProvider(suite.T(), types.VerifyRequest{
AfterEach: func() error {
suite.pact.Teardown()
return nil
},
ProviderBaseURL: fmt.Sprintf("http://127.0.0.1:%d", port),
PactURLs: []string{os.Getenv("PACT_URL")},
Tags: []string{"master"},
FailIfNoPactsFound: true,
BrokerURL: fmt.Sprintf(os.Getenv("PACT_BROKER_URL")),
PublishVerificationResults: canIPublishResultsToBroker(suite),
ProviderVersion: os.Getenv("TRAVIS_PULL_REQUEST_SHA"),
StateHandlers: suite.getPactStateHandlers(),
RequestFilter: updateIncomingRequestHeaders,
})```
matt.fellows
2020-05-01 12:56
You need to configure the test to use the broker properties, not pact URLs
bheemreddy181
2020-05-01 12:59
the reason you see PACT_URL above is my consumer triggered provider CI build will pass a PACT_URL where as provider PR verification will directly pull master contract from pact broker
bheemreddy181
2020-05-01 13:00
the setup is done this way because we want to use the same configuration for both ( Consumer initiated CI build vs PROVIDER initiated CI build )
bheemreddy181
2020-05-01 13:01
if there is PACT_URL pull that pact file else pull the master PACT from the broker for all consumers
bheemreddy181
2020-05-01 13:03
if i use the pact file from local ( bare metal ) reference this setup works fine , i see a problem only when i am pulling this pact file from the broker
matt.fellows
2020-05-01 13:03
Seems highly unlikely, but if you can prove that that needs to be fixed!
bheemreddy181
2020-05-01 13:22
either the error logging is not correct i feel , hard to debug whats wrong here , i tried a pact file from broker without a matcher i see the below logs
```2020/05/01 08:15:50 [DEBUG] teardown
--- FAIL: TestFunctionalTestSuite (3.06s)
--- FAIL: TestFunctionalTestSuite/TestProvider (2.96s)
--- FAIL: TestFunctionalTestSuite/TestProvider/has_a_matching_body (0.00s)
pact.go:622: Verifying a pact between consumer_name and provider_name Given a session exists for requests API request to create a request with POST /public-api/requests returns a response which has a matching body
pact.go:628: Verifying a pact between consumer_name and provider_name Given a session exists for requests API request to create a request with POST /public-api/requests returns a response which has a matching body
Actual: {"request":{"id":"e0e0b432-8bad-11ea-b94f-dca90488bbb8","type":"access","status":"initial","error":""}}
Diff
--------------------------------------
Key: - is expected
+ is actual
Matching keys and values are not shown
{
"request": {
- "id": "4c8e646e-2e19-4796-81ea-c1ec5f45d156"
+ "id": "e0e0b432-8bad-11ea-b94f-dca90488bbb8"
}
}
Description of differences
--------------------------------------
* Expected "4c8e646e-2e19-4796-81ea-c1ec5f45d156" but got "e0e0b432-8bad-11ea-b94f-dca90488bbb8" at $.request.id
contract_test.go:60:
Error Trace: contract_test.go:60
Error: Expected nil, but got: &errors.errorString{s:"error verifying provider: exit status 1\n\nSTDERR:\nINFO: Fetching pacts for datacompliance from http://pact-broker-poc.dev.com for tags: latest master\nINFO: Reading pact at http://pact-broker-poc.dev.com/pacts/provider/provider_name/consumer/consumer_name/version/1.0.0\nError reading file from \nNo such file or directory @ rb_sysopen - /Users/bvennapureddy/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-support-1.14.3/lib/pact/consumer_contract/pact_file.rb:51:in `read'\n/Users/bvennapureddy/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-support-1.14.3/lib/pact/consumer_contr```
bheemreddy181
2020-05-01 13:23
which also has
```Reading pact at http://pact-broker-poc.dev.com/pacts/provider/provider_name/consumer/consumer_name/version/1.0.0\nError reading file from \nNo such file or directory @ rb_sysopen - /Users/bvennapureddy/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-support-```
matt.fellows
2020-05-01 13:34
Can you please set log level to debug and share that? I suspect a configuration issue
bheemreddy181
2020-05-03 15:23
I was able to successfully do a pact provider setup for one of our GO applications thanks a ton Matt for the help
bheemreddy181
2020-05-03 18:29
while publishing the results from the CI , i don?t see the provider tags are being set correctly , we are passing in the branch names as a reference , but the broker UI doesn?t show up anything
bheemreddy181
2020-05-03 19:03
this is how verify provider looks like
```// Verify the Provider - Tag-based Published Pacts for any known consumers
_, err := suite.pact.VerifyProvider(suite.T(), types.VerifyRequest{
AfterEach: func() error {
suite.pact.Teardown()
return nil
},
ProviderBaseURL: fmt.Sprintf("http://127.0.0.1:%d", port),
// Consumer initiated CI build will have PACT URL with a specific pact
PactURLs: setPACTURL(),
Tags: []string{"master"},
FailIfNoPactsFound: true,
BrokerURL: fmt.Sprintf(os.Getenv("PACT_BROKER_URL")),
PublishVerificationResults: canIPublishResultsToBroker(),
ProviderVersion: getProviderVersion(),
StateHandlers: suite.getPactStateHandlers(),
RequestFilter: updateIncomingRequestHeaders,
ProviderTags: []string{os.Getenv("BRANCH")},
})```
i could see there is BRANCH variable on my CI as well
bheemreddy181
2020-05-03 21:27
do we need to pass an param here https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/1238fba0f539afc1c271ad5a3fa6d32fa41caa07/client/verification_service.go#L25 ?
matt.fellows
2020-05-03 23:16
The docs there could probably be updated, but that file is for internal use only anyway
matt.fellows
2020-05-03 23:17
In `debug` log level, you should see the arguments passed to the standalone CLI. If `--provider-version-tag` is not being said, there may be an issue (or latest standalone tools not installed)
bheemreddy181
2020-05-04 00:04
i don?t see that in the debug log level
``` starting verification service with args: [--format json --provider-base-url http://localhost:63819 --provider-states-setup-url http://localhost:63819/__setup --pact-broker-base-url http://pact-broker-poc.dev.com --provider_app_version 1.0.0 --provider providername --consumer-version-tag master]```
bheemreddy181
2020-05-04 00:10
Do you know which standalone had this issue and in which version it was fixed
matt.fellows
2020-05-04 00:34
it doesn?t look to be an issue with the standalone, it looks like an issue with pact go
matt.fellows
2020-05-04 01:16
I?ve found the issue - just pushed up a change now. Can you pull latest (not tagged) to see if that works?
matt.fellows
2020-05-04 01:40
It?s a long answer, but basically because it?s incompatible with the way the current Go package works
bheemreddy181
2020-05-04 15:28
How do we do a no_op in state handlers in go similar to ruby ? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby/wiki/Provider-states#provider-codebase
dan.h.lee329
2020-05-04 16:53
I've notice that `GraphQLInteraction` is implemented for `pact-js`, but not `pact-go`. No one has submitted an enhancement request so far, is there a roadmap to bring this feature into `pact-go` ? I can submit the request if not planned yet, thanks!
bheemreddy181
2020-05-04 22:00
Is there any documentation about Work in progress pacts , i couldn?t find it
bheemreddy181
2020-05-06 02:34
Quick Question Team , understanding pending pacts https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/README.md#pending-pacts what does this mean ?
```It does so by flagging the contract as "unverified" in the Pact Broker the first time a contract is published```
Do we need to manually unverify the pact using an API ?
matt.fellows
2020-05-06 02:36
> It does so by flagging the contract as ?unverified? in the Pact Broker *the first time a contract is published*
does that answer your question?
bheemreddy181
2020-05-06 02:41
you mean tagging the contract as `unverified` rather than tagging it as `master` ? i am slightly confused
matt.fellows
2020-05-06 02:42
you don?t do anything, when the pact is published the broker automatically detects that the contract has or hasn?t been seen before and internally marks it as ?pending? or not
matt.fellows
2020-05-06 02:43
when provider verificaction happens, if the verification passes it transitions out of pending and is now a real contract that will break builds (see the original article that talks about the caveats around tagging etc.)
matt.fellows
2020-05-06 02:44
if the verification fails, the `can-i-deploy` check for the consumer will fail, because the provider has not yet verified it
bheemreddy181
2020-05-06 02:48
Ah ok , that depends on if provider enabled `EnablePending: true` which will automatically set the verifications results to true even though the contract is failed / not verified - we are not using `can-i-deploy` actually
matt.fellows
2020-05-06 02:58
> verifications results to true
No, the verification results are still sent back to the broker that the verification failed, and the reasons why (so in Pactflow you can see why the verification failed, which fields were impacted etc.). It just returns a local exit status of `0`
matt.fellows
2020-05-06 02:59
So if you?re not using `can-i-deploy` you?ll need a way to check if the consumer is compatible with the provider - otherwise you might release something the provider does not yet support
bheemreddy181
2020-05-06 03:00
We are using http://blog.pact.io/2018/07/16/publishing-pact-verification-statuses-to-github/ feature actually which will replace `can-i-deploy`
bheemreddy181
2020-05-06 03:02
```if the verification fails, the can-i-deploy check for the consumer will fail, because the provider has not yet verified it```
this more looks like feature branch based implementation
bheemreddy181
2020-05-06 03:02
we don?t want the consumer build to be blocked until the provider actually implements the feature
matt.fellows
2020-05-06 03:03
sure, so how do you have a feature in master that is going to production that relies on an API that doesn?t yet exist?
bheemreddy181
2020-05-06 03:06
Steps we are following now is
1. Consumer pushes contracts first to branch and then pushes them to master ( Typically only writes tests first ) feature is switched off
2. Provider implements the feature by looking at the contracts ( Test Driven Development ) may be
3. Once Provider successfully implements the feature thats when we will ask the Consumer to Switch on the feature and we will enable the Git Status Checks
bheemreddy181
2020-05-06 03:07
I assume here for time being if we don?t enable Git Status Checks that should fill this use case , but correct me if i am wrong
bheemreddy181
2020-05-10 21:09
I don?t see this happening i still see the jobs exits with a status `1` this is how my provider setup looks like
```// Verify the Provider - Tag-based Published Pacts for any known consumers
_, err := suite.pact.VerifyProvider(suite.T(), types.VerifyRequest{
AfterEach: func() error {
suite.pact.Teardown()
return nil
},
ProviderBaseURL: fmt.Sprintf("http://127.0.0.1:%d", port),
// Consumer initiated CI build will have PACT URL with a specific pact
//PactURLs: setPACTURL(),
PactURLs: []string{"pact.json"},
//Tags: []string{"master"},
FailIfNoPactsFound: true,
//BrokerURL: fmt.Sprintf(os.Getenv("PACT_BROKER_URL")),
PublishVerificationResults: canIPublishResultsToBroker(),
StateHandlers: suite.getPactStateHandlers(),
RequestFilter: updateIncomingRequestHeaders,
// https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/README.md#pending-pacts
// even if we get new contracts which is not implemented in case as we are doing parallel development. This flag will mark Provider CI Green
EnablePending: true,
// These below two are used to tag the provider version and the reference branch for each verification
ProviderVersion: getProviderVersion(),
ProviderTags: setProviderTags(),
})```
bheemreddy181
2020-05-10 21:12
Another thing i spotted here is if i have local pact which i am referring to , with `BrokerURL`it doesn?t pick the local pact rather refers to the broker
matt.fellows
2020-05-10 23:31
So two things. You currently need to be using Pactflow for pending pacts (we often test out new features this way). It was mentioned previously but not clear in the readme. I'll update that
matt.fellows
2020-05-10 23:32
The second part I'm not sure off the top of my head the precedence rules. I would just set the right properties dynamically rather than specifying both
bheemreddy181
2020-05-10 23:37
Another quick question , go test suite only tells that there are only two things getting validated when ever i run my test
1. has a matching body
2. validating the headers
Does this mean it is not validating the status code( like whether its 200 or not ) of the response , Can we output the logs when the validation is successful which we don?t do right now
matt.fellows
2020-05-11 00:02
I?ll check the example output in the project, it should definitely show all assertions, including status codes
bheemreddy181
2020-05-11 00:08
when you pactflow does that mean we should use broker instance of pact flow ?
bheemreddy181
2020-05-11 00:10
hmmm :disappointed: is there any other way we can achieve this with self hosted broker ? this will not work even with a local pact ?
matt.fellows
2020-05-11 01:17
@bheemreddy181 https://pact.canny.io/feature-requests/p/pending-pacts-prevent-consumers-being-able-to-break-provider-builds-with-changed. Apologies it wasn?t clear earlier. People seemed to know about the pending/WIP pacts but from other sources so assumed everyone knew we were rolling it out slowly
bheemreddy181
2020-05-11 01:23
Thanks for supporting and maintaining the open source version. By when in general I can expect this feature I assumed so it is available and we planned things accordingly but ya have to change those now
matt.fellows
2020-05-11 01:30
I?m not sure I understand the question. Is there a few parts - when will it be generally available? I can?t answer that yet, but once we have fully support across languages and we?ve ironed out any basic kinks, we?ll roll it into the OSS broker for broad consumption
matt.fellows
2020-05-11 01:31
This might be a month or so, but can?t say for sure. We roll things out to Pactflow first, because we can see logs, diagnose issues faster etc.
matt.fellows
2020-05-11 04:20
All that being said - please feel free to comment on the issue above. Feedback is helpful
matt.fellows
2020-05-11 04:20
welcome to signup to a free dev account and put test data in their if you?d like to prove out the workflow ahead of time
bheemreddy181
2020-05-12 01:14
Do i need to pass that variable to args here ? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/types/verify_request.go#L114
bheemreddy181
2020-05-12 01:17
I tried passing that as a variable to my test command like this `PACT_BROKER_FEATURES=pacts_for_verification go test -tags=contract`
matt.fellows
2020-05-12 01:39
i.e. the pact broker process itself must have that environment variable set
bheemreddy181
2020-05-13 03:55
this thing still didn?t work , i still see exit status `1` is there a way i can debug this
bheemreddy181
2020-05-13 04:00
And also i observed that tests run more than once when they fail is there a retry functionality in built for this by default if so any peculiar reason why it was built that way ?
bheemreddy181
2020-05-13 04:02
Ah weird i see the failed logs twice which i assumed tests are running twice
bheemreddy181
2020-05-13 04:05
```2020/05/12 22:53:50 [DEBUG] pact setup logging
2020/05/12 22:53:50 [DEBUG] pact setup
2020/05/12 22:53:50 [DEBUG] checking CLI compatability
2020/05/12 22:53:50 [INFO] checking pact-mock-service within range >= 3.5.0, < 4.0.0
2020/05/12 22:53:50 [DEBUG] running binary pact-mock-service
2020/05/12 22:53:50 API starting: port 61027 ([::]:61027)
2020/05/12 22:53:51 [DEBUG] checking version for binary pact-mock-service version 3.6.1
2020/05/12 22:53:51 [DEBUG] checking if version 3.6.1 within semver range >= 3.5.0, < 4.0.0
2020/05/12 22:53:51 [DEBUG] 3.6.1 satisfies constraints 3.6.1 >= 3.5.0, < 4.0.0
2020/05/12 22:53:51 [INFO] checking pact-provider-verifier within range >= 1.30.0, < 2.0.0
2020/05/12 22:53:51 [DEBUG] running binary pact-provider-verifier
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] checking version for binary pact-provider-verifier version 1.30.1
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] checking if version 1.30.1 within semver range >= 1.30.0, < 2.0.0
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] 1.30.1 satisfies constraints 1.30.1 >= 1.30.0, < 2.0.0
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [INFO] checking pact-broker within range >= 1.22.3
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] running binary pact-broker
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] checking version for binary pact-broker version 1.26.0
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] checking if version 1.26.0 within semver range >= 1.22.3
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] 1.26.0 satisfies constraints 1.26.0 >= 1.22.3
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] starting new proxy with opts {http 127.0.0.1:61027 0 [0x4715270 0x4715790 0x47831c0] /__setup <nil>}
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] starting reverse proxy on port 61041
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] waiting for port 61041 to become available
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] pact provider verification
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] client: verifying a provider
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] waiting for port 61041 to become available
2020/05/12 22:53:52 [DEBUG] starting verification service with args: [/Users/bvennapureddy/8b/apps/portfolio/spec/pacts/brazil_portal-datacompliance.json --format json --provider-base-url http://localhost:61041 --provider-states-setup-url http://localhost:61041/__setup --pact-broker-base-url http://pact-broker-poc.dev.com --provider_app_version 1.0.0 --provider data --enable-pending]
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [WARN] state handler not found for state: creating a session
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] skipping state handler for request /sessions
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] http reverse proxy received connection from [::1]:61048 on path /sessions
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] setting proxy to target
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] incoming request /sessions
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] outgoing request http://127.0.0.1:61027/sessions
(/Users/bvennapureddy/datacompliance/session_handler.go:89)
[2020-05-12 22:53:53] pq: value too long for type character varying(2)
(/Users/bvennapureddy/datacompliance/session_handler.go:89)
[2020-05-12 22:53:53] pq: value too long for type character varying(2)
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] executing after hook
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] teardown
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] skipping state handler for request /public-api/requests
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] http reverse proxy received connection from [::1]:61053 on path /public-api/requests
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] setting proxy to target
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] incoming request /public-api/requests
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] outgoing request http://127.0.0.1:61027/public-api/requests
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] executing after hook
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] teardown
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [WARN] state handler not found for state: creating a session
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] skipping state handler for request /sessions
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] http reverse proxy received connection from [::1]:61056 on path /sessions
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] setting proxy to target
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] incoming request /sessions
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] outgoing request http://127.0.0.1:61027/sessions
(/Users/bvennapureddy/datacompliance/session_handler.go:89)
[2020-05-12 22:53:53] pq: value too long for type character varying(2)
(/Users/bvennapureddy/datacompliance/session_handler.go:89)
[2020-05-12 22:53:53] pq: value too long for type character varying(2)
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] executing after hook
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] teardown
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] skipping state handler for request /public-api/requests
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] http reverse proxy received connection from [::1]:61059 on path /public-api/requests
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] setting proxy to target
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] incoming request /public-api/requests
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] outgoing request http://127.0.0.1:61027/public-api/requests
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] executing after hook
2020/05/12 22:53:53 [DEBUG] teardown```
matt.fellows
2020-05-13 04:30
Print verbose pact output from go. It will tell you if the server is able to support the pending pacts feature
matt.fellows
2020-05-13 04:31
Also, I think the server (broker) will print a notice but can't verify. I'll check when back at my desk later
bheemreddy181
2020-05-13 04:43
Will i see the request twice out there I had more logs which also prints ther errors twice and there is a dB check which is failing for one request and that?s printed twice too all this routed me there
matt.fellows
2020-05-13 05:04
I'm wondering if it's because you've provided a broker option and a local option if it's reading both. The output should show this in the tests results, can you please share the full log output including test results?
matt.fellows
2020-05-13 12:57
Just a general note Bheem - new features generally require newer versions of software :wink:
bheemreddy181
2020-05-13 14:07
it was reading from broker alone and for only failures they are running twice not sure how else i can explain this
bheemreddy181
2020-05-13 14:12
Usecase : for people running these tests on the bare metal or even for the tests running on CI , rather than visiting the broker it would be great if we can emit the logs for understanding what is not implemented or what is failing for which API
matt.fellows
2020-05-14 23:27
The output should contain these failures already one way or another, you could use those
bheemreddy181
2020-05-15 14:50
One more observation from my testing , when ever the broker is not reachable verification job emits logs saying `pact.go:413: No pacts found to verifify. Check the tags provided (master) for your broker` which seems little odd for investigation - rather can we emit logs saying `connection refused or couldn't connect`
matt.fellows
2020-05-16 00:25
Thanks Bheem that's not ideal. You can't fail on no pacts found but a dead broker should error
dan.h.lee329
2020-05-18 23:47
@matt.fellows I haven't forgotten about this item, I'll plan to get to this sometime this week, thanks!
sankalan13
2020-05-22 09:11
Hey @matt.fellows
I was going through the workshop for pact-go and I am unable to run any commands via the `make` command like `make unit` and `make consumer`. I keep getting the following error.
```make: "/bin/bash": Command not found
make: *** [Makefile:4: install] Error 127```
This might be a very trivial question. Sorry for my ignorance but I wasn't able to find anything in the internet. I installed build-essentials as I am running the latest Ubuntu. I am not sure what is going wrong.
sankalan13
2020-05-22 09:57
If I run the go commands defined in the Makefile manually, the commands run but some comands exit with a panic state.
matt.fellows
2020-05-22 10:07
Are you using docker? If you could pop an issue against the repo with your docker image that's enough for me to find/fix. It's only been tested on a Mac, so it's possible it doesn't work on Linux. I might add a Travis build for each step
matt.fellows
2020-05-22 11:29
Also, can you try please removing the `SHELL` variable in the `http://config.mk` file
matt.fellows
2020-05-22 11:30
```# SHELL = "/bin/bash"```
It actually should work without that, and it may cause issues
sankalan13
2020-05-22 13:16
I am not using docker. I will go through the workshop and pop an issue when I find it!
dom.udall
2020-05-27 15:58
Hey, there's an example in the pact-go repo with some good supporting docs, though I haven't tried it myself yet!
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/tree/master/examples/messages
morten.hekkvang
2020-06-02 07:59
Hi! Just wondering why the go implementation relies on the ruby-standalone version of pact?
I would much rather see a pure golang module for this.
The reason I think like this is that a lot of CI/CD implementations would require the user to install and properly config both ruby and go before being able to build and run the test suite.
An alternative would be to compile the ruby-standalone into a shared object library and use that. Instead of relying on having ruby installed correctly on the machines.
matt.fellows
2020-06-02 09:47
I'm also working on integrating to a that shared binary which is the long term objective
matt.fellows
2020-06-02 09:53
So just in case it's not clear. Any CI runtime does not require Ruby to run Pact (albeit a pure implementation would be ideal). We need to publish updated info on our strategy, but pact is very very complex now and having 12 languages implement all of the features and capabilities is a tall ask. So we've moved to a shared engine to do it. Ruby was the old, rust is the new
bheemreddy181
2020-06-03 01:37
probably i missed followup on this i didn?t really understand what you mean?t by
```The output should contain these failures already one way or another, you could use those```
you mean as they already show up on pact broker we should look at broker rather than the CI itself
matt.fellows
2020-06-03 01:38
I mean the output of `go test ?` type thing. Any failures will be in there
ramfjordm
2020-06-04 11:11
Hello, I am struggling to pull down and verify pacts from my self-hosted broker. I followed the examples on https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go and the following works when I use a local broker running on my machine:
```pact.VerifyProvider(t, types.VerifyRequest{
BrokerURL: "http://localhost:9292",
ProviderVersion: "1.0.0",
ProviderBaseURL: "https://provider-base-url",
RequestFilter: fixBearerToken,
})```
Setting "PublishVerificationResults: true" works as well using the local broker.
But it fails if I use the self-hosted broker:
```pact.VerifyProvider(t, types.VerifyRequest{
BrokerURL: "https://self-hosted-broker-url",
ProviderVersion: "1.0.0",
ProviderBaseURL: "https://provider-base-url",
RequestFilter: fixBearerToken
})```
Using the self-hosted broker I just get an error saying "No pacts found to verify", although the same pact has been published to both brokers.
Not sure where to go from here. I cannot find any relevant logs for the self-hosted broker. Any help would be appreciated :slightly_smiling_face:
matt.fellows
2020-06-04 12:39
To connect to a Pact Broker that uses custom SSL cerificates, set the environment variable $SSL_CERT_FILE or $SSL_CERT_DIR to a path that contains the appropriate certificate
ramfjordm
2020-06-04 13:16
The self hosted broker is using a certificate signed by Entrust. It is running in GKE and nginx though, so I'm starting to wonder if adding these headers mentioned here would help - at least I'll give it a try: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact_broker/wiki/Configuration#running-the-broker-behind-a-reverse-proxy
ramfjordm
2020-06-05 06:41
Yes, I can view the pacticipants/pacts/matrix etc, but the API browser does not work properly. None of the endpoints are displayed there. Not sure how relevant it is, but I see this error in the console in Chrome when I open the API browser:
```Uncaught TypeError: HAL.normalizeUrl is not a function
at eval (eval at _.template (underscore.js:1157), <anonymous>:58:13)
at Function._.each._.forEach (underscore.js:87)
at child.eval (eval at _.template (underscore.js:1157), <anonymous>:6:4)
at child.template (underscore.js:1165)
at child.render (links.js:52)
at child.render (resource.js:28)
at Object.<anonymous> (resource.js:8)
at triggerEvents (backbone.js:96)
at Object.trigger (backbone.js:181)
at Object.success (client.js:13)```
matt.fellows
2020-06-05 07:04
that seems like JS isn?t being loaded properly, which indicates a configuration issue
matt.fellows
2020-06-05 07:05
if you were to curl the `/` endpoint on your broker, sharing the hostname you hit and the results that might help (DM me if you like)
bheemreddy181
2020-06-05 16:16
So one of our contracts only looks for a 200 status and doesn?t care about the response but in cases where we get a 400 response doesn?t user needs to know why there is a 400 what is missing ? pact tests only tell you expected 200 and you got a 400 thats all
matt.fellows
2020-06-06 01:26
It's an interesting point, there may be more detail on your app logs, but having more context would be helpful
matt.fellows
2020-06-07 00:11
Usually with a failed test, you would print out context of the API responses anyway. Do you not log what your API is doing in those cases?
bheemreddy181
2020-06-07 19:46
i assume we do i am still looking into this why we are not seeing logs from applications side.
bheemreddy181
2020-06-08 22:48
Question : Is there a way we can re-use statehandlers between two different states in PACT go ?
matt.fellows
2020-06-09 00:44
@bheemreddy181 FYI if you set log level to `TRACE` you will get full request/response logging.
matt.fellows
2020-06-09 00:45
That should help you diagnose why you are getting `400` when you expect `200`
sairsule
2020-06-09 11:50
example here doesn't work .https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/tree/master/examples/messages.
I get following error
``` FAIL: TestExampleMessageConsumer_UserExists (5.45s)
pact.go:762: VerifyMessageConsumer failed: error creating message: exit status 255
STDERR:
'controller' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.```
bheemreddy181
2020-06-09 14:50
My question was more like clubbing two states like below
```"User jmarie exists","User jmarie is unauthenticated": func() error {
userRepository = jmarieExists
return nil
},```
matt.fellows
2020-06-09 23:32
there shouldn?t be, it should ?just work? but looks like there might be an issue
matt.fellows
2020-06-09 23:35
```state1 := func() error { ... }
"User jmarie exists": state1,
"User jmarie is unauthenticated": state1,```
sairsule
2020-06-10 08:58
format of my message is
```{
"foo":{
"bar":"baz",
}
"name": "test",
}```
its not the map[string]interface{} format, like in example. how can I use this?
matt.fellows
2020-06-10 09:28
I'm unsure of your problem, sorry. It is of type map[string] interface {}
sairsule
2020-06-11 04:43
Thanks @matt.fellows, I realised my mistake. It had to do with adding map[string]interface{} for inner object too. something like
```WithContent(map[string]interface{}{
"id": like(127),
"name": "Baz",
"address": map[string]interface{}{
"city": "pune",
"zip": "411045",
},
}).
AsType(&User{})```
sairsule
2020-06-11 08:18
When pact.json file is not provider-test still return "ok". How can we make sure weather tests were "ok" or its returning "ok" because pact file is not found?
zbintliff
2020-06-11 21:03
Hey all, its been a really long time since we gave our pact some TLC. We are version 0.0.12 and looking to upgrade to latest and great. Happy to shed the ruby daemon too! I thought I saw an upgrade doc somewhere but can't seem to find it. Does anyone have a link?
matt.fellows
2020-06-12 02:22
There is no guide, but the API should be pretty similar to before. There is at least one deprecated field (`Verbose`) but I don?t think we removed any stable APIs
matt.fellows
2020-06-12 02:22
The big difference is that you now need to install the CLI tools manually, and then you can do the usual `go get` , using mod etc.
zbintliff
2020-06-12 12:57
Ok cool. We have a crazy docker compose set up that has ruby and the deamon in it. Super excited to slim down that container
zbintliff
2020-06-12 12:58
The one thing I get is "Port" is not there any more bu twill dig in and see if i can actually do anything other than speculate :slightly_smiling_face:
zbintliff
2020-06-12 18:42
Lots of breaking changes. All the matcher requests now take custom dsl types instead of just string and map (for headers)
zbintliff
2020-06-12 18:59
Hmm i seem to be confused. I thought the big change for version 0.0.12 to 1.0.0 is that we no longer rely on ruby.
zbintliff
2020-06-12 19:00
The installation instructions are unclear. It says :
> See below for how to automate this:
Is that onlyk referring to the step3 ? on installation? Do we still need the cli tools separately?
zbintliff
2020-06-12 20:34
WOw i just found the autogeneration. That is _awesome_ and I want to use it. IS there a way though to isolate it per request? For example, the DTO's fields may change per request (i.e. we expect a slice of size 0 in one request and size >= 1 in another)
zbintliff
2020-06-12 20:36
Is something like that possible? We have massive payloads and the old version (0.0.12) was string based and new version iss struct based (i.e. sprintf("%", dsl.EachLike)) and converting our iant json payloads to `map[string]interface` doesnt seem appealing to me. so would love a way to auto gen as much as possible
zbintliff
2020-06-12 20:50
Ths is my only concern now but honestly all of our returns are objects, i'm happy to make "dummy" ones with proper values on sizes per request
zbintliff
2020-06-12 22:29
I answered this myself. Yes! I got it all working in a `strech-slim` docker container
matt.fellows
2020-06-13 08:47
Thanks for all of this feedback Zach. I'll make a reminder to read thru all of it and address it. Thanks so much!
matt.fellows
2020-06-13 09:09
Ruby will be removed in next major version. The big change here was removing the daemon because people hated it. It still needs the standalone
matt.fellows
2020-06-13 09:09
But in case it's not clear. You didn't, and still don't, need to install Ruby to run Pact. We always bundled a runtime
matt.fellows
2020-06-13 09:11
It's a good idea. Any thoughts on how to do so nicely? I don't want the tags to he overly complicated. They are ultimately probably going to link to a provider state so that could be an approach
matt.fellows
2020-06-13 09:12
Perhaps point to externalised data sources? E.g. a YAML/JSON file with all of the states and data variants?
zbintliff
2020-06-15 02:32
> They are ultimately probably going to link to a provider state so that could be an approach
Not a bad idea.
I think i can minimize the number of objects will report back
zbintliff
2020-06-15 02:33
The auto generation part. Haven't fully proofed it out but its _really_ nice.
zbintliff
2020-06-15 02:33
Sorry for the word vommit. The lib is in an awesome place btw the new features are _really_ nice
matt.fellows
2020-06-15 03:40
I won?t make you upset by saying _literally_ this week, I have restarted the PoC to remove the Ruby stuff
matt.fellows
2020-06-15 03:42
My goal is to preserve as much of the 1.x.x API as possible, but there are some clunky things in the API I?d really like to address. There is implementation code, and the ergonomics of the public facing API. It will take some time to get to a v2.x.x anyway (so don?t be too worried about that upgrade)
matt.fellows
2020-06-15 03:42
If you?re keen to get your hands on early draft, let me know - i?ll post here anyway
zbintliff
2020-06-15 21:06
Happy monday! Back with more questions. I found that in the autogeneration if the struct has a field that is a pointer and has omit empty tag the `min=1` tag is ignored.
For example:
```type Example struct {
FeldOne []*string `json:"fieldOne,omitempty" pact:"min=1"`
}```
My tests were failing because the field was nil. When i removed the `omitempty` it seemed to work. I was digging through code it _seems_ like it's because it relies heavily on `json.Marshal` .
I don't think this is a bug, but wanted to verify the behavior. I can also 100% open a GH issue. I'm not sure where the best place to interact on things like this.
matt.fellows
2020-06-23 11:34
Is it a direct lambda invocation? Is it at the end of a queue? is it used in an HTTP context? You can see how writing a guide for this could be difficult, because lambda is just one of the runtimes
matt.fellows
2020-06-30 06:46
Somebody raised a PR related to this today - https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/140. I?ll look into it later in the week, but thought I?d get it in front of you in case it?s helpful
abdul.hussain
2020-07-21 15:37
Should pacts tests sit alongside unit tests (my gin api handler unit tests are under `pkg/api/v1/..` ) or alongside integration tests at the top level?
matt.fellows
2020-07-22 00:24
on the provider side it?s up to you. I usually run them as unit tests, because often you?re going to stub out a layer that requires access to code (e.g. you might stub out your repository etc.)
heytaco
2020-08-25 03:57
Hi there! My name is HeyTaco!, and you can use me to give people tacos to show your appreciation. My tacos will spread joy through Slack!
dothetan.040490
2020-10-08 04:05
Hi everyone,
I got a problem that cannot download pact from pactflow for provider test. I attached configuration screenshot.
Please help me to solve this problem.
matt.fellows
2020-10-08 04:11
It's saying there are no pacts to verify because it can't find any in the broker. have you published pacts to the broker already and if so what tags have you used?
matt.fellows
2020-10-08 04:11
See howtolearn for a ci/cd workshop that goes thru this and the docs on tags
2020-10-08 04:11
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
2020-10-08 05:11
Can you please share the tags you have published and/or screenshot of the pact you're expecting to verify? Also your provider is not currently specifying any tags. Can you please set loglevel to debug and share the output?
dothetan.040490
2020-10-08 05:37
Here is the published pact that I'm try to verify, and the log when execute provider test (I added tags in pact verify configuration)
```=== RUN TestPactProvider
Come here
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] pact setup logging
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] pact setup
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] starting new proxy with opts {http 127.0.0.1:59744 0 [] /__setup }
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] starting reverse proxy on port 59746
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] waiting for port 59746 to become available on localhost after 10s
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] pact provider verification
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] client: verifying a provider
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] waiting for port 59746 to become available on localhost after 10s
2020/10/08 12:30:19 [DEBUG] starting verification service with args: [--format json --provider-base-url http://localhost:59746 --pact-broker-base-url https://VALID-DOMAIN.pactflow.io --broker-token {VALID_TOKEN} --provider_app_version 1.0-SNAPSHOT --provider Our Provider - edited --publish_verification_results true --consumer-version-tag master]
pact.go:413: No pacts found to verify. Check the tags provided (master) for your broker (https://VALID-DOMAIN.pactflow.io) are correct
--- FAIL: TestPactProvider (1.15s)```
dothetan.040490
2020-10-08 05:39
```=== RUN TestPactProvider
Come here
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] pact setup logging
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] pact setup
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] starting new proxy with opts {http 127.0.0.1:59970 0 [] /__setup <nil>}
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] starting reverse proxy on port 59972
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] waiting for port 59972 to become available on localhost after 10s
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] pact provider verification
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] client: verifying a provider
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] waiting for port 59972 to become available on localhost after 10s
2020/10/08 12:37:28 [DEBUG] starting verification service with args: [--format json --provider-base-url http://localhost:59972 --pact-broker-base-url https://VALID_DOMAIN.pactflow.io --broker-token {VALID_TOKEN} --provider_app_version 1.0-SNAPSHOT --provider Our Provider - edited --publish_verification_results true]
pact.go:413: No pacts found to verify
--- FAIL: TestPactProvider (0.95s)```
here is the log without tags configuration.
matt.fellows
2020-10-08 12:23
OK, I hope it?s not the case - but could you please remove all spaces from your provider name and see if that fixes it? If so, could you also please raise a bug?
dothetan.040490
2020-10-09 02:45
```=== RUN TestPactProvider
Come here
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] pact setup logging
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] pact setup
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] starting new proxy with opts {http 127.0.0.1:61568 0 [] /__setup }
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] starting reverse proxy on port 61570
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] waiting for port 61570 to become available on localhost after 10s
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] pact provider verification
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] client: verifying a provider
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] waiting for port 61570 to become available on localhost after 10s
2020/10/09 09:41:58 [DEBUG] starting verification service with args: [--format json --provider-base-url http://localhost:61570 --pact-broker-base-url https://VALID_DOMAIN.pactflow.io --broker-token VALID_TOKEN --provider_app_version 1.0-SNAPSHOT --provider sample_provider --publish_verification_results true]
pact.go:413: No pacts found to verify
--- FAIL: TestPactProvider (1.39s)```
I changed names of consumer & provider, but issue still occurs :disappointed:
dothetan.040490
2020-10-09 02:58
here is the code
```// Configuration / Test Data
var dir, _ = os.Getwd()
var pactDir = fmt.Sprintf("%s/../../pacts", dir)
var logDir = fmt.Sprintf("%s/log", dir)
var port, _ = utils.GetFreePort()
// The Provider verification
func TestPactProvider(t *testing.T) {
fmt.Println("Come here")
//go startInstrumentedProvider(t)
pact := dsl.Pact{
Provider: "Our Provider - edited",
LogDir: logDir,
PactDir: pactDir,
DisableToolValidityCheck: true,
LogLevel: "DEBUG",
}
// Verify the Provider - Tag-based Published Pacts for any known consumers
_, err := pact.VerifyProvider(t, types.VerifyRequest{
ProviderBaseURL: fmt.Sprintf("http://127.0.0.1:%d", port),
Tags: []string{"master"},
FailIfNoPactsFound: true,
// Use this if you want to test without the Pact Broker
// PactURLs: []string{filepath.FromSlash(fmt.Sprintf("%s/goadminservice-gouserservice.json", os.Getenv("PACT_DIR")))},
BrokerURL: "https://VALID_DOMAIN.pactflow.io",
BrokerToken: "VALID_TOKEN",
PublishVerificationResults: true,
ProviderVersion: "1.0-SNAPSHOT",
PactLogDir: logDir,
Provider: "sample_provider",
})
if err != nil {
t.Fatal(err)
}
}```
matt.fellows
2020-10-09 03:03
can you please execute the `pact-provider-verifier` binary directly with the args
```--format json --provider-base-url http://localhost:61570 --pact-broker-base-url https://VALID_DOMAIN.pactflow.io --broker-token VALID_TOKEN --provider_app_version 1.0-SNAPSHOT --provider sample_provider --publish_verification_results true --verbose```
matt.fellows
2020-10-09 03:27
if you can DM me, I can also try and reproduce locally and check pactflow logs. lemme know
dothetan.040490
2020-10-14 05:19
I was successful to get contracts from pactflow in provider side.
However, I just started 1 service, it depends on others. Thus, provider test was fail because of others services not started.
What should I to solve the problem now? Should I start whole system or just start 1 service and mock all dependencies?
matt.fellows
2020-10-14 05:27
Have a look at http://docs.pact.io and search for ?downstream systems?, there?s a whole thing on it
jamescourtoy
2020-11-05 17:16
:wave: I'm currently evaluating using Pact at my company. We're a Node (JS) and Go shop, primarily, and I work on a team focused on AuthN / AuthZ. I've found using Pact to be pretty painless so far, but I'm running into issues with provider state. Now, I _believe_ that most of my pain points can be solved with 3.0 support for multiple provider states, and have worked that out on the NodeJS side already; however, I'm struggling on the Go side.
While using the external provider verification CLI tooling will work for verifying consumer contracts written from a JS consumer, I am not aware of a way to write Go consumer 3.0 Pact files. Is there a solution I'm not aware of for this, or is it on the near-term roadmap at all ? It's hard to determine what current priorities are for various features / languages...
matt.fellows
2020-11-07 03:45
So I?m currently working on pact v3 support (see https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/142) however the bad news is that things are still experimental. I?m aiming to have a beta by Q4 2020.
matt.fellows
2020-11-07 03:45
If it?s just the provider side you need, I may be able to prioritise that to unblock you
matt.fellows
2020-11-07 03:46
> Now, I _believe_ that most of my pain points can be solved with 3.0 support for multiple provider states
This is usually worked around fairly easily. Could you please elaborate on why you think that will solve your issue? Multiple states is more of a convenience thing if any
jamescourtoy
2020-11-10 16:59
> If it?s just the provider side you need, I may be able to prioritise that to unblock you
It's actually the consumer-side that I'm more interested in since it would allow me to generate 3.0 contracts from a Go consumer. With the external provider verifier CLI I could run the provider-side tests against a running set of images with provider state endpoints, but need a way to generate the contracts themselves.
At our company we have a majority of Go services with a smattering of Node services, and several separate SPA UI's which are JS. Go is a big part of our path to adoption of Pact.
At any rate, thanks for even considering prioritization! Having consumers generate 3.0 spec files would make it much easier for me to promote adoption of Pact as our company's contract testing standard :slightly_smiling_face:
> Could you please elaborate on why you think that will solve your issue?
Sure! It's entirely possible that I'm not thinking about things in the right way, or leveraging everything available in 2.0.
In one case, we aggregate responses from various downstream services (API gateways & BFF's). During my spike, I found it increasingly difficult to use bespoke strings for every permutation that results in a different contract. For instance, we have a "team join" permissions endpoint which aggregates information from "invites", "open-enrollment", and other services in order to make a decision on what sort of UX we send a user through. Thinking about this now, though, I could think about this in terms of user flow which would result in fewer "states". I could see the multiple provider states as more of a convenience here so that we could share them across interactions.
In another case, we actually have an intermediary "edge" which is mostly invisible to providers, but provides headers which are necessary. A good example of this is with authorized sessions. The edge gateway is responsible for verifying any individual request's headers and adding user identity headers to a request. From the consumer's perspective, this data is typically sent in the form of a cookie which then translates to a valid user ID in the edge gateway headers that the provider consumes. I've dealt with this case by introducing a special header state in the Pact file such as "a valid session exists for the current user". The provider verification step can then translate that into the expected edge headers. However, now I'm stuck duplicating this in every interaction ? varying it periodically to deal with "session invalid" status codes.
jamescourtoy
2020-11-10 17:00
Apologies for the wall of text @matt.fellows , but I hope that gives you better context.
matt.fellows
2020-11-12 03:53
Technically, message pacts is a v3 thing - so the current Go package does sort of support this. I need to confirm that multiple states will propagate for (1) (I think they will).
The next issue is verifying on the provider side, which is JS (also not fully v3 compatible yet, or rather, we haven?t added support for messages in the v3 branch).
matt.fellows
2020-11-12 03:54
It may be the case that the current implementation will actually invoke all of the provider states, in which case, we can get that fairly quickly into the current ecosystem
matt.fellows
2020-11-12 03:54
Otherwise, even if I get the Go consumer code updated for you, you?ll still suffer from needing to actually _verify_ it in JS!
david.dias
2020-11-13 12:33
Sure, I think is the easiest one. The go package has dsl.UUID but I don't know how to combine matchers
matt.fellows
2020-11-13 12:45
Matchers can be nested. If you show us how you're wanting to use and I can help.
david.dias
2020-11-13 13:24
```WithRequest(dsl.Request{
Method: http.MethodGet,
Path: dsl.Term("/v1/accounts/1", `\d+`),
}).```
I want to switch this /1 and \d+ with the dsl.UUID(), all my endpoints are using UUID as id
david.dias
2020-11-13 16:20
Another strange thing is `Expected header "Content-Type" to match /application\/json/, but was nil`
david.dias
2020-11-13 16:20
but send the same request as pact is sending to provider api I'm getting the Content-Type header
jamescourtoy
2020-12-01 17:42
@matt.fellows Not a huge rush on our part, but I'm curious if you had a chance to look into the Go consumer-side code? I'm ok with verifying the Pacts using the Rust-based CLI verifier as well, so long as we can generate the consumer-side Pact files from a Go client.
jamescourtoy
2020-12-01 17:43
Also, I would love to be able to monitor progress on that in some way. I didn't notice it in the public roadmap anywhere.
zbintliff
2020-12-01 17:49
Hello! We have a _ton_ of code still on pact v0.0.13 and the migration to v1 is a pretty big effort since we need to touch every pact. Are there any migration scripts that can help us here?
matt.fellows
2020-12-01 20:40
Not yet, but you may want to avoid that migration - I?m not far away from having a native v3 version built
matt.fellows
2020-12-01 20:41
I?m aiming to have a beta out by xmas, but so far I?ve been able to get in 95% of the existing functionality across, plus all of the new v3 goodness
matt.fellows
2020-12-01 20:41
I?ll definitely write a migration guide from 1, i?ll have a look for 0.0.13 also (put on my list now)
zbintliff
2020-12-01 20:48
Ok, thanks! Its half our fault for letting it rot so long but we have a _ton_ jof pacts and a single "clients" repo. So all of our clients of our microservies are in there. meaning we have to migrate all or nothing
matt.fellows
2020-12-01 20:55
So the main issue tracking the v3 upgrade is https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/142
matt.fellows
2020-12-01 20:56
My first pass was getting the basic end to end working - which happily is almost complete. I?ve got a PR for the Rust library (the shared engine for our languages) almost ready to ship for the provider side bindings
matt.fellows
2020-12-01 21:30
How far off are you from considering a spike to see how the new framework works? And also, what OS do you use?
matt.fellows
2020-12-01 21:31
The main activities for me at this point:
? Get the framework automatically downloading/installing the shared lib
? Tests for the new core engine (I was able to largely find a way to migrate existing bits and pieces)
? Release as beta
matt.fellows
2020-12-01 21:32
So I have actually added consumer message tests there, and it?s possibly/maybe workable
matt.fellows
2020-12-01 21:33
It?s quite possible you could use just that specific bit of functionality now, because it doesn?t rely on the shared library - and the installation/version management of the lib is the last key bit of work before I can release a beta
matt.fellows
2020-12-01 21:34
cool, then I?d wait until early next year when this is out - this is first big move to our rust shared library, which is the strategic long term direction
matt.fellows
2020-12-01 21:46
as an aside, have you ran into any ?I wish this feature existing? type thing with Pact Go yet?
zbintliff
2020-12-01 21:52
We need an overhaul and simplify everythinng. Which I think the project has done well we just can't get to it quite yet
zbintliff
2020-12-01 21:53
We have new engineers come in and pact is always hard to explain to them. But I think it gets better in new versions. just need to get there
matt.fellows
2020-12-01 23:37
When do you think you could test it out? I could provide an alpha tag and example for you to follow (but specifically for the message pact consumer)
jamescourtoy
2020-12-04 17:20
@matt.fellows I'm going to try and slot it into our next sprint ? we're doing sprint planning today. We typically do two-week sprints, so hopefully we will have time to do some testing either next week or the week after.
matt.fellows
2020-12-05 06:28
Cool! I'll get something out this week then, aim for the second week if you can
bheemreddy181
2020-12-09 18:52
Happy Holiday folks - Are there any examples around pact-go middleware for handling authorization ( Adding to incoming headers on the provider side )
jamescourtoy
2020-12-09 19:14
Thanks, @matt.fellows! The Go dev lead on my team is going to take a look at testing this out (when it's available) during some of our 20% "engineering time".
matt.fellows
2020-12-10 02:20
Awesome, I?ll be looking at it tonight and will have something for you for next week :thumbsup:
matt.fellows
2020-12-11 12:30
OK here is your v3 pact message example: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/feat/v2.0.0/examples/v3/consumer_test.go#L156-L189
matt.fellows
2020-12-11 12:33
Few caveats worth noting:
1. The package is currently http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v3. It is likely to change, but should be a simple refactor down the track for you when its stable
2. The DSL is based on the current v2 one, so it will track fairly closely where possible to simplify upgrades etc. The new v3 matchers introduced are just an extension of the current ones, so there shouldn?t be many surprises.
3. The documentation is still all over the place - so if things aren?t clear let?s discuss here
4. The other HTTP interfaces (consumer/providers) are currently working, but the process to install the shared lib is currently manual (so basically, don?t use those features yet)
matt.fellows
2020-12-11 12:35
You?ll need to pin your go module to the specific versions for now, until I get a release process setup
jamescourtoy
2020-12-11 14:55
Thanks, Matt! I've forwarded this to my Go teammates and I'll get back with you in the next week or so on our experience :bow:
bheemreddy181
2020-12-20 19:41
Quick question on writing contract tests, are these good contract tests like if i have a request body like below - Can i write contracts for different request_types as they have different functionality on my provider side - but the response for each request type will look the same ?
```"body": {
"request_type": "access"
}```
matt.fellows
2020-12-20 23:25
Without more context, I would probably use a regex on that field (e.g. treat it as an enum), and have tests for different HTTP status codes (if necessary)
bheemreddy181
2020-12-21 00:20
What kind of context you are looking at ? The problem is upto extent I go with writing these tests
matt.fellows
2020-12-21 00:23
I suppose without deep domain insight we can only go with general advice
matt.fellows
2020-12-21 00:23
If the only difference in that field is functional behaviour, I?d say it?s gone past ?contract? and into ?functional? testing, in which case those should be tests in the provider?s own code base
bheemreddy181
2020-12-21 00:31
I agree - there is some context where consumer says that what if tomorrow you drop one of those request-types or broken request types how will consumer know about these ? I felt the same where we are actually entering into functional testing
matt.fellows
2020-12-21 06:00
Well, that is contractually important:
> Only make assertions about things that will affect the consumer if they change
from those docs above. If indeed the values there are significant, then you do want to capture the various scenarios.
I don?t know the context in which the API is used, but you could have various scenarios such as:
_?when the request type is ?access? ??_
_?when the request type is ?logout? ??_
matt.fellows
2020-12-21 06:00
so in a way, they are right. There is a grey line between contract-testing and functional tests (much in the way that most tests types tend to have overlapping regions of others)
bheemreddy181
2020-12-21 17:10
At times it is hard to figure out the grey line around are going really above the grey line or are we really right near the grey line
bheemreddy181
2020-12-21 23:03
I think go example workshop needs to have a middleware due of this authentication https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/blob/master/consumer/client/client_pact_test.go#L21
bheemreddy181
2020-12-22 00:27
when ever i run `make run-consumer` i get 401 error
```? pact-workshop-go git:(master) ? make run-consumer
2020/12/21 18:24:28 unauthorized
exit status 1
make: *** [run-consumer] Error 1```
bheemreddy181
2020-12-22 00:28
i am not sure if i need to modify something or if i am missing something from documentation
matt.fellows
2020-12-22 00:37
(there is no token in step 4 yet, we introduce that in https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/tree/step8)
matt.fellows
2020-12-22 00:38
Perhaps you still have the provider running from when you were in `master`?
matt.fellows
2020-12-22 00:42
(I did just noticed though that the consumer from step8 onwards was producing a bad actual bearer token value, and just pushed that up)
matt.fellows
2020-12-22 00:44
After the first few steps, you don?t really need to run those commands anymore (but still good for them to be working of course!)
bheemreddy181
2020-12-28 18:27
I using the make file from Go workshop still see error with cli tool versions
```2020/12/28 12:20:22 [DEBUG] 3.6.2 satisfies constraints 3.6.2 >= 3.5.0, < 4.0.0
2020/12/28 12:20:22 [INFO] checking pact-provider-verifier within range >= 1.31.0, < 2.0.0
2020/12/28 12:20:22 [DEBUG] running binary pact-provider-verifier
2020/12/28 12:20:23 [DEBUG] checking version for binary pact-provider-verifier version 1.30.1
2020/12/28 12:20:23 [DEBUG] checking if version 1.30.1 within semver range >= 1.31.0, < 2.0.0
2020/12/28 12:20:23 [ERROR] CLI tools are out of date, please upgrade before continuing```
Am i missing something - this is install config i am using https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/blob/step4/Makefile#L5
bheemreddy181
2020-12-28 20:47
^ this message can be ignored - my PATH was referring to an older version
bheemreddy181
2020-12-28 23:29
Quick question on dsl.match in go - As per the workshop test here https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/blob/master/consumer/client/client_pact_test.go#L67 it looks like it looks for all fields in User struct , what if one of the field is optional ? how do we handle such cases do we need to be explicit for such cases or just say `Omitempty` on the struct
matt.fellows
2020-12-28 23:35
`Match` is really a simplified version of the usual matchers. If you have variations on the contract, Match is not going to be flexible enough.
matt.fellows
2020-12-28 23:36
But yes, we should be compliant with `omitempty` , but that won?t test both when it is and is not present
bheemreddy181
2020-12-29 20:29
Pact Header Matchers error out even if there is a header in the response
```2020/12/29 14:24:06 [TRACE] proxied server response
HTTP/1.1 204 No Content
Content-Type: application/json
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 20:24:06 GMT```
Sample response i see in the logs but the matcher fails
```Expected header "Content-Type" to match /application\/json/, but was nil```
Am i missing something here
bheemreddy181
2020-12-29 20:37
Or is the idea is to ignore headers when there is no content response ?
matt.fellows
2020-12-29 21:13
Looks like the regex is wrong. Can you please share the pact file or consumer test matcher?
bheemreddy181
2020-12-29 22:32
Here is the interaction
```{
"description": "blah",
"providerState": "user does not exist",
"request": {
"method": "GET",
"path": "/v1/snail_mail",
"headers": {
"Accept": "application/json; charset=utf-8",
"Content-Type": "application/json; charset=utf-8"
},
"matchingRules": {
"$.headers.Accept": {
"match": "regex",
"regex": "application\\/json"
},
"$.headers.Content-Type": {
"match": "regex",
"regex": "application\\/json"
}
}
},
"response": {
"status": 204,
"headers": {
"Content-Type": "application/json; charset=utf-8"
},
"matchingRules": {
"$.headers.Content-Type": {
"match": "regex",
"regex": "application\\/json"
}
}
}
}```
bheemreddy181
2020-12-29 22:38
And consumer matcher here
```pact.
AddInteraction().
Given("user does not exist").
UponReceiving("blah").
WithRequest(request{
Method: "GET",
Path: dsl.String("/v1/snail_mail"),
Headers: requestCommonHeaders,
}).
WillRespondWith(dsl.Response{
Status: 204,
Headers: responseCommonHeaders,
})```
bheemreddy181
2020-12-29 22:38
```var responseCommonHeaders = dsl.MapMatcher{
"Content-Type": term("application/json; charset=utf-8", `application\/json`),
}```
matt.fellows
2020-12-30 01:05
Could be a framework thing. Let's face it, 204 literally means no content. So matching on that header is useless
bheemreddy181
2020-12-30 01:50
Interestingly this doesn?t happen for 200 response codes so I assumed it is because of 204 no content
zbintliff
2021-01-21 20:55
Hello Again. We finally are prioritizing upgrading our pact from v0.12 to XXX. Wondering what you recommedn the XXX be? I see 1.12 is commongly used and I heard there is a v3 coming. Is there anywhere I can see about the new features of v3 and potential timelien?
matt.fellows
2021-01-22 06:54
I was hoping to have the v3 features live by xmas, but didn?t get the time in front of the computer (apparently it?s anti-social family behaviour)
matt.fellows
2021-01-22 06:54
I have an OSS day coming up in the next week or two, and I should be able to get a beta release of the new stuff out.
matt.fellows
2021-01-22 06:54
I would suggest moving straight to it, because why do it more than once.
matt.fellows
2021-01-22 06:55
How would you prioritise the need between combinations of:
? consumer
? provider
? http
? message
zbintliff
2021-01-22 14:37
That is awesome, thank you. To make sure we are on the same page this is just a library upgrade and not a spec upgrade? So we can upgrade the consumers first and still work with existing contracts?
We are coming from an old version so we've really only interacted with consumers and providers. Where the consumers defined the message. (we are still even using the ruby mock server for verification). I think we may wait for a bit look at everything and redesign our entire approach to pact so we can start anywhere but being able to see the whole picture may help with design and implimentation.
matt.fellows
2021-01-23 02:03
Yes, it's a just a new version of Pact Go and you can stick with V2 or move to v3 spec when the time is appropriate.
matt.fellows
2021-01-23 02:04
I'll get the provider side done first because I think that will be easier for you to test and swap
aparnachaudhari
2021-01-25 21:36
Hello all! I am starting to look at pact-go to implement contract based testing on our existing microservices (I know thats not ideal - but we have to start somewhere!).. I am fairly new to golang and to pact. What would be a good place to start ?
matt.fellows
2021-01-25 22:14
See https://pactflow.io/blog/why-contract-testing/ for a very general guide
2021-01-25 22:14
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
2021-01-25 22:15
Takes a couple of hours, but it?s worth it because you can self guide through all of the key concepts
matt.fellows
2021-02-01 01:28
For anybody interesting in testing strategies for APIs written in Go (not sure if Pact will be part of the talk, but Anton?s a smart guy!)
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-03 02:09
I am trying to install pact for go locally but am running into errors
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-03 02:11
```go get http://gopkg.in/pact-foundation/pact-go.v1
Error:
# cd /Users/<username>/Projects/golang/src/github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go; git pull --ff-only
There is no tracking information for the current branch.
Please specify which branch you want to merge with.
See git-pull(1) for details.
git pull <remote> <branch>
If you wish to set tracking information for this branch you can do so with:
git branch --set-upstream-to=origin/<branch> master
package http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/command: exit status 1```
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-03 02:22
am I needing to set upstream to https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go.git here?
matt.fellows
2021-02-03 02:23
It looks like maybe the existing package you have is corrupted or something
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-03 02:24
https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/go/readme#go-get is what I am following so far
matt.fellows
2021-02-03 02:24
so one option could be to remove whatever is already there and try again
matt.fellows
2021-02-03 02:35
try this in the pact-go dir:
```git branch --set-upstream-to=origin/master master```
matt.fellows
2021-02-03 02:44
Those instructions could probably also be updated now that `go mod` is the defacto
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-03 16:43
Sorry had to stop last night, but considering I am still fairly new to go, I am trying to figure this out.
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-03 17:09
So it looks like I already had a corrupt package that I had to remove
```rm -rf src/gopkg.in/pact-foundation/pact-go.v1```
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-03 17:10
Also, using the module name for `go get` make more sense I think
```go get http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go```
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-03 23:20
I am having a really hard time getting started off with writing a simple POC pact test between 2 of our existing microservices.. I am looking at https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/go/readme and https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go but it looks like it skims over a lot of stuff.. please bear in mind I am new to go .. which is not helping either
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-03 23:20
anyone know of any other resources - real world implementations I can look at ?
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-04 00:14
`2021/02/03 16:00:17 [ERROR] CLI tools are out of date, please upgrade before continuing` I am seeing this error locally when trying to run `go test -v -run TestProvider` from the pact-go examples folder
matt.fellows
2021-02-04 01:22
I?d say the workshop is going to be a better starting point. If you don?t know Go well, then that?s obviously another barrier. What language do you know well?
matt.fellows
2021-02-04 01:23
have a look at https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/tutorials/. There is a JS and Java tutorial there you can run in the browser. This should help with the basics of Pact, without needing to run anything on your laptop. It takes 15-20mins to run through in a browser
matt.fellows
2021-02-04 01:23
On your specific issue, this means you haven?t installed the binary dependencies required by Pact
matt.fellows
2021-02-04 01:24
Step (1) is downloading the CLI tools and adding to your `PATH` (https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/#installation)
matt.fellows
2021-02-04 01:24
The error you?re seeing, is that Pact cannot find these tools. So you have either a) not downloaded and added them to the path or b) incorrectly set the PATH, and the process you are executing Pact within can?t find them
matt.fellows
2021-02-04 02:22
:point_up: there is a python example there, but no tutorial to accompany it
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-04 06:38
Leaving this here for later, I see the error below?
``` Error on Verify: Actual interactions do not match expected interactions for mock MockService.```
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-04 06:41
If I am understanding this correctly, what its saying is that the function that I called in the pact.Verify is not making the same call as what I have in the WithRequest section?
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-05 04:54
I am trying to understand https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/docker_images/pactfoundation if I have to spin up a packbroker in our local infra as a docker image, am I running the db instance separately? We host our services on k8's
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-05 05:24
gotcha, yea thats what I figured. Is there any information how to set up the needed database schema in documents? May be I am not seeing it?
matt.fellows
2021-02-05 05:25
Should be there somewhere. Just needs a user with all privileges and a databases created. The broker will then bootstrap itself
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-05 05:28
Thank you, also interesting.. just setting up `psql postgres -c "CREATE DATABASE pact_broker;` I think I was looking for the db schema.. i.e. tables etc..
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-05 05:30
https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/on-premises/database I see the same here
matt.fellows
2021-02-05 06:59
yes. You don?t need to setup the schema, the broker will do it automatically
dabfleming
2021-02-12 21:56
Hey, so I'm having some difficulty getting a consumer test setup, I'm trying to build up to what I need starting with some basic example code. It works validating the method & path of the request, but as soon as I add `Request.Body` to the `WithRequest()` call I'm having trouble. I keep seeing a 500 response from the pact server with no additional information about what's going wrong.
dabfleming
2021-02-16 17:05
Ok, so making some progress, especially looking at the log file to see the info on the difference between expected vs actual. Is there a way to get pact to *not* care about additional key/values in the json of a response? Ex
Actual JSON response:
```{
"foo": "string1",
"bar": "string2"
}```
And in my code:
```Body: dsl.EachLike(map[string]interface{}{
"foo": "string1"
}, 1),```
Then in my log:
```Description of differences
--------------------------------------
* Did not expect the key "bar" to exist at $.body[0]```
I want to match the stuff that I specify, but I basically don't care if there are extra values.
matt.fellows
2021-02-16 23:02
so yes, Pact does not care about additional attributes (see documentation about our implementation of Postel?s Law)
matt.fellows
2021-02-16 23:02
what?s going on here is that you?re saying the root of the JSON response should be an array
dabfleming
2021-02-16 23:05
My bad in trying to simplify my example... also I think I'm mixing request and response a bit.. I'll try and get a cleaner example in a bit.
matt.fellows
2021-02-16 23:05
it should be possible, if you can share the code I?m sure we can get to the bottom of it
dabfleming
2021-02-17 15:24
Ok, so to try and clear this up... here's a better copy of what's going on...
The request coming from my consumer:
```[
{
"important": "foo",
"unimportant": null
}
]```
Go Code:
```pact.
AddInteraction().
UponReceiving("This request").
WithRequest(dsl.Request{
Method: "POST",
Path: dsl.String("/path/to/endpoint"),
Headers: dsl.MapMatcher{...},
Body: dsl.EachLike(map[string]interface{}{
"important": "foo",
// ---
"unimportant": nil,
// We don't care about `unimportant` -- we don't even care if
// it is in the request. But if we remove it from the spec
// pact fails the test complaining `* Did not expect the key "unimportant" to exist at $.body[0]`
}, 1),
}).
WillRespondWith(...)```
mark.doppelfeld
2021-02-17 19:34
Hi, in our company we are forced to run our own pact broker and due to network setup this is not reachable via our standard http_proxy but needs to be excluded via no_proxy.
With that approach I do can get http access to it.
When trying to do a
```pact.VerifyMessageProvider```
I do get an http 503 which I assume comes from handling the proxy/no_proxy not in the way I need it to be.
Any chance to configure this settings somehow?
A colleague of mine, sitting in another network segment without proxy has no issues doing the verification.
I tried to search here and the google way, but couldn't find anything that seems to match my situation.
Thanks & best
dabfleming
2021-02-17 21:33
I apologize if I've missed something, but is there a way to publish a pact to a broker without first writing the file to disk? Seems like you have to do:
```pact.WritePact()
pub := dsl.Publisher{}
pub.Publish(types.PublishRequest{...})```
It would make a lot more sense to me if I could just do something like `pact.PublishTo(brokerURL)`
matt.fellows
2021-02-17 21:42
Ah, so pact won't let you ignore something in a request if your code actually sends it. You must either include it in the spec, or not have your code send it
matt.fellows
2021-02-17 21:42
We follow Postels law here: be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you expect
matt.fellows
2021-02-17 21:44
Otherwise we can't be sure that field doesn't change behaviour in some important way
dabfleming
2021-02-17 21:46
Yeah, when dealing with a broker it's a little awkward to have to write a file to disk as a middle step.
matt.fellows
2021-02-17 23:19
I added support a while back to configure the TLS config (see ex. https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/examples/customTls/self_signed_certificate_test.go#L31)
matt.fellows
2021-02-17 23:19
but perhaps it needs a way to configure the http client more completely?
mark.doppelfeld
2021-02-18 09:19
It seems so . I had a look at the TLS config thing and passing proxy / no_proxy information might be helpful.
How shall I proceed with this?
matt.fellows
2021-02-18 09:40
I'm assuming you have the correct http proxy settings in the environment?
matt.fellows
2021-02-18 09:40
This seems to suggest the solution if Env Vara don't fix: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44291191/bypassing-http-proxy-in-golang
bheemreddy181
2021-02-19 17:48
Just curious when we ask provider to verify the pact with a give pact url i feel provider is verifying other versions of consumer as well
bheemreddy181
2021-02-19 17:51
if you look at when master pact was pusblished vs when the pact was verified i feel the provider is sending verification to all pact / it may be verifying all pacts
dabfleming
2021-02-19 19:32
From the Go lib...
```// PactFileWriteMode specifies how to write to the Pact file, for the life
// of a Mock Service.
// "overwrite" will always truncate and replace the pact after each run
// "merge" will append to the pact file, which is useful if your tests
// are split over multiple files and instantiations of a Mock Server
// See https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby/blob/master/documentation/configuration.md#pactfile_write_mode
PactFileWriteMode string```
But the linked docs are:
> Default value: `:overwrite` Options: `:overwrite`, `:update`, `:smart`, `:none`
No mention of `merge` as in the go docs. Merge seems to work when I tested, do the docs need an update? Since this is acting on the broker I'd assume these are standard across all implementations.
bheemreddy181
2021-02-19 20:11
i feel like when there is an input pact_url the master tag should be completely ignored
matt.fellows
2021-02-19 22:47
It uses what you configure, so if you pass in both it's going to verify both
matt.fellows
2021-02-19 22:48
I'd suggest if you don't want that behaviour to guard against it. We usually use environment variables to toggle that behaviour e.g. if a Pact URL is present (for a triggered webhook) then we don't fetch
bheemreddy181
2021-02-19 22:53
i feel like if pact_url is set then it shouldn't pull the master tag or other tests
matt.fellows
2021-02-19 22:53
We can't infer why you'd like to do that. It's completely legitimate to do both and entirely in your control
bheemreddy181
2021-02-19 22:54
PACT_URL is present when webhook triggers that means it want only that pact to be verified
matt.fellows
2021-02-19 22:55
If Ruby does that, I disagree with it and am surprised if it's the case. Pact JS has the exact same behaviour as does Pact JVM
bheemreddy181
2021-02-19 22:57
it is not giving proper insights on the UI and the slack notification tells we verified all contracts
matt.fellows
2021-02-19 23:04
I can't tell why it's verifying from that. But if the contents are the same across versions then it will appear as though it verified multiple when in fact the result is applied to all
bheemreddy181
2021-02-19 23:06
i feel the results should be applied to the ones which are verified only rather than applying to all the pact with same content
matt.fellows
2021-02-20 01:29
That?s one of the biggest benefits though. If the contract content hasn?t changed, a consumer won?t be blocked next time they call `can-i-deploy`
matt.fellows
2021-02-20 01:30
conceptually, you think you?re publishing a new contract. But the broker doesn?t see it this way. It says ?I?ve seen this contract befor, so I?m just going to associate the consumer version with it?. Because the contract has been verified, any consumer version that has the same contract is deployable
matt.fellows
2021-02-20 01:30
Otherwise, each time a consumer goes to deploy and publishes a contract, it will have to wait for a provider to verify it, even though we know the contract is compatible with the deployed provider
matt.fellows
2021-02-20 02:07
Back on the original topic though, and for clarity - you're doing the right thing with respect to the flow
mark.doppelfeld
2021-02-20 18:23
``` STDERR:
Error reading file from http://pact-broker.xxxxx.yyyyy/pacts/provider/pao-ip-pool-manager/consumer/pao-switch-controller/version/1.2.0
HTTP request failed: status=503 /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-support-1.15.1/lib/pact/consumer_contract/pact_file.rb:67:in `block in get_remote_with_retry'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-support-1.15.1/lib/pact/consumer_contract/pact_file.rb:60:in `times'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-support-1.15.1/lib/pact/consumer_contract/pact_file.rb:60:in `get_remote_with_retry'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-support-1.15.1/lib/pact/consumer_contract/pact_file.rb:41:in `render_pact'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-support-1.15.1/lib/pact/consumer_contract/pact_file.rb:22:in `read'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-1.51.1/lib/pact/provider/pact_source.rb:16:in `pact_json'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-1.51.1/lib/pact/provider/pact_spec_runner.rb:115:in `collect'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-1.51.1/lib/pact/provider/pact_spec_runner.rb:115:in `pact_jsons'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-1.51.1/lib/pact/provider/pact_spec_runner.rb:78:in `configure_rspec'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-1.51.1/lib/pact/provider/pact_spec_runner.rb:32:in `run'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-1.51.1/lib/pact/cli/run_pact_verification.rb:69:in `run_with_pact_uri_object'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-1.51.1/lib/pact/cli/run_pact_verification.rb:50:in `run_specs'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-1.51.1/lib/pact/cli/run_pact_verification.rb:21:in `call'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-1.51.1/lib/pact/cli/run_pact_verification.rb:13:in `call'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-provider-verifier-1.32.1/lib/pact/provider_verifier/app.rb:171:in `verify_pact'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-provider-verifier-1.32.1/lib/pact/provider_verifier/app.rb:43:in `block in call'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-provider-verifier-1.32.1/lib/pact/provider_verifier/app.rb:42:in `collect'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-provider-verifier-1.32.1/lib/pact/provider_verifier/app.rb:42:in `call'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-provider-verifier-1.32.1/lib/pact/provider_verifier/app.rb:34:in `call'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-provider-verifier-1.32.1/lib/pact/provider_verifier/cli/verify.rb:47:in `verify'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in `run'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/invocation.rb:126:in `invoke_command'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor.rb:387:in `dispatch'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/base.rb:466:in `start'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-provider-verifier-1.32.1/lib/pact/provider_verifier/cli/custom_thor.rb:17:in `start'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/app/pact-provider-verifier.rb:33:in `<main>'
/home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-support-1.15.1/lib/pact/consumer_contract/pact_file.rb:67:in `block in get_remote_with_retry': HTTP request failed: status=503 (Pact::PactFile::HttpError)
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-support-1.15.1/lib/pact/consumer_contract/pact_file.rb:60:in `times'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-support-1.15.1/lib/pact/consumer_contract/pact_file.rb:60:in `get_remote_with_retry'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-support-1.15.1/lib/pact/consumer_contract/pact_file.rb:41:in `render_pact'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-support-1.15.1/lib/pact/consumer_contract/pact_file.rb:22:in `read'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-1.51.1/lib/pact/provider/pact_source.rb:16:in `pact_json'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-1.51.1/lib/pact/provider/pact_spec_runner.rb:115:in `collect'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-1.51.1/lib/pact/provider/pact_spec_runner.rb:115:in `pact_jsons'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-1.51.1/lib/pact/provider/pact_spec_runner.rb:78:in `configure_rspec'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-1.51.1/lib/pact/provider/pact_spec_runner.rb:32:in `run'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-1.51.1/lib/pact/cli/run_pact_verification.rb:69:in `run_with_pact_uri_object'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-1.51.1/lib/pact/cli/run_pact_verification.rb:50:in `run_specs'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-1.51.1/lib/pact/cli/run_pact_verification.rb:21:in `call'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-1.51.1/lib/pact/cli/run_pact_verification.rb:13:in `call'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-provider-verifier-1.32.1/lib/pact/provider_verifier/app.rb:171:in `verify_pact'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-provider-verifier-1.32.1/lib/pact/provider_verifier/app.rb:43:in `block in call'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-provider-verifier-1.32.1/lib/pact/provider_verifier/app.rb:42:in `collect'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-provider-verifier-1.32.1/lib/pact/provider_verifier/app.rb:42:in `call'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-provider-verifier-1.32.1/lib/pact/provider_verifier/app.rb:34:in `call'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-provider-verifier-1.32.1/lib/pact/provider_verifier/cli/verify.rb:47:in `verify'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/command.rb:27:in `run'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/invocation.rb:126:in `invoke_command'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor.rb:387:in `dispatch'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/thor-0.20.3/lib/thor/base.rb:466:in `start'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/vendor/ruby/2.2.0/gems/pact-provider-verifier-1.32.1/lib/pact/provider_verifier/cli/custom_thor.rb:17:in `start'
from /home/mdoppelfeld/development/pact/lib/app/pact-provider-verifier.rb:33:in `<main>'```
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-23 02:34
I am running into a race condition where my provider tests fail because the pact.test incoming connections need permissions when run locally.
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-23 02:35
*`Do you want the application "pacts.test" to accept incoming network connections?`* is what I am shown after
? My provider service spins up
? Pact test already runs and fails with `502`
matt.fellows
2021-02-23 03:25
I get that warning in one of my Mac's but it doesn't cause failures. Double check it is indeed the cause via trace logging
matt.fellows
2021-02-23 03:26
I think you can tell Mac to disable it, because I've somehow done it on my main one
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-23 22:33
unfortunately our firewall permissions are blocked on our machines and I am unable to make any changes
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-23 22:35
cause I run into 502 when running the pact-go example provider_test.go too
matt.fellows
2021-02-24 00:07
How does it work on the consumer side? The consumer side starts up a server as well which presumably has the same issue? Also, how do you test your provider code locally if you can?t start a port?
matt.fellows
2021-02-24 00:07
I can?t see how this is a Pact specific issue I?m sorry, so not sure how to help you from here
aparnachaudhari
2021-02-24 00:08
no my comment above was about that - this does not seem a pact related issue, this seems to be a firewall issue on my machine
matt.fellows
2021-02-24 00:08
yeah, unless I can reproduce it, the problem is very much related to your specific environment. Is there somebody who knows Go well enough to help you or a sysadmin you can speak with to understand the constraints? Once we know if it?s something we can do on our side, i?d be happy to have an issue raised and find an approach to fixing
aniket.g2185
2021-02-24 09:21
Hello @matt.fellows, firstly thanks for your amazing contributions to PACT :slightly_smiling_face: , wanted to check if `valueFromProviderState` is supported in Go's provider lib
matt.fellows
2021-02-24 09:39
It soon will be on provider side with a v3 branch almost ready for prime tine
aniket.g2185
2021-02-24 09:40
As of now looking for provider side, consumer is JVM based but we have few Go based consumers as well
matt.fellows
2021-02-24 09:41
Ok cool, I should have something for you in next couple of days, just sorting out an osx linking issue
bheemreddy181
2021-03-11 03:23
Can we use pact when we have internal packages which are used as interfaces to interact with provider services from multiple consumer services ? I assume it we can?t
bheemreddy181
2021-03-11 04:00
I assume the idea is not to write client libs and write the interfaces directly in the application so that requests and responses are pretty much defined for each application uniquely
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 04:01
I wrote this a while back YMMV: https://pactflow.io/blog/should-i-write-contract-tests-for-client-sdks/
bheemreddy181
2021-03-11 04:01
So that it explains easier what requests are sent and responses are read
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 04:12
Also search https://docs.pact.io/slack/general.html for ?client library?. The threads sadly don?t format well here, but you might find some useful historical conversations
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 04:15
-> https://docs.pact.io/slack/general.html#1610034769.384400 is also useful. I think you could apply contract tests using this strategy: https://docs.pact.io/slack/general.html#1610103444.390600
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 04:16
I ran into an issue where the provider libs weren?t working with Mac. I figured it out
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 04:17
This branch should have working code: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/tree/feat/v3-ffi-verifier
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 04:18
you can use https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/feat/v3-ffi-verifier/examples/v3/provider_test.go as an example
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 04:19
Do note that the namespace/packages are likely to change, but the interface is unlikely to change significantly
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 04:23
Let me know how you go. I?ll be offline for a bit, but back online later
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 06:17
@matt.fellows, I did a go get on the latest commit from the branch you mentioned
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 06:22
So basically, the new package needs to get the FFI bindings from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 06:23
Originally, I wanted to do that at runtime - but alas, with CGO I don?t think I can make that work. The code won?t run unless the lib is there, but want the code to be able to fetch the lib
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 06:23
This works locally, but I haven?t yet tested what this looks like when consumed
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 06:26
Do you want me to download ffi artifacts from releases and place it manually?
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 06:26
(I should note, there is a simple workaround in the meantime, but I?m keen to know how this works as is)
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 06:27
first, could you please run `pact-go -l DEBUG install` from the base of your project?
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 06:33
I?m wondering if it?s simpler to specify a path - e.g. `/opt/pact` and just ensure the libs are installed there, instead of trying to be too clever
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 06:34
or `/usr/local/pact` on Mac - I should confirm by the way, what OS are you using?
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 06:34
It's weird though, go path is under my user, why should it say permission denied
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 06:42
I know whatever directory I choose, someone will have an opinion about it. It might end up in `/tmp` despite it being ephemeral :grimacing:
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 06:46
cool. So if I don?t have the libs installed, I get this:
```mkdir -p ./examples/v3/pacts
# LOG_LEVEL=trace go test -v -tags=consumer -count=1 http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/examples/v3/...
LOG_LEVEL=trace go test -v -timeout=10s -tags=provider -count=1 http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/examples/v3/... -run TestV3HTTPProvider
# http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v3/internal/native/mock_server
Apple clang version 12.0.0 (clang-1200.0.32.29)
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin19.6.0
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/usr/bin
clang: error: no such file or directory: '/opt/pact/libpact_mock_server_ffi.dylib'
# http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v3/internal/native/verifier
Apple clang version 12.0.0 (clang-1200.0.32.29)
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin19.6.0
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/usr/bin
clang: error: no such file or directory: '/opt/pact/libpact_verifier_ffi.dylib'
FAIL http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/examples/v3 [build failed]
FAIL
make: *** [pactv3] Error 2```
But then if I run the following:
```? pact-go git:(feat/v3-ffi-verifier) ? ./bin/pact-go -l DEBUG install <aws:cloudsploit-dev>
2021/03/11 17:46:44 [DEBUG] checking version for lib libpact_verifier_ffi semver range >= 0.0.2, < 1.0.0
2021/03/11 17:46:44 [DEBUG] package libpact_verifier_ffi not found
2021/03/11 17:46:44 [DEBUG] downloading library from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases/download/pact_verifier_ffi-v0.0.2/libpact_verifier_ffi-osx-x86_64.dylib.gz to /opt/pact/libpact_verifier_ffi.dylib
2021/03/11 17:46:45 [DEBUG] downloading library from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases/download/libpact_mock_server_ffi-v0.0.15/libpact_mock_server_ffi-osx-x86_64.dylib.gz to /opt/pact/libpact_mock_server_ffi.dylib
2021/03/11 17:46:46 [INFO] setting install_name on library libpact_verifier_ffi for osx
2021/03/11 17:46:46 [DEBUG] output from command []
2021/03/11 17:46:46 [INFO] setting install_name on library libpact_mock_server_ffi for osx
2021/03/11 17:46:46 [DEBUG] output from command []
2021/03/11 17:46:46 [DEBUG] checking version for lib libpact_verifier_ffi semver range >= 0.0.2, < 1.0.0
2021/03/11 17:46:46 [DEBUG] checking version for lib libpact_mock_server_ffi semver range >= 0.0.15, < 1.0.0```
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 06:53
Our CI runs on Linux, so should not be a problem there, but locally all devs would have to chown or use sudo
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 06:54
Also pact-go seems to be creating libs folder , but now it's looking for libs under /opt/pact
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 07:07
```# http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v3/internal/native/mock_server
Apple clang version 12.0.0 (clang-1200.0.32.28)
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin19.6.0
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /Users/aniket.gadre/Downloads/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin
"/Users/aniket.gadre/Downloads/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/ld" -demangle -lto_library /Users/aniket.gadre/Downloads/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/lib/libLTO.dylib -dynamic -arch x86_64 -platform_version macos 10.15.0 10.15.6 -syslibroot /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/SDKs/MacOSX10.15.sdk -o $WORK/b462/_cgo_.o -L/usr/local/lib $WORK/b462/_cgo_main.o $WORK/b462/_x001.o $WORK/b462/_x002.o $WORK/b462/_x003.o /opt/pact/libpact_mock_server_ffi.dylib -lSystem /Users/aniket.gadre/Downloads/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/lib/clang/12.0.0/lib/darwin/libclang_rt.osx.a
# http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v3/internal/native/verifier
Apple clang version 12.0.0 (clang-1200.0.32.28)
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin19.6.0
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /Users/aniket.gadre/Downloads/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin
"/Users/aniket.gadre/Downloads/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/ld" -demangle -lto_library /Users/aniket.gadre/Downloads/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/lib/libLTO.dylib -dynamic -arch x86_64 -platform_version macos 10.15.0 10.15.6 -syslibroot /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/SDKs/MacOSX10.15.sdk -o $WORK/b463/_cgo_.o -L/usr/local/lib $WORK/b463/_cgo_main.o $WORK/b463/_x001.o $WORK/b463/_x002.o $WORK/b463/_x003.o /opt/pact/libpact_verifier_ffi.dylib -lSystem /Users/aniket.gadre/Downloads/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/lib/clang/12.0.0/lib/darwin/libclang_rt.osx.a
# http://gitlab.myteksi.net/dakota/customer-experience/handlers.test
Apple clang version 12.0.0 (clang-1200.0.32.28)
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin19.6.0
Thread model: posix
InstalledDir: /Users/aniket.gadre/Downloads/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin
"/Users/aniket.gadre/Downloads/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/bin/ld" -demangle -lto_library /Users/aniket.gadre/Downloads/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/lib/libLTO.dylib -dynamic -arch x86_64 -platform_version macos 10.15.0 10.15.6 -syslibroot /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/SDKs/MacOSX10.15.sdk -o $WORK/b332/handlers.test -L/usr/local/lib -S -no_pie -pagezero_size 4000000 /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/go.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000000.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000001.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000002.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000003.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000004.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000005.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000006.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000007.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000008.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000009.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000010.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000011.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000012.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000013.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000014.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000015.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000016.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000017.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000018.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000019.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000020.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000021.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000022.o /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-link-002309112/000023.o /opt/pact/libpact_mock_server_ffi.dylib /opt/pact/libpact_verifier_ffi.dylib -lpthread -framework CoreFoundation -framework Security -lSystem /Users/aniket.gadre/Downloads/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/lib/clang/12.0.0/lib/darwin/libclang_rt.osx.a
dyld: Library not loaded: ../../libs/libpact_mock_server_ffi.dylib
Referenced from: /var/folders/hf/s_d1x8qj3_78_gf6zm1gn3d40000gr/T/go-build392475533/b332/handlers.test
Reason: image not found```
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 07:09
I had to rename the folder cos `go-pact` created `lib` folder instead of `pact`
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 07:11
`go get http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go@5f21f62` , instead of version , provide commit hash
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 07:12
> I hope it will come as part of `go get` ?
Oh, sorry I thought you meant `go get` could download and install the lib deps. That would have been nice
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 07:17
`go build -a` seems to be the answer, but double check that :stuck_out_tongue:
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 07:18
`go get` seems to be doing that but then I expect it to download libs under /opt/pact
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 07:22
I have to run in a second I?m afraid - dinner time and I?m pushing it uphill against wife and kids - but keen to get the install bit runnig
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 07:23
Sorry about the hassles, but you?re helping make this easier for others - so :pray:
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 07:37
btw I built the lib from source and its still trying to pull the files under `lib` folder
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 07:51
I got the correct commit, I built the binary and its still pulling under `lib` , oh man
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 09:17
yeah I suspect same thing, let me get back to you on this in sometime as I am stepping out
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 12:08
@matt.fellows, I see you have created one more branch `feat-v3-ffi-verifier-tmp` which has one more commit setting path for OSX
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 12:26
it worked when I got the latest commit from branch `feat-v3-ffi-verifier-tmp`
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 12:27
```12:25:42 [INFO] Running provider state change handler 'a new user' for 'a request for onboarding configuration'
Given a new user
2021/03/11 20:25:42 [INFO] executing state handler middleware```
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 12:28
preferably, logging is disabled by the shared library, and we get back a response to log within the pact-go framework
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 12:34
```12:25:42 [INFO] Sending request to provider at http://localhost:56808/```
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 12:34
it?s responsible for magic, for example, the provider state handlers and other hooks
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 12:35
it also allows us to use native go TLS/HTTP client features, which otherwise wouldn?t be available to us (because the request would be initiated from the underlying library code)
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 12:35
ohh so it goes via this proxy to update request which then hits actual provider url
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 12:36
it comes out as INFO now, as the rust lib we are using is not aware of the proxy, so thinks it?s actually the final target
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 12:36
ok, it might confuse users in thinking they are hitting wrong port :smile:
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 12:37
correct, so more logging (to essentially prepare for that confusion) or less (hide the rust output and control from go) could solve it
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 12:38
I haven't yet tried the parameterized state provider, was trying to get easy one working first
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 12:39
the core library that is being imported. In this case, the engine that reads the pact files, replays them against the service, and reports back the output
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 12:40
we have 12 languages to support, and that logic is actually quite complicated. So a shared core is the model we currently have (uses Ruby), but moving to a Rust one
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 12:40
I advocated for Go, but didn?t have the time to do it myself :stuck_out_tongue:
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 12:42
``` a request for onboarding configuration
returns a response which
has status code 200 (OK)
includes headers
"Content-Type" with value "application/json; charset=UTF-8" (OK)
has a matching body (OK)
12:25:42 [ERROR] Failed to load pact - Failed to load pact '<MY_SERVICE_PATH>/handlers/../pacts/android-app-customer-experience.json' - Request failed - builder error: relative URL without a base```
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 12:42
I see this weird thing, PACT test executed fine but later I see an error to load pact file, which was actually loaded fine
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 12:46
sorted, it originated from `pactUrls` field, not sure if in `v2` this field accepted file path as well
matt.fellows
2021-03-11 12:48
Files -> actual local files
Urls -> remote files
Dirs -> directories containing files
PactBrokerUrl -> find dynamically from a broker
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 12:48
makes sense, I believe in V2 local file path worked for Url as well, now it complains
aniket.g2185
2021-03-11 15:26
```"a user whose application can be updated": func(s v3.ProviderStateV3) error { ... }```
aniket.g2185
2021-03-12 00:41
```{
"description": "a request to update the existing onboarding application",
"request": {
"method": "PUT",
"path": "/onboarding/applications/1",
"headers": {
"Content-Type": "application/json; charset=UTF-8"
},
"body": {
"fields": [
{
"value": "Alice",
"key": "Name"
}
]
},
"matchingRules": {
"body": {
"$.fields": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "type"
}
],
"combine": "AND"
},
"$.fields[*].key": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "type"
}
],
"combine": "AND"
},
"$.fields[*].value": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "type"
}
],
"combine": "AND"
}
}
},
"generators": {
"path": {
"type": "ProviderState",
"expression": "/onboarding/applications/${uuid}",
"dataType": "STRING"
}
}
},
"response": {
"status": 200,
"headers": {
"Content-Type": "application/json; charset=UTF-8"
},
"body": {
"channel": "MY_INFO",
"uuid": 1,
"forms": [
{
"name": "Personal Info",
"fields": [
{
"editable": true,
"dataType": "a",
"name": "Name",
"value": "Alice",
"key": "name",
"required": true
}
],
"key": "personalInfo"
}
]
},
"matchingRules": {
"body": {
"$.uuid": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "type"
}
],
"combine": "AND"
},
"$.forms": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "type"
}
],
"combine": "AND"
},
"$.forms[*].key": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "type"
}
],
"combine": "AND"
},
"$.forms[*].name": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "type"
}
],
"combine": "AND"
},
"$.forms[*].fields": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "type"
}
],
"combine": "AND"
},
"$.forms[*].fields[*].name": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "type"
}
],
"combine": "AND"
},
"$.forms[*].fields[*].key": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "type"
}
],
"combine": "AND"
},
"$.forms[*].fields[*].value": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "type"
}
],
"combine": "AND"
},
"$.forms[*].fields[*].dataType": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "regex",
"regex": "[string|enum|date|bool]"
}
],
"combine": "AND"
},
"$.forms[*].fields[*].editable": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "type"
}
],
"combine": "AND"
},
"$.forms[*].fields[*].required": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "type"
}
],
"combine": "AND"
}
},
"header": {
"Content-Type": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "regex",
"regex": "application/json(;\\s?charset=[\\w\\-]+)?"
}
],
"combine": "AND"
}
}
},
"generators": {
"body": {
"$.uuid": {
"type": "ProviderState",
"expression": "uuid",
"dataType": "INTEGER"
},
"$.forms[*].fields[*].dataType": {
"type": "Regex",
"regex": "[string|enum|date|bool]"
}
}
}
},
"providerStates": [
{
"name": "a user whose application is in draft state",
"params": {
"uuid": "1"
}
}
]
}```
aniket.g2185
2021-03-12 00:42
Its a path param being parameterized with below code
``` .pathFromProviderState(applicationsEndpoint + "/${uuid}", applicationsEndpoint + "/1")```
aniket.g2185
2021-03-12 00:55
If I print s this is what I get
```2021/03/12 08:54:44 State invoked with s as {a user whose application is in draft state <nil>} ```
aniket.g2185
2021-03-12 03:23
This is from V2, I am back to V2 till V3 issue is sorted :smile: The logs I am talking about are the ones printing out every match for body, header , status
aniket.g2185
2021-03-12 03:23
```=== RUN TestCustomerExperienceServiceProvider/has_status_code_200#01
pact.go:629: Verifying a pact between android-app and customer-experience Given a user whose application is in draft state a request for onboarding configuration with GET /onboarding/configurations returns a response which has status code 200
=== RUN TestCustomerExperienceServiceProvider/has_a_matching_body#02
pact.go:629: Verifying a pact between android-app and customer-experience Given a user whose application is in draft state a request for onboarding configuration with GET /onboarding/configurations returns a response which has a matching body
=== RUN TestCustomerExperienceServiceProvider/"Content-Type"_which_matches_/application\/json(;\s?charset=[\w\-]+)?/#02
pact.go:629: Verifying a pact between android-app and customer-experience Given a user whose application is in draft state a request for onboarding configuration with GET /onboarding/configurations returns a response which includes headers "Content-Type" which matches /application\/json(;\s?charset=[\w\-]+)?/
=== RUN TestCustomerExperienceServiceProvider/has_status_code_200#02```
aniket.g2185
2021-03-12 03:23
These are being printed for test which ran fine, is there any way I can print logs only if it fails ?
aniket.g2185
2021-03-12 03:25
Also I do not see a good summary of which one fails and which one passed
matt.fellows
2021-03-12 03:29
I think by default go will only print logs if it fails, unless you pass `-v`
aniket.g2185
2021-03-12 09:43
any idea about below error ? Not sure why is it complaining about having more elements despite using `minArrayLike`
```Diff
--------------------------------------
Key: - is expected
+ is actual
Matching keys and values are not shown
{
"fields": [
... ,
- Pact::UnexpectedIndex,
- Pact::UnexpectedIndex,
+ Hash,
+ Hash,
]
}
]
Description of differences
--------------------------------------
* Actual array is too long and should not contain a Hash at $.forms[0].fields[1]
* Actual array is too long and should not contain a Hash at $.forms[0].fields[2]```
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 02:36
OK i?ve fixed the issue. I?d like to address it in the upstream lib, but that should be transparent to you so it should be usable
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 02:36
one thing to note, is that the state setup signature has changed (now accepts a ?setup? boolean, so you can do a setup and teardown action on the specific state)
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 02:51
No hurries. I had a little play this morning and got it to work. Needs tidying up, tests etc but the example works
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 03:45
I am not so clear about this section
```// Optionally (if there are generators in the pact) return provider state values to be used in the verification (only )
return v3.ProviderStateV3Response{"id": "bar"}, nil```
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 03:52
This is what I get when I print the interface value `value of s.Params map[uuid:1]`
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 03:56
I tried this
``` type params struct {
UUID string `json:"uuid"`
}
if p, ok := s.Parameters.(params); ok { ... }```
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 04:12
If you like, hack the censored code locally to see what is the nicest experience and we can change it
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 06:53
I am able to fetch value from provider state but it seems my call to API is failing
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 06:56
I have this generator
```"generators": {
"path": {
"type": "ProviderState",
"expression": "/applications/${uuid}",
"dataType": "STRING"
}
}```
and it seems call to my API is made with `${uuid}` as the path param instead of actual UUID.
Is this what you were talking about which needs to be returned from provider State?
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 07:47
So I haven't actually used this feature so I'm a little hazy. I hope that you can just return a map with the `uuid` value to use in the actual API call
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 09:11
I did return a map with uuid and its value but call is sill being made with `${uuid}`
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 09:18
Thx. I'll try and look tonight. I somewhat considered it but haven't tested it yet. Hopefully something simple tho. If you enable trace logging you might see more (bit can't guarantee that either)
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 09:56
BTW V3 doesn't have a log file configuration like V2, has it been move to somewhere else or that kind of logging has been removed?
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 10:16
Found it. Needed an explicit content-type header - just pushed a minor fix for that
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 10:16
> BTW V3 doesn?t have a log file configuration like V2, has it been move to somewhere else or that kind of logging has been removed?
I?d like to preserve that functionality, but need to work with the upstream lib to achieve it. As noted before, currently the library is also logging to stdout which I?d like to avoid
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 10:22
I am just going thru the code, is there any reason for exporting methods `BeforeEachMiddleware` and `AfterEachMiddleware` of `HttpVerifier` ?
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 10:25
also while appending middleware to the slice of middleware they have been appended in sequence `beforeEach` `afterEach` `StateHandlers` and `requestFilter` .. I believe `afterEach` should be added at last? or the sequence of execution is being taken care at some other place ?
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 10:27
this is what comment says
```// Order of events: BeforeEach, stateHandlers, requestFilter(pre <execute provider> post), AfterEach```
but middleware are not added in that sequence
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 10:28
I believe they do run in the correct order. They run inside out, and only on the correct phase.
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 10:31
They do need tweaking for the new setup, because a state handler now also has 2 phases that needs to be considered
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 10:34
Sometimes, people want a specific state to setup, and then tear it down.
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 10:34
a general ?afterEach? hook doesn?t know what state is being used and isn?t local to the caller, so it makes for messier code
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 10:37
yeah correct, the current `beforeEach` and `afterEach` are more generic and not specific to `stateHandler` , but I think it depends a bot on how you structure code and whether you can still make use of normal `afterEach` for teardown
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 10:37
yep. So, we?ll give people the options and they can choose what makes most sense
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 10:37
I tend to use a standard ?afterEach? and just reset the table if needed, then specific states can do as they please
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 10:40
I tend to mock the DB because it?s faster. As long as you can preserve the interface to the db and have other tests for those layers, then it?s much simpler (IMO)
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 10:40
for eg, u need lot of static tables loaded in DB before its useable, that would run all the SQL scripts every time you bring up a clean DB
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 10:40
In apps that maybe are harder to mock, externalise to Docker is my other goto
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 10:41
that?s where a specific state teardown might be useful, so you don?t have to clean the docker container each test
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 10:42
As of now there is no global setup and teardown method right? which runs only once ? I think that can be handled the way normal Go test would do it
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 10:49
Basically, I?ve been creating a side-by-side implementation of the existing one to keep things as close as possible to make migration easier - but that mean I needed to namespace things temporarily
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 10:51
yep , but I think it should be ok if you have `ProviderState` type under v2 as well as v3, no ?
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 10:52
yeah, the new package will support v2 and v3 if that?s what you?re asking?
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 10:52
yeah I mean even if it supports both, there shouldn't be conflict in types as they are under diff packages
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 10:54
oh right, yes. I?m not sure they?ll be in separate sub-level packages yet, or typed explicitly (I?m leaning toward packages but there is a lot of overlapping code that I want to re-use)
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 10:56
I suspect some people will have the old package run in parallel with the new - so that could be a reason to namespace it
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 10:57
but really, I?d like to sunset the old package completely, but still support the v2 and v3 pacts
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 10:57
I wanted to contribute to pact-go since long, now that I am fully working on Go, it should be a good time I guess
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 10:58
My all micro-services are in Go, so if I can use consumer side v3 as well, I would prefer to stick to V3
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 10:58
3 hours behind Aus time, are you in southeast Asia somewhere? Singapore?
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 10:58
the current one I am working on , consumer is android app, so I can use Java/Kotlin there
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 11:07
where are you working in Singapore? I?ve never been, but have a bunch of friends/family that have been there for work
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 11:08
I am working at `Grab` , started as Taxi hailing company , but are now in payments and lot of other domains
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 11:10
He used to work at DiUS (the company I work for) and we?ve worked / overlapped at other customers too (e.g. NAB - big 4 bank here)
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 11:11
Wow thats nice, Didn't he promote PACT in Grab :smile: I am pushing for it , atleast for my project
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 11:12
APEX - Is a developer/QA/SRE experience team, they build frameworks and other stuff for devs
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 11:13
They use a lot of GRPC here, but I guess I have read your comments on how GRPC <> Contract and I agree to that
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 11:23
```func (v *Verifier) Verify(args []string) int {
log.Println("[DEBUG] executing verifier FFI with args", args)
cargs := C.CString(strings.Join(args, "\n"))
defer freeString(cargs)
result := C.verify(cargs)
return int(result)
}```
Is this method calling the `Rust` code ?
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 11:23
thanks for advocating for us! If you?d like me to do a talk to the Grab engineering team I?d be more than happy to
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 11:24
as for gRPC, i?m not sure what you?ve read, but the current plan:
1. Create general https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/issues/83 for pact (requires projects to be using the rust core)
2. Create a gRPC and protobuf plugin(s)
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 11:25
It?s going to be a few months before good traction is made there, but I?m doing the work to get Go prepped into the Rust core so that adding the plugin interface should be a piece of cake
matt.fellows
2021-03-13 11:26
Ok my laptop battery just died. I'm off for the night, but appreciate your help here! Let me know how you get on and if you'd like me to chat with your team :pray:
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 11:27
I am bit confused about this verifier thing, when does the hooks and Provider state execute ?
aniket.g2185
2021-03-13 12:47
Let me know if my understanding is correct about how verification process works
1. Pact core verification method makes the Rest call targeted at proxy
2. Call hits the proxy , which then executes Hooks, StateHandlers, RequestFilter
3. Call is forwarded to hit actual provider
4. Response comes back to proxy and after hook executes
5. Response goes back to core (and the required matchers are executed)
mark.doppelfeld
2021-03-19 11:28
@aniket.g2185 I do get exactly the same error ... how did you solve it?
mark.doppelfeld
2021-03-19 11:32
``` pact.go:629: Verifying a pact between pao-switch-controller-http and pao-ip-pool-manager-http Given A list with all pools A request to get all pools with GET /api/v2/ip/pools returns a response which has a matching body
pact.go:635: Verifying a pact between pao-switch-controller-http and pao-ip-pool-manager-http Given A list with all pools A request to get all pools with GET /api/v2/ip/pools returns a response which has a matching body
Actual: [{"address":"192.168.0.0/19","addressPoolKind":"IPV4"},{"address":"2003:c3:f800::/37","addressPoolKind":"IPV6DHCP"},{"address":"2003:0:8000:5800::/53","addressPoolKind":"IPV6RA"}]
Diff
--------------------------------------
Key: - is expected
+ is actual
Matching keys and values are not shown
[
... ,
- Pact::UnexpectedIndex,
- Pact::UnexpectedIndex,
+ Hash,
+ Hash,
]
Description of differences
--------------------------------------
* Actual array is too long and should not contain a Hash at $[1]
* Actual array is too long and should not contain a Hash at $[2]
```
mark.doppelfeld
2021-03-19 11:35
``` Body: dsl.Like(&[]pao.Fragment{
{
Address: "192.168.0.0/22",
LeafName: "testLeaf1",
AddressPoolKind: pao.AddressPoolKindIPV4,
},
{
Address: "2003:c3:f800::/46",
LeafName: "testLeaf1",
AddressPoolKind: pao.AddressPoolKindIPV6DHCP,
},
{
Address: "2003:0:8000:5800::/54",
LeafName: "testLeaf1",
AddressPoolKind: pao.AddressPoolKindIPV6RA,
},
}),```
aniket.g2185
2021-03-19 11:38
in the array , is consumer expecting atleast 1 address of each type or array can have any number of any type of IPs ?
aniket.g2185
2021-03-19 11:41
what `like` says is , every object in an array is `like` something and then you define only 1 example of something
aniket.g2185
2021-03-19 11:45
you could have also just given one example and mentioned that `AddressPoolKind` should be either of three using a regex but that wont work, cos Pact will pass a test with response having IP4 AddressPoolKind containing a value of IP6 type IP, which ideally is a wrong response
eric2323223
2021-03-23 02:21
For some reason, my service only accept headers begin with multiple uppercase letters, such as *TEST-Context*. Therefore I am having trouble in the PACT provider test because PACT change the header to *Test-Context*. May I know how to keep header casing in PACT provider test?
matt.fellows
2021-03-23 04:17
So, I think you mentioned you tried `RequestFilter` - did that not work?
matt.fellows
2021-03-23 04:20
yes, so it seems golang messes with the headers (I know this is common in other languages too): https://dhdersch.github.io/golang/2016/08/11/golang-case-sensitive-http-headers.html
eric2323223
2021-03-23 05:57
Yes, that's the way I tried with RequestFilter, but doesn't work. I guess somewhere in PACT the headers were updated again with `request.Header.Set` ?
matt.fellows
2021-03-23 06:45
well, yes and no. The Golang HTTP client that is sending the request to your provider is likely doing this
matt.fellows
2021-03-23 06:46
Not that I think you should necessarily change your code because its more convenient for a test framework, but it?s not very common practice to have case-sensitive header _keys_
eric2323223
2021-03-23 06:48
I am afraid the header cannot be changed, it's used in many other services
matt.fellows
2021-03-23 06:51
so the other services can continue to send through the case-specific one
eric2323223
2021-03-23 06:55
My understanding the header should be case sensitive to other services as well, the service I am working on is the only service using PACT contract test.
matt.fellows
2021-03-23 07:18
so I?m taking a look through the code, and I suspect it?s related to our use of the golang reverse proxy
eric2323223
2021-03-23 07:21
is it possible to add callback to update headers after the reverse proxy?
matt.fellows
2021-03-23 07:22
no, because the reverse proxy is the actual thing issuing the request to the target
matt.fellows
2021-03-23 07:22
One option would be to vendor the current reverse proxy implementation, and making it parameterisable (or just adding our desired behaviour into it)
matt.fellows
2021-03-23 07:23
It?s a very edge casey thing, because HTTP request headers a case-insensitive.
matt.fellows
2021-03-23 07:24
so we?re working against the way they want to work (the intermediate Pact engine, currently Ruby and moving to Rust) also appear to canonicalise them too
matt.fellows
2021-03-23 07:24
I?m reaching the end of my train journey, but will have a think about a path forward here
bheemreddy181
2021-04-02 21:49
if my provider has a dependency with other API - do i mock that api in my state handlers ?
bheemreddy181
2021-04-04 03:49
do we need to convert those mocks into contract tests then ? ( create a contract workflow with other service ) or do we need to write different contract tests for that integration ?
bheemreddy181
2021-04-04 03:50
I am slightly worried about the keeping both mock response and contract tests in sync if i write different contract tests
matt.fellows
2021-04-07 01:00
I don?t have an example to hand, but on a previous client we did that, it was pretty straightforward, but they also already had a way of generating a JWT using a well known JWT library and so during the Pact tests we just added a filter that always added it. Are you having troubles with anything in particular?
bheemreddy181
2021-04-07 04:05
problem i have to setup the router to use the JWT config , its making things quite harder actually
matt.fellows
2021-04-07 04:07
If you use the standard dependency injection to stand up your routers, it should be easy to swap out the interface to a ?null check? or something, or depending on your test coverage, you might want to just drop JWT validation for Pact tests altogether.
matt.fellows
2021-04-07 04:23
> for dropping JWT for pact tests what should be the criteria ?
At the very least, you should have good replacement tests to ensure that it?s covered elsewhere. Especially if there is semantic information in the JWTs
matt.fellows
2021-04-07 04:23
but usually, these things are picked up fairly quickly through other means - you usually can?t explore a feature if it can?t auth, and usually, security related things are highly scrutinised
zbintliff
2021-04-07 13:14
Our plan on JWT is just to use the new header rules to seed our requests is a very long lived valid token
matt.fellows
2021-04-11 14:11
@aniket.g2185 I had a few hours this evening to do a little more on the verifier side. I think the installer is in decent shape at the moment and both message and HTTP pacts are working, with provider state value callbacks etc.
matt.fellows
2021-04-11 14:12
I?d like to release a beta soon - aside from what you shared already (specifically with logging) did you have any feedback on the package? Do you think it makes sense to remain in a `v3` sub package? How has it been ergonomically?
dabfleming
2021-04-14 15:40
@matt.fellows So there's something that's really been bugging me about the pact-go api (as I've been working through proof-of-concept/demos/examples etc) Are you open to suggestions that would involve breaking changes? (cont...)
dabfleming
2021-04-14 15:45
Basically the way StateHandlers are done seems a little error-prone and not very idiomatic-Go-y. If one of my tests has `.Given("some-state")` I can pass in a StateHandlers map which doesn't contain the key ``"some-state"` , or even `nil` , and the pact-go framework doesn't produce any error. It would be nice to at least check that that key was present in the map. Even better would be implementing stateHandlers via an interface... I'm thinking something like:
```type StateHandlers interface{
SetState(key string) error
}```
Similar to `http.Handler`, this would allow me to pass in my own type to manage the states:
? I can decide if a missing state is an error
? I could potentially implement this in my server struct, which can then modify its state directly, without using closures. This would seem to me to be potentially a lot cleaner.
matt.fellows
2021-04-15 01:15
Hi @dabfleming! yes, definitely open to a breaking change. The v3 branch, which is close to beta, would be the place to try this.
matt.fellows
2021-04-15 01:15
Ideally, I?d like to make the migration from the current stable to the new branch as straightforward as possible. But also, if we?re going to introduce breaking changes, now would be the time
matt.fellows
2021-04-15 01:16
Would you like to put together an example test that shows your example in action? It doesn?t need to compile, just to show the concept?
github
2021-04-19 00:57
GitHub app is successfully upgraded in your workspace :tada:
To receive notifications in your private channels, you need to invite the GitHub app `/invite @GitHub`
pavel.azarau
2021-04-21 22:56
hello folks. have not found anything about it here in channel.
has anybody had `Post ?http://localhost:54223/interactions?: dial tcp [::1]:54223: connect: connection refused` while calling pact.verify()?
I call `pact.Setup(true)` before and I?ve confirmed it checks if a mock server was started up (by default within 10 seconds). but then I call `pact.verify` and fail with the error above. if I add a sleep for ~600 ms after `pact>Setup(true)` call the test passes
bheemreddy181
2021-04-22 03:32
pavel.azarau
2021-04-22 16:38
I don?t use a specific port. by default `pact.Setup(true)` uses a random one
```if p.AllowedMockServerPorts != "" {
port, perr = utils.FindPortInRange(p.AllowedMockServerPorts)
} else {
port, perr = utils.GetFreePort()
}```
and I see different port each time I run it
aparnachaudhari
2021-04-28 07:10
Has anyone ran into errors when running consumer contract test for one service but 2 contract test files - RESTful and async (message) in the same test run?
aparnachaudhari
2021-04-28 07:11
``` `extract_contents': undefined method `contents' for #<Pact::Interaction:0x007fd5841505e8> (NoMethodError)```
matt.fellows
2021-04-28 07:13
It?s probably trying to parse the pact file that already has an item in it (a message pact or a http interaction). The current version of pact doesn?t support both in a single pact file
matt.fellows
2021-04-28 07:13
Simple solution: give the provider a different name (I know it?s a bit annoying, and it?s in the process of being resolved)
matt.fellows
2021-04-28 07:14
yeah, you need to have separate tests with separate mock servers (in the case of message pact, there is no mock service anyway)
aparnachaudhari
2021-04-28 07:14
our consumers and provider names are tightly tied to the service repo names.. service modules .. I think we can work around sperate sessions for now
matt.fellows
2021-04-28 07:15
ah, makes sense. you?re probably creating standard approaches/tooling I?m guessing?
aparnachaudhari
2021-04-28 07:16
yep.. lot of boiler plate code is packaged out and shared across the pipelines
matt.fellows
2021-04-28 07:17
Cool! Keen to see any of that, I?ve seen a few versions of these things. Some of it might be worth adding to Pact itself
aparnachaudhari
2021-04-28 07:17
Thanks for the quick response Matt, need to change some of the way we will be triggering tests based off of this.
matt.fellows
2021-04-28 07:17
for instance on a previous client (when I was still consulting) we built an internal tool to standardise how tokens were fetched, wrapped analytics around it etc.
matt.fellows
2021-04-28 07:18
Yeah, the main issue could be the provider side - it?s now _two_ logical providers
aparnachaudhari
2021-04-28 07:20
I see, so you are recommending that if service_a (consumer) has 2 contract tests - RESTful and async against service_b.. it would be useful to specify if service_b is going to run verification against the RESTful contract or the async contract
aparnachaudhari
2021-04-28 07:21
and the way to do that would be naming the provider side of things differently
matt.fellows
2021-04-28 07:26
Basically, you can?t have a pact file at the moment that has async interactions and HTTP ones
matt.fellows
2021-04-28 07:28
So you would have:
`service_a` -> `service_b` for the HTTP interactions
`service_a`-> `service_b_async` for the non-http interactions
But both `service_b` and `service_b_async` is the same code base. It would need to run two verification processes, one for each of its named providers.
matt.fellows
2021-04-28 07:31
I?m probably still at least a month away from getting the beta of the latest pact-go out
aparnachaudhari
2021-04-28 07:32
gotcha.. ok we can work around this for now and then we can edit it as the fix comes in
aparnachaudhari
2021-04-29 20:06
I am seeing something when writing a consumer contract for a message type interaction .. even tho the test case specifies
```message := pact.AddMessage()
message.
Given("Some test message").
ExpectsToReceive("Some test message back").```
aparnachaudhari
2021-04-29 20:06
I see
```"messages": [
{
"description": "Some test message back",
"providerStates": [
{
"name": "a",
"params": null
}
],```
aparnachaudhari
2021-04-29 20:08
per
```// Given specifies a provider state. Optional.
func (p *Message) Given(state string) *Message {
p.States = []State{State{Name: state}}
return p
}```
aparnachaudhari
2021-04-29 20:15
for
```type State struct {
Name string `json:"name"`
Params map[string]interface{} `json:"params,omitempty"`
}```
matt.fellows
2021-04-30 02:05
might be worth just doing a clean of the pact dir and starting fresh, just in case
matt.fellows
2021-04-30 02:21
Just ran the example in the pact-go repository, and it generates the correct pact file
matt.fellows
2021-04-30 02:22
```cd $GOPATH/src/github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/examples/messages/consumer
go test -count=1 -tags consumer -v .
cat $GOPATH/src/github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/examples/pacts/pactgomessageconsumer-pactgomessageprovider.json```
matt.fellows
2021-04-30 02:27
nope, it?s being set to `null` (which also doesn?t look right, but actually shouldn?t cause any issues)
matt.fellows
2021-04-30 02:28
It generates this:
```{
"consumer": {
"name": "PactGoMessageConsumer"
},
"provider": {
"name": "PactGoMessageProvider"
},
"messages": [
{
"description": "a user",
"providerStates": [
{
"name": "user with id 127 exists",
"params": null
}
],
"contents": {
"access": [
{
"role": "admin"
},
{
"role": "admin"
},
{
"role": "admin"
}
],
"id": 127,
"name": "Baz"
},
"matchingRules": {
"body": {
"$.access": {
"matchers": [
{
"min": 3
}
]
},
"$.access[*].*": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "type"
}
]
},
"$.access[*].role": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "regex",
"regex": "admin|controller|user"
}
]
},
"$.id": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "type"
}
]
}
}
},
"metaData": {
"Content-Type": "application/json; charset=utf-8"
}
},
{
"description": "an order",
"providerStates": [
{
"name": "an order exists",
"params": null
}
],
"contents": {
"id": {
"json_class": "Pact::SomethingLike",
"contents": 42
},
"item": {
"json_class": "Pact::Term",
"data": {
"generate": "apple",
"matcher": {
"json_class": "Regexp",
"o": 0,
"s": "(apple|orange)"
}
}
}
},
"matchingRules": {
},
"metaData": {
"Content-Type": "application/json; charset=utf-8"
}
}
],
"metadata": {
"pactSpecification": {
"version": "3.0.0"
}
}
}```
aparnachaudhari
2021-04-30 02:29
it technically should not, but when I re-run the consumer tests I see
```2021/04/29 11:55:13 [ERROR] service: Could not load existing consumer contract from /<path_redacted>/pact-example-consumer/pacts/example-todo-consumer-async-example-todo-provider.json due to 757: unexpected token at 'null'. Creating a new file.```
aparnachaudhari
2021-04-30 02:30
so `"params": null` should technically be omitted yea? since its `json:"params,omitempty"`
aparnachaudhari
2021-04-30 02:30
or is this being handled somewhere down stream that I cannot see in the go code
matt.fellows
2021-04-30 02:30
yes, but the pact is serialised by the Ruby binary, which might be doing it
aparnachaudhari
2021-04-30 02:35
```{
"consumer": {
"name": "example-todo-consumer-async"
},
"provider": {
"name": "example-todo-provider-async"
},
"messages": [
{
"description": "Test user information message",
"providerStates": [
{
"name": "Test User exists",
"params": null
}
],
"contents": {
"access": [
{
"role": "admin"
},
{
"role": "admin"
},
{
"role": "admin"
}
],
"id": 127,
"name": "Baz"
},
"matchingRules": {
"body": {
"$.access": {
"matchers": [
{
"min": 3
}
]
},
"$.access[*].*": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "type"
}
]
},
"$.access[*].role": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "regex",
"regex": "admin|controller|user"
}
]
},
"$.id": {
"matchers": [
{
"match": "type"
}
]
}
}
},
"metaData": {
"Content-Type": "application/json; charset=utf-8"
}
}
],
"metadata": {
"pactSpecification": {
"version": "3.0.0"
}
}
}```
aparnachaudhari
2021-04-30 02:36
this I can share ^ its pretty much the sample test but we were using it to trigger our service CI/CD
matt.fellows
2021-04-30 02:37
is that this file: `pact-example-consumer/pacts/example-todo-consumer-async-example-todo-provider.json` ?
matt.fellows
2021-04-30 02:38
Thte error above is that it can?t parse the JSON document. Thte file you shared is definitely valid JSON
matt.fellows
2021-04-30 02:40
Could you please try updating to the latest Ruby binary? I?m now just thinking that version is bad
matt.fellows
2021-04-30 02:41
I just added that to the test pact file here for messages, re-ran the tests and it appended the new interaction just fine
tjones
2021-04-30 11:40
@matt.fellows: We get that `null` error with pact-js when tests are writing to the same file concurrently. Don't know if it's related
eric2323223
2021-05-11 04:44
Could anyone please share a example of define optional query parameter for consumer test with pact-go?
aparnachaudhari
2021-05-11 18:56
I noticed that `ConsumerVersionSelectors` is not part of the `VerifyMessageRequest` but only `VerifyRequest` . Any idea how to choose multiple consumer versions for async tests?
dabfleming
2021-05-11 22:10
It does seem like more parity between `VerifyRequest` and `VerifyMessageRequest` would make sense.
dabfleming
2021-05-11 22:22
@matt.fellows When you're around, a question. Does the branch `feat/v3-ffi-verifier` on github represent a reasonably current snapshot of pact-go v3 development? We're starting to run into some sticky problems in how we might apply pact to our existing services and practices... contemplating suggesting some changes that might help us out, but want to base any feedback on what's current/upcoming if possible.
matt.fellows
2021-05-11 22:40
Yeah it does. The code is a bit of a mess behind the scenes as it was based on a spike from ~4 years ago, but I?m migrating to the new FFI based rust interface, so let me know where you?re going to look. If possible, suggestions to the public facing API without regard to implementation is probably your best bet
Else, one option is to setup a call and navigate some of it together.
matt.fellows
2021-05-11 22:40
The provider interface is close enough to done for a first cut though, despite some shortcomings
aparnachaudhari
2021-05-11 23:20
Hello, I am looking to add message tests between two services where the message contents are marshaled protobuf, the consumer marshals the message and provider unmarshals it. Has anyone worked on adding this type of async tests? Any pointers will be helpful.
matt.fellows
2021-05-12 02:52
Interesting. I think you?re going to have to do something like convert the protobuf message to a base64 encoded payload that is embedded into a JSON blob, and unpack it on the consumer side.
aparnachaudhari
2021-05-12 03:45
Just saw this.. hmm interesting. I came across https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-jvm/issues/878
I think his usecase sort of aligns with what I want to do... but I need to read more
aparnachaudhari
2021-05-13 22:03
I think the README doc for go async provider side of tests is out of date. Is this something I should raise somewhere as ticket or already known?
README https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go#provider-producer is out of date.. `dsl.MessageProviders` is not part of the pact-go any more
aparnachaudhari
2021-05-14 03:55
Yeah.. have been using that as source of truth.. just wanted to let y'all know
eric2323223
2021-05-28 03:55
Hi, I want to verify a optional query parameter, such as `my-context`, in the consumer test with PACT-go, this query parameter could contains multiple key pairs, such as `name=eric,gender=male`. May I know how to define the Query matcher?
matt.fellows
2021-05-28 04:41
Something like this:
``` WithRequest(request{
Method: "POST",
Path: term("/login/10", "/login/[0-9]+"),
Query: dsl.MapMatcher{
"foo": term("bar", "[a-zA-Z]+"),
},
Body: loginRequest,
Headers: commonHeaders,
}).```
eric2323223
2021-05-28 04:55
@matt.fellows Thank you for the answer, there is only one element in your sample query parameter `foo`, may I know how to define matcher when multiple elements in one query parameter? I have not yet found similar example in the repository
matt.fellows
2021-05-28 05:50
Can you please show what the actual query looks like from an http client?
marko.justinek
2021-05-28 06:04
I assume the question is whether it is currently possible to use an `includes.anyOfOrAll("name=eric", "gender=male")` kind of matcher for the request query, where the order of these key-value pairs might be different between the pact test declaration and actual API call?
marko.justinek
2021-05-28 06:07
though pact spec v3 supports this by https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/tree/version-3#query-strings-are-stored-as-map-instead-of-strings as an object of key-value pairs, not a string (or string matcher)?
matt.fellows
2021-05-28 06:27
I?m probably a week or two away from having a beta v3 on the consumer side
marko.justinek
2021-05-28 06:32
I wouldn?t mind getting ?my? headspace back so I could start thinking about the provider side on Swift (not that there is tonnes of demand :sweat_smile: - but we did have a bloke ask for it using Vapor (the future of web development :grinning_face_with_one_large_and_one_small_eye: ) (I thinks) :man-shrugging:
matt.fellows
2021-05-29 13:01
:wave: I know a few people have been asking about v3 support in pact-go. I?m pleased to say we?re moving closer to a beta.
Consumer examples: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/examples/v3/consumer_test.go
Provider examples: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/examples/v3/provider_test.go
It supports both the v2 and v3 specification, message pact, including all of the new matchers, binary payloads, values from provider states etc.. It also now uses the rust share core, and is pretty darn performant.
The API has changed a bit, and I will document a migration guide once we settle on what the interface looks like. I?d like feedback on this in particular topic, because obviously this is where you?ll be using things day to day.
(also everything is currently in a `v3` sub package, which I also plan to change)
matt.fellows
2021-05-29 13:03
From here, the plan is to clean up the rough edges, start using it in the edges of Pactflow (e.g. our Terraform provider) and other pet projects, in order to tease it out. Any community testers would be much appreciated.
(cc @dabfleming @zbintliff @aniket.g2185)
github2
2021-05-29 23:07
[pact-foundation/pact-go] New release _https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/releases/tag/2.0.0-alpha.1_ published by mefellows
aniket.g2185
2021-05-31 01:49
Awesome @matt.fellows !! bit occupied with something else, but would check it out soon !! Cheers!
matt.fellows
2021-05-31 02:58
Ping me when you do, it?ll probably be changed by the time you show up to play with it :wink:
bheemreddy181
2021-06-03 14:58
For some reason i feel each like is so confusing i know that the function implementation explains it all
```func EachLike(content interface{}, minRequired int) Matcher {Matt Fellows, 3 years ago: ? feat(api): uplift API to support better match?
return eachLike{
Contents: content,
Min: minRequired,
}
}```
that we atleast require one element here of that kind with a value
bheemreddy181
2021-06-03 15:00
We did the same thing but that fails , here is what it looks like
```WillRespondWith(dsl.Response{
Status: 200,
Body: dsl.Like(map[string]interface{}{
"underwriting_decisions":
dsl.EachLike(dsl.EachLike(map[string]interface{}{"equation_results": dsl.EachLike(map[string]interface{}{"equation_name": dsl.Like("NC_Tier_Model")}, 1)}, 1), 1),
}),
Headers: responseCommonHeaders,
})```
greg.tyler
2021-06-03 15:05
Looks like you?ve got an extra `EachLike` at the start? I think you want:
```dsl.EachLike(map[string]interface{}{"equation_results": dsl.EachLike(map[string]interface{}{"equation_name": dsl.Like("NC_Tier_Model")}, 1)}, 1),```
Because the actual response is:
```{"underwriting_decisions":[{"equation_results":...}]}```
But your Pact expectation is:
```{"underwriting_decisions":[[{"equation_results":...}]]}```
bheemreddy181
2021-06-03 20:49
So if i have multiple arrays does the validation look for each array to have atleast one item of this kind ?
matt.fellows
2021-06-03 23:29
right now, it?s in the `v3` folder simply because during development I had it working in parallel with the existing code
matt.fellows
2021-06-03 23:29
Originally, I made it completely backwards compatible, but made the decision to change some of the interface as I went through.
matt.fellows
2021-06-03 23:30
I?m still not sure what?s best. I?ll be adding support back in for a similar API soon. Pretty straightforward I think, so migration could be easier
matt.fellows
2021-06-03 23:30
Anyway, I would love feedback on the interface. I was always a bit uncomfortable with everything being in the `dsl` package. Thoughts welcome on that Zach!
matt.fellows
2021-06-04 01:24
`Eachlike` says ?this element should be an array, where each element of the array should have the following shape?
matt.fellows
2021-06-04 01:25
In the new branch, there is an `ArrayContains` matcher that lets you have _different_ objects in it :stuck_out_tongue:
zbintliff
2021-06-04 13:47
Oh awesome. I linked this thread to a teammate that shoudl be able to look at it this sprint
matt.fellows
2021-06-08 12:26
I?ve just added a migration guide to the repo: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/MIGRATION.md
matt.fellows
2021-06-08 12:26
The rest of the docs (i.e. the readme and also the source code) still need updating, so just note that.
matt.fellows
2021-06-08 12:27
The installation instructions https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/tree/2.x.x are still valid
matt.fellows
2021-06-08 12:28
migration guide for the new v2.x.x API is out: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/MIGRATION.md
dabfleming
2021-06-11 04:02
If I have a providerA and two consumers consumerA and consumerB, what is the expected behaviour when I use this:
```req.ConsumerVersionSelectors = []types.ConsumerVersionSelector{
{
Pacticipant: "consumerA",
Tag: "my-tag",
},
}```
I would expect to verify only the contract with consumerA, but what I'm currently seeing in the logs is both contracts being verified.
matt.fellows
2021-06-11 06:36
(yes that is my expectation also, but to be fair, I don?t actually really use that feature :stuck_out_tongue: )
aparnachaudhari
2021-06-12 00:25
Has any one run into an issue when running http pact provider tests with a pact url provided ? The error seems to indicate the server was unable to start
tien.xuan.vo
2021-06-14 01:25
From what I read in https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/projects/2 and https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/command/version.go , I think this tag https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/releases/tag/2.0.0-alpha.1 should be `2.0.0-beta.1` not `2.0.0-alpha.1`
aparnachaudhari
2021-06-14 20:56
The issue I am seeing is that when the pact provider pipeline that is triggered with webhook (http interactions test) is failing on all interactions with 502's
aparnachaudhari
2021-06-14 20:58
The steps this pipeline should take:
1. Read the pact contract from the url provided by the webhook.
2. Use this contract and then proceed to test the provider
a. This is where the failures occur: basically expected: 200, but got:502
aparnachaudhari
2021-06-15 05:35
Is there any known issue where, when the pact url is provided, the verification is run twice?
aparnachaudhari
2021-06-15 06:07
Bug? i.e. no logic to check if the pact url is provided? don?t bother to go fetch the contract from the broker
matt.fellows
2021-06-15 06:37
That logic is expected to be on the client - we don?t know which is more important to you
matt.fellows
2021-06-15 06:37
I could be wrong, but it may in fact do both (use the URL provided AND fetch dynamically from the broker). That would be the behaviour I would expect.
But i?m still confused about the `502`. Which bit is erroring? The test or the connection to the broker?
matt.fellows
2021-06-15 09:05
Also you might want to jump straight to the v2.x.x release. It's a beta for Go, but the core engine is production ready
aparnachaudhari
2021-06-15 16:43
The 502 was caused cause the tests endpoint were set to be hit only once and with the way verification was being run twice .. the second time was failing.
aparnachaudhari
2021-06-15 16:43
`I could be wrong, but it may in fact do both (use the URL provided AND fetch dynamically from the broker). That would be the behaviour I would expect.` yes it is doing exactly that..
aparnachaudhari
2021-06-15 16:44
It might be of help to call this out in https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/api_docs/webhooks/
aparnachaudhari
2021-06-16 01:08
the pact provider pipeline that we were triggering with the custom webhook on contract change event.. was doing this duplicate verification
matt.fellows
2021-06-16 01:08
the provider verification is where the configuration happens to say ?dynamically fetch pacts? or ?use a specific pact? (or both)
matt.fellows
2021-06-16 01:09
> This is our CI/CD pipeline for our infra not my local (edited)
I think I recall your use case, so I can see why it could be a problem
aparnachaudhari
2021-06-16 01:09
right that configuration is where we had this messing up.. we were not only passing the pact url to test for - from the webhook but also the pact broker url
aparnachaudhari
2021-06-16 01:10
if both the url?s are passed - 2 contracts are pulled and verification happens against both
aparnachaudhari
2021-06-16 01:10
I have fixed the configuration issue right now.. but was a bit confusing to figure out
matt.fellows
2021-06-16 01:10
FWIW the https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/workshops/ci-cd goes through this with a code example
matt.fellows
2021-06-16 01:10
yeah I can see. Not sure the best place for that, aside from in Pact go verification docs.
matt.fellows
2021-06-16 01:11
The behaviour is intended, it?s only a problem because your fixed environment has state.
aparnachaudhari
2021-06-16 01:11
and yes as I mentioned above.. verification or webhook docs will be the right place to put it
matt.fellows
2021-06-16 01:13
Did you or David get a chance to look at the 2.x.x branch? Keen for feedback and to push it forward, to remove the pain points of the current Ruby and support all of the new goodies
aparnachaudhari
2021-06-17 04:46
I am trying to understand the nuances of using `Given` vs `UponReceiving` when defining interactions for my tests.. what are the cases when you all have used these.
matt.fellows
2021-06-17 06:08
`UponReceiving` is just the scenario name, it has no relevance for the test itself other than giving a useful human readible description
matt.fellows
2021-06-17 06:09
for message pacts however, this is the mapping to the function that it will execute - so it?s more important from that perspective
matt.fellows
2021-06-17 06:10
`Given` specifies the state in which the provider must be in for the test to pass (as we discussed). e.g. `User A exists` could indicate the provider should insert `User A` into the database. It could also be `the downstream system X is unavailable` to be able to test `500` or those kinds of scenarios
matt.fellows
2021-06-17 06:12
In the new 2.x.x branch, I?ve tried to do a better job of clarifing this: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/docs/consumer.md#managing-test-data-using-provider-states
dabfleming
2021-06-18 02:57
Starting to look at pact-go v2... Looks like the only difference in the interface for an InteractionV2 vs InteractionV3 is with the Given func (parameters or not) and after a With* call you end up with an InteractionRequest either way (with a different model version in the data). Is this correct? How much difference is there in the internals?
matt.fellows
2021-06-18 03:32
> How much difference is there in the internals?
The internals have been replaced by a Rust core instead of a Ruby one
matt.fellows
2021-06-18 03:33
ICYMI this might explain a few things: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/MIGRATION.md
matt.fellows
2021-06-18 03:37
The interface is now also exposed as a builder with more features. The existing interface (the ?all in one? struct one) was created to aid migration.
matt.fellows
2021-06-18 03:38
e.g. you can now add binary payloads, there are more matchers and of course, v3 is supported
matt.fellows
2021-06-23 02:20
For those looking at trialling the new v2.x.x branch, here is a fully fledged example of Pact in use (by our Terraform provider): https://github.com/pactflow/terraform-provider-pact/blob/master/client/client_pact_test.go
matt.fellows
2021-06-23 02:21
I still need to split logs out into a separate file/output, but I quite like the way it diffs an error inline to your tests now
```--- ? Running Pact tests
go test -tags=consumer -count=1 -v http://github.com/pactflow/terraform/client/...
=== RUN TestClientPact
--- PASS: TestClientPact (0.00s)
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Pacticipant
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Pacticipant/CreatePacticipant
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Pacticipant/ReadPacticipant
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Pacticipant/UpdatePacticipant
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Pacticipant/DeletePacticipant
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Team
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Team/ReadTeam
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Team/CreateTeam
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Team/UpdateTeam
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Team/DeleteTeam
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Team/UpdateTeamAssignments
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Secret
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Secret/CreateSecret
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Secret/UpdateSecret
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Secret/DeleteSecret
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Role
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Role/CreateRole
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Role/ReadRole
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Role/UpdateRole
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Role/DeleteRole
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/User
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/User/CreateUser
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/User/ReadUser
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/User/UpdateUser
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/User/DeleteUser
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/User/SetUserRoles
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Token
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Token/ReadTokens
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Token/RegenerateToken
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Webhook
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Webhook/CreateWebhook
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Webhook/ReadWebhook
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Webhook/UpdateWebhook
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Webhook/DeleteWebhook
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Webhook/AuthenticationSettings
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Webhook/AuthenticationSettings/SetTenantAuthenticationSettings
=== RUN TestTerraformClientPact/Webhook/AuthenticationSettings/ReadTenantAuthenticationSettings
client_pact_test.go:932:
Pact Verification Failed for: TestTerraformClientPact/Webhook/AuthenticationSettings/ReadTenantAuthenticationSettings
Diff:
actual: GET /admin/tenant/authentication-settings (Unexpected request was received)
expected: GET /dmin/tenant/authentication-settings (Expected request that was not received)
client_pact_test.go:942:
Error Trace: client_pact_test.go:942
Error: Received unexpected error:
system unavailable
please see the log for error details
Test: TestTerraformClientPact/Webhook/AuthenticationSettings/ReadTenantAuthenticationSettings
--- FAIL: TestTerraformClientPact (0.10s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Pacticipant (0.02s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Pacticipant/CreatePacticipant (0.01s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Pacticipant/ReadPacticipant (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Pacticipant/UpdatePacticipant (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Pacticipant/DeletePacticipant (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Team (0.02s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Team/ReadTeam (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Team/CreateTeam (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Team/UpdateTeam (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Team/DeleteTeam (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Team/UpdateTeamAssignments (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Secret (0.01s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Secret/CreateSecret (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Secret/UpdateSecret (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Secret/DeleteSecret (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Role (0.01s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Role/CreateRole (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Role/ReadRole (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Role/UpdateRole (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Role/DeleteRole (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/User (0.02s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/User/CreateUser (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/User/ReadUser (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/User/UpdateUser (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/User/DeleteUser (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/User/SetUserRoles (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Token (0.01s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Token/ReadTokens (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Token/RegenerateToken (0.00s)
--- FAIL: TestTerraformClientPact/Webhook (0.02s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Webhook/CreateWebhook (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Webhook/ReadWebhook (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Webhook/UpdateWebhook (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Webhook/DeleteWebhook (0.00s)
--- FAIL: TestTerraformClientPact/Webhook/AuthenticationSettings (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestTerraformClientPact/Webhook/AuthenticationSettings/SetTenantAuthenticationSettings (0.00s)
--- FAIL: TestTerraformClientPact/Webhook/AuthenticationSettings/ReadTenantAuthenticationSettings (0.00s)
FAIL
FAIL http://github.com/pactflow/terraform/client 0.273s
FAIL```
kamoljan
2021-07-18 02:33
Do I need to use `"http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/provider"` for provider service?
kamoljan
2021-07-18 02:39
I see, then I am not sure why I am getting `Error on Verify: Actual interactions do not match expected interactions for mock MockService`
matt.fellows
2021-07-18 02:41
There should be more context in either the terminal or a log file that shows what it expected and what it got
matt.fellows
2021-07-18 02:41
usually, it means your consumer code is not calling the endpoint defined in the test
kamoljan
2021-07-18 02:44
```I, [2021-07-18T11:34:57.392109 #9752] INFO -- : Registered expected interaction GET /health
D, [2021-07-18T11:34:57.392312 #9752] DEBUG -- : {
"description": "A request for health check'",
"providerState": "Health exists",
"request": {
"method": "GET",
"path": {
"json_class": "Pact::Term",
"data": {
"generate": "/health",
"matcher": {
"json_class": "Regexp",
"o": 0,
"s": "/health"
}
}
}
},
"response": {
"status": 200,
"headers": {
"Content-Type": {
"json_class": "Pact::Term",
"data": {
"generate": "application/vnd.api+json",
"matcher": {
"json_class": "Regexp",
"o": 0,
"s": "application\\/vnd.api\\+json"
}
}
}
}
},
"metadata": null
}
W, [2021-07-18T11:34:57.395111 #9752] WARN -- : Verifying - actual interactions do not match expected interactions.
Missing requests:
GET /health
W, [2021-07-18T11:34:57.395142 #9752] WARN -- : Missing requests:
GET /health
I, [2021-07-18T11:34:57.396814 #9752] INFO -- : Cleared interactions```
matt.fellows
2021-07-18 02:44
that indicates your consumer test is not sending the request to the mock service
matt.fellows
2021-07-18 02:46
Note how in the workshop, the consumer test https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/blob/step3/consumer/client/client_pact_test.go#L62 the mock service using a client that is https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/blob/step3/consumer/client/client_pact_test.go#L92-L96 to point to the pact mock service, not the real one
kamoljan
2021-07-18 02:46
```// +build integration
package client
import (
"fmt"
"os"
"testing"
"http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/dsl"
"net/url"
)
var commonHeaders = dsl.MapMatcher{
"Content-Type": term("application/vnd.api+json", `application\/vnd.api\+json`),
//"X-Api-Correlation-Id": dsl.Like("100"),
}
var u *url.URL
var client *Client
func TestMain(m *testing.M) {
var exitCode int
// Setup Pact and related test stuff
setup()
// Run all the tests
exitCode = m.Run()
// Shutdown the Mock Service and Write pact files to disk
if err := pact.WritePact(); err != nil {
fmt.Println(err)
os.Exit(1)
}
pact.Teardown()
os.Exit(exitCode)
}
func TestClientPact_Regions(t *testing.T) {
t.Run("Health exists", func(t *testing.T) {
pact.
AddInteraction().
Given("Health exists").
UponReceiving("A request for health check'").
WithRequest(request{
Method: "GET",
Path: term("/health", "/health"),
}).
WillRespondWith(dsl.Response{
Status: 200,
Headers: commonHeaders,
})
err := pact.Verify(func() error {
_, err := client.GetHealth()
return err
})
if err != nil {
t.Fatalf("Error on Verify: %v", err)
}
})
/*
TODO: Uncomment for GetRegions
t.Run("All regions exists", func(t *testing.T) {
pact.
AddInteraction().
Given("All regions exists").
UponReceiving("A request for all regions").
WithRequest(request{
Method: "GET",
Path: term("", ""),
}).
WillRespondWith(dsl.Response{
Status: 200,
Body: dsl.Match(model.Result{}),
Headers: commonHeaders,
})
err := pact.Verify(func() error {
body, err := client.GetRegions()
message := "successfully get regions"
// Assert basic fact
if body.Message != message {
return fmt.Errorf("wanted %v but got %v", body.Message, message)
}
return err
})
if err != nil {
t.Fatalf("Error on Verify: %v", err)
}
})
*/
}
// Common test data
var pact dsl.Pact
// Aliases
var term = dsl.Term
type request = dsl.Request
func setup() {
pact = createPact()
// Proactively start service to get access to the port
pact.Setup(true)
// TODO: Uncomment after port mapping with provider
//u, _ = url.Parse(fmt.Sprintf("http://localhost:%d", pact.Server.Port))
u, _ = url.Parse(fmt.Sprintf("http://localhost:%d", 9000))
client = &Client{
BaseURL: u,
}
}
func createPact() dsl.Pact {
return dsl.Pact{
Consumer: os.Getenv("CONSUMER_NAME"),
Provider: os.Getenv("PROVIDER_NAME"),
LogDir: os.Getenv("LOG_DIR"),
PactDir: os.Getenv("PACT_DIR"),
LogLevel: "INFO",
}
}```
matt.fellows
2021-07-18 02:47
i.e.
```u, _ = url.Parse(fmt.Sprintf("http://localhost:%d", pact.Server.Port))```
matt.fellows
2021-07-18 02:47
yep, you shouldn?t be hitting the real provider, you need to use the mock
matt.fellows
2021-07-18 02:48
Pact is your provider mock, think of this as a unit test of your consumer client code
kamoljan
2021-07-18 02:51
ok? if Pact is a unit testing tool, do I still need unit test (client_test.go)?
matt.fellows
2021-07-18 02:52
that is a good question, and is a little harder to answer in absolutes because that really depends on the code you?re testing
matt.fellows
2021-07-18 02:53
> ok? if Pact is a unit testing tool, do I still need unit test (client_test.go)?
Oh right, in the workshop? No, Pact definitely replaces that test
matt.fellows
2021-07-18 02:54
that?s the point of the workshop - that test is only so helpful, but doesn?t give us any confidence when deploying. Pact gives us more because the mock is validated by the provider
kamoljan
2021-07-18 06:43
How `dsl.Match` can understand the following module?
```package model
type Region struct {
Message string `json:"message" pack:"example=successfully get regions"`
Results []Result `json:"result" pack:"example=(.*)"`
}```
matt.fellows
2021-07-18 11:24
but also, the example can?t be a regex - it needs to be a string value that will be used as the example
matt.fellows
2021-07-18 11:24
See https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/#auto-generate-matchers-from-struct-tags for the options there
matt.fellows
2021-07-18 11:24
personally, I don?t often use it, because it only covers basic scenarios, making it difficult to use in situations where you want to test different values
matt.fellows
2021-07-18 11:25
If you?re only just getting started with Pact, you may want to look at jumping straight to the latest version (currently in beta): https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/#v3-beta
kamoljan
2021-07-24 08:47
btw, I am trying the latest version and getting this warning
```ld: warning: directory not found for option '-L/opt/pact/lib'```
during `Running Pact tests`
kamoljan
2021-07-25 11:56
Do you have an example for testing provider which is external? Or how do you that? Mocking and updating your mock periodically?
matt.fellows
2021-07-25 12:07
No gloang examples I know of. We did an AMA on this a few months back
https://docs.pact.io/help/amas/#join-an-upcoming-ask-me-anything-ama-session
dsinecos
2021-07-26 05:28
Hi all, I'm playing around with pact-go, version 2.x.x. I've a question around contract testing a Provider SDK method when I expect it to return an
error, something like the following
```// Act: test our API client behaves correctly
err = mockProvider.ExecuteTest(t, func(config pact.MockServerConfig) error {
// Execute the API client
data, err := ProviderSDKMethod(config.Host, config.Port)
// Assert
assert.EqualError(t, err, fmt.Sprintf("Internal Server Error"))
assert.Nil(t, data)
return nil
})```
Could you share what is the recommended way to write `mockProvider.ExecuteTest` when I expect the SDK method for the provider service to return an error.
In the regular scenario I can just return the err from `ProviderSDKMethod` If it is nil the pact contract files are updated else they are not.
But when I expect the `err` from `ProviderSDKMethod` to be non-nil,
1) Should I return a nil error. The challenge here is, if one of the earlier assertions fail, assert.EqualError, the pact contract files still get updated
2) If I return the `non-nil` error received from ProviderSDKMethod, then the contract files won't be updated
Please share any guidance on this, Thanks
matt.fellows
2021-07-26 05:30
does it matter if the pact file is updated but the tests themselves fail? Presumably you?re not going to publish a pact for a broken set of tests?
dsinecos
2021-07-26 05:36
Hey @matt.fellows,
? When the tests pass, that means I have a non-nil `err` from `ProviderSDKMethod` and they satisfy the `assert.EqualError` assertion. In this scenario, I should return nil from the `func(config pact.MockServerConfig) error {}` to allow updating the pact contract tests
? The issue is that if I return nil, then even when the assert.EqualError assertion fails, my pact contract files would still end up getting updated (because I'm returning nil). But I don't want that.
Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, hope this makes sense :slightly_smiling_face:
matt.fellows
2021-07-26 05:37
but my point is, who cares if the pact file gets updated. `assert.<whatever>` should fail your tests
dsinecos
2021-07-26 05:39
I understand your point is that once I fix my failing tests, my contracts would get updated with the passing tests anyways. So I shouldn't be worrying about the intermediate phases, ?
matt.fellows
2021-07-26 05:39
the caveat is that you should be clearing out the pacts directory before you run the tests
dsinecos
2021-07-26 05:42
> the caveat is that you should be clearing out the pacts directory before you run the tests
I'd a small clarification on this. So I observed that when I change the text inside matchers eg. `pact.S("Original text")` to `pact.S("Changed text")`. It doesn't get updated in the pact contract tests. I need to delete the contract tests folder and rerun the tests for these changes to take effect.
Is this expected behavior or something that happens cause v2.x.x is in beta.
basically in the pact workflow, when updating consumer tests, should I always clear up the pact directory so there's always a new copy written instead of exepecting the changes to be accurately overwritten on the existing contract-test-files
matt.fellows
2021-07-26 05:46
> basically in the pact workflow, when updating consumer tests, should I always clear up the pact directory so there?s always a new copy written instead of exepecting the changes to be accurately overwritten on the existing contract-test-files (edited)
At the moment, yes you need to do this.
dsinecos
2021-07-26 05:53
> It should be possible to automatically do this in the framework.
Is there a configuration for this in pact-go? Or you meant running the clean-up insde a `Before` handler of sorts
matt.fellows
2021-07-26 05:55
I hadn?t exposed it yet, because I was still a littlle uncertain about how Pact Go should be used
matt.fellows
2021-07-26 05:57
I think if we disallow parallel tests (because seriously, it?s fast enough without it - it?s also currently documented that way, I think) then we should expose automatically cleaning as an option, default it to true and things will be easier
dsinecos
2021-07-27 08:02
I'm trying to experiment with pact-broker locally. I've used the https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-broker-docker/blob/master/docker-compose.yml file to set it up. It's running successfully and I can view the dashboards in the browser :thumbsup:
I'm not clear on how to configure pact-go when writing consumer tests to send the contract files to the pact-broker. I found https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/#publishing-from-go-code but I'm experimenting on v2.x.x and I'm not sure where to locate the `Publisher` type. I've this in my go imports `pact "http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2/sugar"`
Please help to share any guidance on this, Thanks :slightly_smiling_face:
matt.fellows
2021-07-27 08:06
dsinecos
2021-07-27 09:51
Tried to run the provider tests (I was able to successfully send the pact contracts to pact broker). I get the following error when running provider tests
```--- FAIL: Test_Provider (0.11s)
--- FAIL: Test_Provider/Provider_pact_verification (0.00s)
http_verifier.go:136: an unknown error ocurred when verifying the provider (this indicates a defect in the framework
provider_test.go:79:
Error Trace: provider_test.go:79
Error: Received unexpected error:
an unknown error ocurred when verifying the provider (this indicates a defect in the framework
Test: Test_Provider
FAIL
exit status 1```
My config for using the pact broker
```err := verifier.VerifyProvider(t, VerifyRequest{
ProviderBaseURL: "http://localhost:9000",
ProviderVersion: "1.0.0",
BrokerURL: "http://localhost:9292",
Tags: []string{"master"},
})```
Sharing here, in case this strikes any ideas to help debug :pray: :slightly_smiling_face:
dsinecos
2021-07-27 09:59
Logs
```2021/07/27 15:28:33 [DEBUG] starting new proxy with opts {http localhost:9000 0 [] /__setup/ <nil>}
2021/07/27 15:28:33 [DEBUG] starting reverse proxy on port 38913
2021/07/27 15:28:33 [DEBUG] waiting for port 38913 to become available
2021/07/27 15:28:33 [DEBUG] pact provider verification
2021/07/27 15:28:33 [DEBUG] waiting for port 38913 to become available
2021/07/27 15:28:33 [DEBUG] initialising rust verifier interface
2021/07/27 15:28:33 [DEBUG] executing verifier FFI with args [--hostname localhost --port 38913 --broker-url http://localhost:9292 --provider-version 1.0.0 --loglevel debug --consumer-version-tags master]
an unknown error ocurred when verifying the provider (this indicates a defect in the framework
--- FAIL: Test_Provider (0.10s)
--- FAIL: Test_Provider/Provider_pact_verification (0.00s)
http_verifier.go:136: an unknown error ocurred when verifying the provider (this indicates a defect in the framework
provider_test.go:79:
Error Trace: provider_test.go:79
Error: Received unexpected error:
an unknown error ocurred when verifying the provider (this indicates a defect in the framework
Test: Test_Provider
FAIL
exit status 1```
One more thing, the provider tests run fine when I use the local files created in pact directory
dsinecos
2021-07-27 10:13
After I set the log level to `TRACE` as per the example, it's pretty much the same output
```2021/07/27 15:41:54 [DEBUG] starting new proxy with opts {http localhost:9000 0 [] /__setup/ <nil>}
2021/07/27 15:41:54 [DEBUG] starting reverse proxy on port 46695
2021/07/27 15:41:54 [DEBUG] waiting for port 46695 to become available
2021/07/27 15:41:54 [DEBUG] pact provider verification
2021/07/27 15:41:54 [DEBUG] waiting for port 46695 to become available
2021/07/27 15:41:54 [DEBUG] initialising rust verifier interface
2021/07/27 15:41:54 [DEBUG] executing verifier FFI with args [--hostname localhost --port 46695 --broker-url http://localhost:9292 --provider-version 1.0.0 --loglevel trace --consumer-version-tags master]
an unknown error ocurred when verifying the provider (this indicates a defect in the framework
--- FAIL: Test_Provider (0.11s)
--- FAIL: Test_Provider/Provider_pact_verification (0.00s)
http_verifier.go:136: an unknown error ocurred when verifying the provider (this indicates a defect in the framework
provider_test.go:79:
Error Trace: provider_test.go:79
Error: Received unexpected error:
an unknown error ocurred when verifying the provider (this indicates a defect in the framework
Test: Test_Provider
FAIL
exit status 1```
matt.fellows
2021-07-27 13:49
@dsinecos I?ve just merged the latest branch off 2.x.x which had support for verifying message metadata
matt.fellows
2021-07-27 13:49
I just added an e2e example using Pactflow, to give me some continued confidence it does work with a broker
matt.fellows
2021-07-27 13:50
it?s possible, although unlikely as I think you?d have experienced a warning earlier (and your consumer tests would probably also have failed) that the bindings haven?t installed correctly
github2
2021-07-27 13:51
[pact-foundation/pact-go] New release _https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/releases/tag/v2.0.0-beta.2_ published by mefellows
dsinecos
2021-07-28 10:02
Hey @matt.fellows, I upgraded just now the v2.0.0-beta.2. Now when I run the consumer tests using `go test` I get this error
```# http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2/internal/native
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lpact_ffi
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
FAIL http://github.com/dsinecos/contract_testing/consumer [build failed]```
The consumer tests were running fine before the upgrade.
dsinecos
2021-07-28 10:02
Here's the repository where I'm experimenting - https://github.com/dsinecos/pact-contract-testing
dsinecos
2021-07-28 10:03
The latest commit is from yesterday, so I haven't committed the upgrade to v2.0.0-beta.2 that I did today
dsinecos
2021-07-28 10:34
Updated the FFI, receiving this error when I run the provider tests
```2021/07/28 16:01:49 [INFO] package libpact_ffi found
2021/07/28 16:01:49 [INFO] checking version 0.0.0 for lib libpact_ffi within semver range >= 0.0.0, < 1.0.0
2021/07/28 16:01:49 [INFO] checking version 0.0.0 of libpact_ffi against semver constraint >= 0.0.0, < 1.0.0
2021/07/28 16:01:49 [DEBUG] 0.0.0 satisfies constraints 0.0.0 >= 0.0.0, < 1.0.0
2021/07/28 16:01:49 [DEBUG] version check completed
2021/07/28 16:01:49 [DEBUG] starting new proxy with opts {http localhost:9000 0 [] /__setup <nil>}
2021/07/28 16:01:49 [DEBUG] starting reverse proxy on port 33545
2021/07/28 16:01:49 [DEBUG] waiting for port 33545 to become available
2021/07/28 16:01:49 [DEBUG] pact provider verification
2021/07/28 16:01:49 [DEBUG] waiting for port 33545 to become available
2021/07/28 16:01:49 [DEBUG] initialising rust mock server interface
2021/07/28 16:01:49 [DEBUG] executing verifier FFI with args [--hostname localhost --port 33545 --broker-url http://localhost:9292 --provider-version 1.0.0 --publish --loglevel trace]
[2021-07-28T10:31:49Z ERROR pact_ffi::verifier::verifier] error verifying Pact: "error: The following required arguments were not provided:\n --provider-name <provider-name>\n\nUSAGE:\n pact_verifier_cli --broker-url <broker-url>... --hostname <hostname> --loglevel <loglevel> --port <port> --provider-name <provider-name> --provider-version <provider-version> --publish --scheme <scheme>\n\nFor more information try --help" Error { message: "error: The following required arguments were not provided:\n --provider-name <provider-name>\n\nUSAGE:\n pact_verifier_cli --broker-url <broker-url>... --hostname <hostname> --loglevel <loglevel> --port <port> --provider-name <provider-name> --provider-version <provider-version> --publish --scheme <scheme>\n\nFor more information try --help", kind: MissingRequiredArgument, info: None }
--- FAIL: Test_Provider (0.11s)
--- FAIL: Test_Provider/Provider_pact_verification (0.00s)
http_verifier.go:136: an unknown error ocurred when verifying the provider (this indicates a defect in the framework
provider_test.go:76:
Error Trace: provider_test.go:76
Error: Received unexpected error:
an unknown error ocurred when verifying the provider (this indicates a defect in the framework
Test: Test_Provider
FAIL
exit status 1```
dsinecos
2021-07-28 10:36
One more thing, when I want to update the FFI using `pact-go -l DEBUG install` it attempts to install at `/usr/local/lib` and needs `sudo` to run. Is there a way to change this destination? I don't want to run using `sudo`
Currently I'm doing a explicit wget, gunzip followed by moving the unzipped file into `~/.local/lib` and creating a symbolic link from `/usr/local/lib`
dsinecos
2021-07-30 04:30
Hey @matt.fellows, thanks for pushing the updated FFI. I've fixed the error I was facing using the debug logs :slightly_smiling_face:
dsinecos
2021-07-30 04:46
I'd not added the `ProviderName` :face_palm:, so it didn't know which pact contract tests to fetch from the broker
> how can I make that easier to debug?
After you updated the FFI, and I ran it in DEBUG mode, it highlighted the error :slightly_smiling_face:
```"error: The following required arguments were not provided:\n --provider-name <provider-name>```
matt.fellows
2021-07-30 04:47
We'll be improving those messages, but for now that's the best you have sorry :grimacing:
bheemreddy181
2021-08-12 12:54
if i have to reuse the createpact() function so that i can pass different providers with in the same consumer https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/examples/consumer/goconsumer/user_service_test.go#L114 how do i do so ? As per go implementation we can test main only once we can't multiple TestMains per package
matt.fellows
2021-08-14 21:52
Do you mean something like this: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go#splitting-tests-across-multiple-files ?
matt.fellows
2021-08-14 21:52
Also the new beta doesn't have this problem. It just merges them by default
matt.fellows
2021-08-14 22:52
Also you only need to reuse the Pact instance if you have separate files in different test packages _for the same provider_
aparnachaudhari
2021-08-26 00:20
Has any one ran into errors when running API (HTTP) type tests with logging level set to `TRACE` ?
aparnachaudhari
2021-08-26 00:24
My tests were silently failing on setup ..i.e. I was only shown error `pact.go:418: no pacts found to verify`
aparnachaudhari
2021-08-26 00:25
When I changed the log level to `INFO` tho.. the same pipeline with all the same code/variables is now happy
matt.fellows
2021-08-26 00:28
Just looking at the code, the log level is passed down to the verifier binary itself
matt.fellows
2021-08-26 00:33
Do you know if you?ve updated the standalone recently? It?s possible the standalone output behaviour has changed
kamoljan
2021-08-27 06:21
Is `PactFiles` optional? I am referring to Provider Test https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/a3634c9437d7dd39d61f0736d1680a8b8ed2c9c1/examples/provider_test.go#L52-L55 ?
kamoljan
2021-08-28 11:59
never mind, I am not going to use it, I assume it is not necessary with pactflow.
jamescourtoy
2021-09-02 15:45
:thinking_face: I'm writing some provider tests using the latest v2 go verifier (beta). I noticed some strange behavior when working with environment variables.
```err = verifier.VerifyProvider(t, pact.VerifyRequest{
BrokerURL: os.getEnv("PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL"),
BrokerToken: os.getEnv("PACT_BROKER_TOKEN"),```
This will result in the following error:
```[2021-09-02T15:43:30Z ERROR pact_ffi::verifier::verifier] error verifying Pact: "error: The argument '--token <token>' requires 1 values, but 2 were provided\n\nUSAGE:\n pact_verifier_cli --broker-url <broker-url>... --dir <dir>... --file <file>... --hostname <hostname> --loglevel <loglevel> --port <port> --provider-name <provider-name> --provider-version <provider-version> --scheme <scheme> --state-change-url <state-change-url> --token <token> --url <url>...\n\nFor more information try --help" Error { message: "error: The argument '--token <token>' requires 1 values, but 2 were provided\n\nUSAGE:\n pact_verifier_cli --broker-url <broker-url>... --dir <dir>... --file <file>... --hostname <hostname> --loglevel <loglevel> --port <port> --provider-name <provider-name> --provider-version <provider-version> --scheme <scheme> --state-change-url <state-change-url> --token <token> --url <url>...\n\nFor more information try --help", kind: WrongNumberOfValues, info: Some(["token"]) }```
It appears to be due to `PACT_BROKER_TOKEN` being pulled in as an env var in the call through pact_ffi and _also_ passed via parameter `--token`.
I didn't see it documented anywhere, so not sure if it's expected behavior or not.
matt.fellows
2021-09-02 21:58
I've seen it, it's a quirk in the library we defer to. Could you please raise a bug and we'll look into it?
bheemreddy181
2021-09-07 22:25
All of a sudden my pact provider tests started failing on all go provider services - Any insights
matt.fellows
2021-09-07 22:35
Did you upgrade Pact? I haven't pushed any updates to the current stable for a few months
matt.fellows
2021-09-07 22:35
Also that image resolution is hard to read so I can't see, any chance of a better one?
bheemreddy181
2021-09-07 22:39
We haven't upgraded pact for some time now - I am fairly confident something changed with our ci but hard to figure out what went wrong here
matt.fellows
2021-09-08 00:32
is that URL correct? I could be wrong, but the `metadata/xxxx` bit looks wrong to me
bheemreddy181
2021-09-08 00:52
Yes the url is correct I verified that manually this is failing on all go pact providers
matt.fellows
2021-09-08 01:36
If Pact go hasn?t changed recently, then my fingers point to other sources:
1. Did you update the standalone binary?
2. Did you update the broker?
3. Has some infrastructure changed?
matt.fellows
2021-09-08 01:37
it seems to be complaining about a HAL link. Pact first makes a call to `/` and then follows links around. This is where proxies get in the way and can interfere with this process
matt.fellows
2021-09-08 01:38
see if you can cURL the URL in the failing test from your machine and from CI to see what the response looks like
bheemreddy181
2021-09-08 20:05
Can you also log the API calls made to pact broker - looks like it says it couldn't find the pacts with main tag ( as mentioned by @marko.justinek)but there are pacts with main tag
bheemreddy181
2021-09-08 20:06
is this curl correct
```curl https://pact-broker.enova.com/pacts/provider/datacompliance/tag/main```
?
matt.fellows
2021-09-08 23:54
Bheem I?ve just been informed that there was an issue in the latest Ruby standalone
matt.fellows
2021-09-08 23:54
So I suspect your CI is not pinning the standalone version to Pact Go (which I would recommend)
matt.fellows
2021-09-08 23:54
A new release has just gone out this morning, which I believe addresses this exact issue
marko.justinek
2021-09-08 23:55
And I?ve just clicked the button for it to update the brew version. :thumbsup:
bheemreddy181
2021-09-08 23:59
So should I pin :pushpin: to a particular version so something like this doesn?t happen
matt.fellows
2021-09-09 00:12
I would recommend that, because you?ll get consistent results. When you upgrade Pact go you can upgrade the standalone then, and then any issues will be obviously related to the upgrade (i.e. not a ?we didn?t change anything problem, but stuff stopped working?)
matt.fellows
2021-09-09 00:46
yes. my guelss is that the standalone is not managed by the developers who can pin the version of Pact
kamoljan
2021-09-10 13:20
Re: https://github.com/pactflow/terraform-provider-pact. Why do you need this https://github.com/pactflow/terraform-provider-pact/blob/4725297f8682d3fbd24da0b2e170e35081112bc4/Makefile#L50-L59 target if you already included it in https://github.com/pactflow/terraform-provider-pact/blob/4725297f8682d3fbd24da0b2e170e35081112bc4/go.mod#L9 ?
kamoljan
2021-09-10 22:46
I am using https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/tree/2.x.x w/ go1.17, so far no problem.
kamoljan
2021-09-11 11:47
Sorry, I was wrong.
There will be failures without those libraries in
`test` and`vet` targets.
kamoljan
2021-09-17 04:14
```WithJSONBody(Map{
"type": Includes("text"), // image-and-text or text-only
})```
How can I have an exact match for those two options without `Includes`?
matt.fellows
2021-09-17 04:27
(you might be able to drop the matcher altogether, I don't have an IDE in front of me tho)
matt.fellows
2021-09-17 04:28
We could probably support a matcher that takes variable number of arguments that essentially wraps a regex
kamoljan
2021-09-17 04:41
How about `Term` ?
```WithJSONBody(Map{
"type": Term("image-and-text","image-and-text|text-only"), // image-and-text or text-only
})```
kamoljan
2021-09-20 10:22
```2021/09/20 19:14:58 [DEBUG] error decoding APIErrorResponse from response for GET /notification/inappmessages . Error json: cannot unmarshal string into Go struct field apiErrorResponse.error of type client.apiErrorMessage
2021/09/20 19:14:58 [DEBUG] error decoding APIArrayErrorResponse from response for GET /notification/inappmessages . Error json: cannot unmarshal string into Go struct field apiArrayErrorResponse.error of type client.apiErrorMessage
client_pact_test.go:113:
Error Trace: client_pact_test.go:113
http.go:154
client_pact_test.go:105
Error: Received unexpected error:
api unavailable
Test: TestNotificationClientPact/Notification
2021/09/20 19:14:58 [DEBUG] mock server cleaning up port: 59097
2021/09/20 19:14:58 [DEBUG] pact setup
2021/09/20 19:14:58 [DEBUG] initialising rust mock server interface
--- FAIL: TestNotificationClientPact (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestNotificationClientPact/Health (0.00s)
--- FAIL: TestNotificationClientPact/Notification (0.00s)
panic: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference [recovered]
panic: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference
[signal SIGSEGV: segmentation violation code=0x1 addr=0x8 pc=0x45c9622]```
First one is passing, but the second (w/ chunked transfer encoding) is crashing.
matt.fellows
2021-09-20 10:27
Looks like it doesn't. Any chance you could please raise an issue on GitHub? Might need to add support to the rust core
aparnachaudhari
2021-10-06 22:38
Are there plans to extend pact testing to graphql endpoints? I know these are a little unique in the sense of how many variations schema that can be returned.. but curious to know.
aparnachaudhari
2021-10-06 22:39
I know there is a JS example for GraphQL + Pact.. but unsure if there is one for go too somewhere
matt.fellows
2021-10-06 22:56
:wave: yes. I think we should add a GraphQL interface in Go as we do in JS. Could you please raise a feature request? Should be fairly straightforward to implement
matt.fellows
2021-10-06 22:57
as for general GraphQL support, that would probably be delivered by a plugin (see https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-plugins/). The plugin framework is currently underway, with the first being supporting protobufs
aparnachaudhari
2021-10-06 23:12
Can you please point me to the doc that walks through how to raise a feature request?
matt.fellows
2021-10-07 07:35
Just a quick request here will be fine: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/new
dabfleming
2021-10-07 20:45
I don't know if this is more appropriate as a #general question, but I find it interesting that when a state handler does not exist, it is only a warning, not an automatic error / failure:
`[WARN] no state handler found for state: Item Exists`
Is this pattern followed across the pact ecosystem? I would argue that when a test has a `Given("foo")` then if the `foo` state can not be implemented because it is missing that is an error (failure) regardless of if the rest of the test would pass.
matt.fellows
2021-10-07 21:34
A state is a hint, a description, but not a test itself. the provider doesn't need to deal with it explicitly like it does status codes, bodies etc
matt.fellows
2021-10-07 21:35
Whilst I have you though, I'd like to get V2 out of beta - you had some ideas about state handlers from memory?
dabfleming
2021-10-07 21:36
My thinking is that if my contract specifies a state, if the provider verification can't / doesn't implement that state it has failed to implement the contract.
dabfleming
2021-10-07 21:37
Yeah, I was actually going to ask about timeline for the beta. (Team had expressed some curiosity about that.)
matt.fellows
2021-10-07 21:41
I'm not 100% comfortable with the message API and you also had expressed thoughts on provider states
dabfleming
2021-10-07 21:41
And this week I've finally been able to jump back into looking at v2. So far there's a lot I like. Also seeing some places where I've got some ideas and places where it could feel more 'Go-y'.. or more like idiomatic Go.
dabfleming
2021-10-07 21:45
Gonna try and throw together some PRs in the next few days as I wrap my head around it a bit more.
matt.fellows
2021-10-07 21:47
I'll probably get a day in the next fortnight to get stuck into it, but will definitely be able to review and comment on suggestions
dabfleming
2021-10-08 17:17
So given that moving to `pact-go` requires a migration, why is there a separation of v2/v3 pacts? Does V3 lose or change any functionality from V2? (Or is it only additive?) To me it seems like they could be combined and using the library could be a lot simpler.
dabfleming
2021-10-08 17:17
Especially since if you have a v2 test and a v3 test combined into a single file then you seem to end up with a v3 pact.
matt.fellows
2021-10-08 21:42
Because you need to still be able to write V2 pacts if you use a provider in another language that doesn't support v3 yet
dabfleming
2021-10-12 20:42
Right, that makes sense. Would you be open to unifying them under a `NewPact(opts ...PactOptions)` function where you could default to, say, V3 and use functional arguments for options. IE call `p := consumer.NewPact(consumer.OptionV2Pact())` for a v2 pact. This would be an extensible API where in the future if there's a V4 pact format you wouldn't have to add `NewV4Pact()` and could otherwise extend the API with minimal impact.
dabfleming
2021-10-12 20:43
More on Functional options for any who haven't come across them before: https://dave.cheney.net/2014/10/17/functional-options-for-friendly-apis
dabfleming
2021-10-12 20:45
(Seeing version numbers as part of function names in an exported API is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. It's just so awkward.)
matt.fellows
2021-10-12 20:55
Yeah I think that could be be nicer. I have read Dave's article so previously, let me have a look
dabfleming
2021-10-12 23:05
I've thrown together an initial take on this. Will try and post a PR for review tomorrow my time.
dsinecos
2021-10-13 05:51
hello here :wave:, I?m trying to work with Provider states but for some reason they don?t seem to be invoked
In my consumer test, I?ve something like the following
```mockProvider.
AddInteraction().
Given(pact.ProviderStateV3{
Name: "TestProviderState",
}).
UponReceiving("A request for Greeting").
WithRequest("GET", pact.S("/greeting")).
WillRespondWith(200).
WithHeader("Content-Type", pact.S("application/json")).
WithJSONBody(pact.Map{
"language": pact.S("EN"),
"message": pact.S("Hello"),
"first_name": pact.S("Jane"),
})```
I was hoping that when the pact contract gets generated it?d mention the Provider state somewhere, but looks it doesn?t
```"interactions": [
{
"description": "A request for Greeting",
"request": {
"method": "GET",
"path": "/greeting"
},
"response": {
"body": {
"first_name": "Jane",
"language": "EN",
"message": "Hello"
},
"headers": {
"Content-Type": "application/json"
},
"status": 200
}
},```
Inside my provider test, I?ve configured the following to trigger Statehandlers
```err := verifier.VerifyProvider(t, VerifyRequest{
ProviderBaseURL: "http://localhost:9000",
Provider: "GreetingAPI",
ProviderVersion: "1.0.4",
BrokerURL: "http://localhost:9292",
PublishVerificationResults: true,
BeforeEach: func() error {
fmt.Println("[DEBUG] HOOK before each")
return nil
},
AfterEach: func() error {
fmt.Println("[DEBUG] HOOK after each")
return nil
},
StateHandlers: StateHandlers{
"TestProviderState": func(setup bool, s ProviderStateV3) (ProviderStateV3Response, error) {
if setup {
fmt.Println("[DEBUG] HOOK calling user foo exists state handler", s)
} else {
fmt.Println("[DEBUG] HOOK teardown the 'User foo exists' state")
}
// ... do something, such as create "foo" in the database
// Optionally (if there are generators in the pact) return provider state values to be used in the verification
return ProviderStateV3Response{"uuid": "1234"}, nil
},
},```
When I run the Provider tests, only the `AfterHook` triggers and prints the statement. The `BeforeHook` and the `StateHandlers` don?t seem to be invoked
Please share any ideas/ suggestions what I might be missing here
matt.fellows
2021-10-13 06:04
Can you please double check that the pact file is cleared before the tests run?
dsinecos
2021-10-13 06:31
So I deleted the pact file before running the tests, but the generated pact file still has the same interaction
``` {
"consumer": {
"name": "GreetingAPIConsumer"
},
"interactions": [
{
"description": "A request for Greeting",
"request": {
"method": "GET",
"path": "/greeting"
},
"response": {
"body": {
"first_name": "Jane",
"language": "EN",
"message": "Hello"
},
"headers": {
"Content-Type": "application/json"
},
"status": 200
}
}
],
"metadata": {
"pactRust": {
"version": "0.9.3"
},
"pactSpecification": {
"version": "3.0.0"
}
},
"provider": {
"name": "GreetingAPI"
}
}```
dsinecos
2021-10-13 09:45
hey @matt.fellows Is there any other requirement besides using the `Given` method when writing Consumer tests?
I'm using `pact-go@v2.0.0-beta.6` (also tried on `pact-go@v2.0.0-beta.5`)
Pasting the logs at TRACE level from running the provider tests. It mentions - `skipping state handler for request greeting`
```=== RUN Test_Provider
2021/10/13 15:05:47 [DEBUG] starting new proxy with opts {http localhost:9000 0 [0x71f4a0 0x71f7a0 0x71fa40] /__setup <nil>}
2021/10/13 15:05:47 [DEBUG] starting reverse proxy on port 46299
2021/10/13 15:05:47 [DEBUG] waiting for port 46299 to become available
2021/10/13 15:05:47 [DEBUG] pact provider verification
2021/10/13 15:05:47 [DEBUG] waiting for port 46299 to become available
2021/10/13 15:05:47 [DEBUG] initialising rust mock server interface
2021/10/13 15:05:47 [DEBUG] executing verifier FFI with args [--hostname localhost --port 46299 --state-change-url http://localhost:46299/__setup --broker-url http://localhost:9292 --provider-version 1.0.1 --provider-name GreetingAPI --publish --loglevel trace]
Verifying a pact between GreetingAPIConsumer and GreetingAPI
2021/10/13 15:05:47 [TRACE] skipping state handler for request /greeting
2021/10/13 15:05:47 [DEBUG] http reverse proxy received connection from 127.0.0.1:44240 on path /greeting
2021/10/13 15:05:47 [DEBUG] setting proxy to target
2021/10/13 15:05:47 [DEBUG] incoming request /greeting
2021/10/13 15:05:47 [DEBUG] outgoing request to target http://localhost:9000/greeting
2021/10/13 15:05:47 [TRACE] proxy outgoing request
GET /greeting HTTP/1.1
Host: localhost:9000
User-Agent: Pact Go
Accept: */*
X-Forwarded-For: 127.0.0.1
Accept-Encoding: gzip
2021/10/13 15:05:47 [TRACE] proxied server response
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 55
Content-Type: application/json
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 09:35:47 GMT
{"language":"EN","message":"Hello","first_name":"Jane"}
2021/10/13 15:05:47 [DEBUG] executing after hook
[DEBUG] HOOK after each
A request for Greeting
returns a response which
has status code 200 (OK)
includes headers
"Content-Type" with value "application/json" (OK)
has a matching body (OK)
=== RUN Test_Provider/Provider_pact_verification
--- PASS: Test_Provider (0.15s)
--- PASS: Test_Provider/Provider_pact_verification (0.00s)
PASS
ok http://github.com/dsinecos/contract_testing/provider 0.160s
? http://github.com/dsinecos/contract_testing/provider/cmd [no test files]```
matt.fellows
2021-10-14 05:40
I know the terraform provider uses this library, and produces the https://github.com/pactflow/terraform-provider-pact/blob/master/client/client_pact_test.go#L71
dsinecos
2021-10-14 08:38
hey, No luck still, upgraded to beta.7. Btw I'm using the NewV3Pact and not NewV2Pact which is in the linked pact_test.go
dsinecos
2021-10-14 08:40
@matt.fellows Just took a look at the fix commit, shouldn't this be the other way round - when `len(state.Parameters) == 0` we invoke using `i.Interaction.interaction.Given(state.name)`
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/commit/f85734754e7fde9096509884fa8796271ebb9441
```if len(state.Parameters) == 0 {
i.Interaction.interaction.GivenWithParameter(state.Name, state.Parameters)
} else {
i.Interaction.interaction.Given(state.Name)
}```
matt.fellows
2021-10-14 09:46
yes, i spotted it earlier also - that?s what you get when you commit and push whilst in a meeting!!
matt.fellows
2021-10-14 13:55
Oh I remember why I didn't use the functional option now - the interface follows a sort of typestate pattern. I was thinking of making that even strongercin the interface but hadn't come back to it
matt.fellows
2021-10-14 13:57
The interface is different, so I don't think a functional argument will sufficiently capture that difference without additional conditional logic in all of the methods
dabfleming
2021-10-14 17:06
> The interface is different
I poked around and the only difference I've seen is Given vs GivenWithParams.
dabfleming
2021-10-14 17:11
There are the V3 matchers but you _can_ add those into a V2 pact currently. In fact I may have just found a bug here, as I created a V2 pact and added a v3 matcher (Integer). Result was no errors and a pact file that was version 2 but contained what I assume to be a v3 matching rule:
```"$.body.id": {
"match": "integer"
},```
matt.fellows
2021-10-20 06:44
Started a discussion about this here David: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/discussions/189
matt.fellows
2021-10-20 06:44
Discussion on the new v 2.x.x API https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/discussions/189
matt.fellows
2021-10-20 06:45
I?m very keen to get off the 1.x.x line so that we can move forward. Ideally, we are fully released this calendar year and only maintenance patches will be provided back into the 1.x.x line so that we can focus on moving forward, getting plugin support and all of the other good stuff out there.
dabfleming
2021-10-20 15:51
:tada: Happy to help nudge things forward. Would love to see v2 released soon and looking forward to some of these other benefits. (Also happy to offer some help where I can.)
dabfleming
2021-10-20 15:53
Nice breakdown of the issue. I'm going to take some time later to try and grok the `v4` stuff and add my thoughts.
matt.fellows
2021-10-21 00:11
Thanks David! The main blocker from releasing is just getting clarity on the API that we?re happy with, and then it?s a matter of tidy up, releasing and getting some better test coverage
aparnachaudhari
2021-10-21 04:06
Curious if any one here has multiple contracts being written for one provider and how they handler running this in their setup. i.e. one contract run against the provider for each test run.
aparnachaudhari
2021-10-22 00:12
Hello, cc @matt.fellows
Checking my understanding. If I have test suites defined for consumers and providers tests in a repo and I pass a contract for only one consumer-provider to this repo and run tests .. the other tests should be skipped/ignored ?
matt.fellows
2021-10-22 03:29
On the assumption that the repo is only a single provider, then yes, you can filter which contracts are being verified by using the `ConsumerVersionSelectors` property, specifying the consumer you want (or `PactUrls` to specify exact pacts etc.)
matt.fellows
2021-10-22 03:29
I suspect this question relates to https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9VPNUJR2/p1634857199006300, in which case, let me take a look at that thread?
aparnachaudhari
2021-10-22 03:36
When I specify the pact url, the provider tests that do not have their state defined in.that pact fail eve tho the name if the providers is unique.
matt.fellows
2021-10-22 03:40
wouldn?t you expect it to fail (or possibly fail) if the states aren?t supported?
dabfleming
2021-11-08 17:07
:point_up: Migrating from tags to branches (and eventually environments, deployments and releases) has a lot of potential value for our evolving use of Pact... so aiming to to help push the Go library along a bit. :+1:
eric2323223
2021-11-09 04:12
May I know how to simulate GET request with body in provider test? Here is one contract generated from consumer test
```{
"description": "description",
"request": {
"method": "GET",
"path": "/api/v1/myservice/endpoint",
"headers": {
"Content-Type": "text/plain"
},
"body": "test body"
},
"response": {
"status": 200,
"headers": {
"Content-Type": "application/json"
},
"body": {
"enabled": "false"
}
}
},```
I run provider test using this contract but i received empty request body, could anyone please tell me why?
matt.fellows
2021-11-09 04:18
GET request with a body is not an RFC standard, so it?s possible that your server does not know how to respond to it (and therefore the body is not available to your code, despite it being sent over the wire)
eric2323223
2021-11-09 04:58
@matt.fellows Thank you for the quick response, server is designed and implemented to understand such request (although it?s not recommended). could you please confirm PACT will not send body because it?s not comply with the RFC standard?
matt.fellows
2021-11-09 05:05
You can test by creating a minimal pact file with a GET and body, and using the CLI to verify it against your API and see what it sends
matt.fellows
2021-11-09 05:45
ah ok, I meant the Pact Go version but that?s all I needed (you?re on the 1.x.x branch)
matt.fellows
2021-11-09 05:54
Looks like the 1.x.x won?t support it, but the good news is that the 2.x.x line does
matt.fellows
2021-11-09 05:57
There is at least one old issue for this: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-net/issues/185
matt.fellows
2021-11-09 05:58
The first request is from the current Ruby verifier, the second from the rust one (note how your message is put into the query string in the first one with an empty body):
```
GET /api/v1/myservice/endpoint?test+body HTTP/1.1
Host: localhost:1234
Cookie:
X-Forwarded-For: 127.0.0.1
Content-Length: 0
Content-Type: application/json
GET /api/v1/myservice/endpoint HTTP/1.1
content-type: application/json
accept: */*
host: localhost:1234
content-length: 11
"test body"```
eric2323223
2021-11-09 06:25
Thank you, may I know which pact-go version I should choose? it seems there is only beta versions for 2.0.0
matt.fellows
2021-11-09 06:26
that?s the current status of the world I?m afraid, it should be close to stable but it?s a chicken/egg problem - need feedback from the community before we say ?yes, we?ll accept this as the new mainline?!
eric2323223
2021-11-09 06:27
OK, understand, do I also need to upgrade my PACT version? I am currently using pct-ruby-standalone v1.88.3
matt.fellows
2021-11-09 06:28
2.x.x is a completely different implementation. It was using the Ruby core, and is now using a Rust core
matt.fellows
2021-11-09 06:28
New docs are in this tree: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/tree/2.x.x
matt.fellows
2021-11-09 06:30
I have created an early migration guide, to help. But obviously if it?s just this one request you might need to find an alternative solution, rather than forcing an upgrade of everything
dabfleming
2021-11-19 18:24
@matt.fellows Was looking at the plugin stuff again and noticed that the link to your spike implementation in https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/tree/spike/plugin-system was a 404. Is that still around somewhere?
matt.fellows
2021-11-19 21:53
Oh might be from the docs talking about the design . That spike is definitely out of date now so I wouldn't use it for anything, the real plugin interface will be very different
dabfleming
2021-11-19 21:54
Under Proposal in https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/issues/83
dabfleming
2021-11-19 21:55
I was just trying to wrap my head around how the plugin use might look in code.
dabfleming
2021-11-19 21:55
Regardless I did post some feedback in https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/discussions/189
matt.fellows
2021-11-19 21:57
In any case, these are real plugins examples: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-plugins/tree/main/examples
ringo
2021-11-20 16:18
@matt.fellows I think I did everything correctly, but still have the error that `CLI tools are out of date`:
```$ PATH=../pact/bin:$PATH go test -v ./... -run TestCreateUser
=== RUN TestCreateUser
2021/11/20 17:12:10 [INFO] checking pact-mock-service within range >= 3.5.0, < 4.0.0
2021/11/20 17:12:10 [ERROR] CLI tools are out of date, please upgrade before continuing
FAIL http://github.com/vatesfr/xo-sdk-go/client 0.152s
FAIL
$ PATH=../pact/bin:$PATH which pact-mock-service
../pact/bin/pact-mock-service
$ PATH=../pact/bin:$PATH pact-mock-service version
3.9.0```
Any idea what can still be wrong?
This is with https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases/tag/v1.88.80 and this in my `go.mod` file:
``` http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go v1.6.6 // indirect```
ringo
2021-11-20 19:48
OK, I found out that my PATH wasn?t correctly set after all. Using a one-time `export PATH=<full pact path>:$PATH` before running my tests seem to fix it. :see_no_evil:
matt.fellows
2021-11-20 21:50
It's recommend adding it to the actual environment variable rather than inlining the declaration. Otherwise you'll need to prefix every command that way
christos.litsas
2021-11-23 13:08
Hi everyone, I?d like to use pact-go on my M1 machine but the `pact-go -l DEBUG install` command fails because it can?t detect my architecture.
Does anyone have experience on how to set it up?
matt.fellows
2021-11-23 13:28
I don't think we currently publish M1 artifacts yet. It might run on rosetta mode
matt.fellows
2021-11-23 13:31
We do publish arm artifacts: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases/tag/libpact_ffi-v0.1.2
matt.fellows
2021-11-23 13:32
Pop the osx aarch64 unzipped file in /usr/local/lib/libffi_pact.dylib and it should work (that's all the install does)
elliot.sel
2021-11-23 14:40
Hi :slightly_smiling_face: I am trying to understand the relationship between matchingrules in JSON and the `Pact::Term` operator. When building pacts using the DSL is it preferable to use the latter over the former? (I can?t see a way to generate matching rules using the DSL)
elliot.sel
2021-11-23 15:06
I think I may have found my answer https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/blob/aa019ef50db9f2337997cabd0e6b6777b03c775c/implementation-guidelines/README.md
> _Notes on the pact format between the client and the mock service_: To communicate between the DSL and the mock service, the Ruby code still uses the original Pact format that uses Ruby specific JSON (?json_class?: ?Pact::Term?...) to serialise the Terms, regexps and SomethingLikes. You can use the newer pact-specification v2 matching code if you like as both are accepted, but TBH the old Ruby way is actually easier to implement!
matt.fellows
2021-11-23 20:34
The matching rules are automatically created by the DSL. It does be transparent to you as a user
srinagasai.krishnasan
2021-12-01 21:47
hello team, I am trying to integrate pact-go in a go project we have. However under `createPact` the attr `PactDir` doesn't seem to show the verification result. How is it supposed to work? It's not even creating the folder.
matt.fellows
2021-12-01 22:37
can you please share your code and log file (see https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go#troubleshooting)
srinagasai.krishnasan
2021-12-02 17:15
Here's my create pact
```// Configuration / Test Data
var dir, _ = os.Getwd()
var pactDir = fmt.Sprintf("%s/pact", dir)
var logDir = fmt.Sprintf("%s/log", dir)
var port, _ = utils.GetFreePort()
// Setup the Pact client.
func createPact() dsl.Pact {
return dsl.Pact{
Provider: "entitlements",
//LogDir: logDir,
PactDir: pactDir,
DisableToolValidityCheck: true,
LogLevel: "INFO",
}
}```
http://W.R.TO log this is what I am seeing in regards to pact
```--- PASS: TestPactProvider (11.67s)
=== RUN TestPactProvider/Pact_between__and__
--- PASS: TestPactProvider/Pact_between__and__ (0.00s)
=== RUN TestPactProvider/has_status_code_200
pact.go:626: Verifying a pact between listener and entitlements Getentitlementdetails with POST /pandora-entitlements/pandoraentitlements/jsonrpc returns a response which has status code 200
--- PASS: TestPactProvider/has_status_code_200 (0.00s)
=== RUN TestPactProvider/has_a_matching_body
pact.go:626: Verifying a pact between listener and entitlements Getentitlementdetails with POST /pandora-entitlements/pandoraentitlements/jsonrpc returns a response which has a matching body
--- PASS: TestPactProvider/has_a_matching_body (0.00s)
=== RUN TestPactProvider/"Content-Type"_which_equals_"application/json"
pact.go:626: Verifying a pact between listener and entitlements Getentitlementdetails with POST /pandora-entitlements/pandoraentitlements/jsonrpc returns```
matt.fellows
2021-12-02 21:21
The verification results is the test run. It doesn't generate another document
matt.fellows
2021-12-02 21:22
I can see your test run worked just fine. It just prints standard golang test output
matt.fellows
2021-12-02 21:22
If you want to send results to the broker, there is another flag for that
srinagasai.krishnasan
2021-12-02 21:22
in java through gradle. we can produce documents such as `.md` `.json` right
srinagasai.krishnasan
2021-12-02 21:28
also my test runs only as a regular test "make test". It doesn't run as make provider. what are some explicit changes I need to make to get that working?
matt.fellows
2021-12-02 21:29
> then what is PactDir for?
the current interface has the same Pact object for writing consumer tests and verifying providers. That property as documented only is used for producing a contract file (from the consumer)
matt.fellows
2021-12-02 21:29
> also my test runs only as a regular test ?make test?. It doesn?t run as make provider. what are some explicit changes I need to make to get that working?
I?m not sure what you?re asking here. The make targets are user defined, you can call them whatever you want
srinagasai.krishnasan
2021-12-02 21:30
ah i'm new to golang. Will need to look at that. Thanks for the input, matt.
felipe.simoes
2021-12-17 02:32
Hello, can someone help me out? I have a server and its provider's tests all set up but I am confused about setting up a workflow on github actions.
It requires all dependencies but it fails my pact tests with the following message `exec: "pact-provider-verifier": executable file not found in $PATH`
Can anyone share an example of using the pact-ruby-standalone on github actions workflow?
matt.fellows
2021-12-17 04:08
You still need to download and install the standalone as per https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go#installation-on-nix
felipe.simoes
2021-12-17 14:28
thanks, it seemed to work like this
```curl -LO https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases/download/v1.88.81/pact-1.88.81-linux-x86_64.tar.gz && tar xzf pact-1.88.81-linux-x86_64.tar.gz && echo "$PWD/pact/bin" >> $GITHUB_PATH```
felipe.simoes
2021-12-17 14:30
I was a bit confused on how to use it on github actions, it was actually very simple. thank you @matt.fellows
aparnachaudhari
2022-01-06 23:26
Hello @matt.fellows following up on this ^ one of our projects would like to use pact to test graphql schema between consumer and provider
matt.fellows
2022-01-07 12:49
Hi @aparnachaudhari! sorry, I?m currently on leave so my notifications are off - did you end up raising the request on the repo? I don?t recall seeing it, but as noted should be easy enough to do. If you could please raise it, i?ll get it added!
frederic.gendebien
2022-02-02 09:00
Hello gentlemen, I am doing a proof-of-concept with pact and pactflow in Go (obviously, since I am here?) and I encounter a weird behaviour from the framework, my server offers an HTTP API and Produces messages at the same time (of course). I have one client which is using the HTTP API and another one which is reading the events, so I have two pacts. When I ?VerifyProvider? using the framework it executes both pact at the same time, the HTTP succeeds but the messaging part fails, because there is no obvious way to define MessageHandlers. The same occurs but in the other way when I test the messaging layer (VerifyMessageProvider), the message part is ok but the HTTP fails because there are no way to define the url. How do I do it without giving different names for the same provider?
Thanks
matt.fellows
2022-02-02 11:03
Sorry @aparnachaudhari have been flat out the last couple of weeks, should be able to get to it next week I think.
matt.fellows
2022-02-02 11:04
If you wanted to write your own adapter, it?s not very big. This is the Pact JS one: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/master/src/dsl/graphql.ts
matt.fellows
2022-02-02 11:04
the main barrier for me to implement it quickly, is that it would mostly require me to understand the current Golang GraphQL ecosystem and make sure that it supports it. GraphQL in general is straightforward, but there can be language specific gotchas
matt.fellows
2022-02-02 11:05
What lib do you use / is the most popular we should use as a test bed do you think?
matt.fellows
2022-02-02 11:06
> How do I do it without giving different names for the same provider?
in the current 1.x.x branch, you need different names
matt.fellows
2022-02-02 11:07
In the 2.x.x branch it should _soon_ be supported (the v4 specification of Pact - not to be confused with the version of libraries - allows for this). 2.x.x supports v3 spec, but should be straightforward to add 4 once we release the next major of Pact Go
frederic.gendebien
2022-02-03 08:38
Just migrated from 1.x.x to 2.x.x and got:
Undefined symbols for architecture arm64
matt.fellows
2022-02-04 23:09
latest beta released that should support this. See also the response to your issue
aparnachaudhari
2022-02-07 22:40
We have yet to decide that, it really depends on what the consumer teams choose to use .. ex the UI being one of our consumer - but for our local/integration tests we use gqlgen?s client
matt.fellows
2022-02-07 22:42
I used the Hasura client as an example. I?ll push it up today if you wanted to take a look. Currently spike code, still having a think about what the best API looks like
matt.fellows
2022-02-08 02:04
The main logic to deal with GraphQL is here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/pull/200/files#diff-1183718c840ee18aa9c1150b0a83ec1831af30af21e59e1b6b9bc8aa8ea575e5R68-R108
matt.fellows
2022-02-08 02:04
Apologies, I did a `go mod tidy` as part of this and it?s added a lot of files, unsurprisingly
matt.fellows
2022-02-08 02:05
np. The provider side shouldn?t need anything, because as far as it?s concerned, it should just accept the HTTP request and respond as needed.
matt.fellows
2022-02-08 02:07
I found the hasura GraphQL client a bit unfriendly to use, in that I still had to hard-code the GraphQL query in the test - there was no way to programmatically get it to print out what query it _would_ make. I would ideally like to not have to specify it by hand, as I can see that not being an ideal experience for developers to have to write
matt.fellows
2022-02-08 02:08
If you / your colleague could please eyeball it for feedback and post in that PR, we can iterate from there
aparnachaudhari
2022-02-15 21:26
@matt.fellows the developer who is planning to use this commented on the above PR FYI and I am also looking now.
matt.fellows
2022-02-15 21:28
thanks, I saw that come through yesterday. The feedback around extending the types is :ok_hand:
emin.sahin
2022-02-26 13:54
[ERROR] service exec: "pact-mock-service": executable file not found in $PATH
matt.fellows
2022-02-26 21:39
Can you please share what you've tried? My guess is you've not updated the path correctly or it hasn't taken effect
emin.sahin
2022-02-27 09:58
GOROOT=/Users/emin.sahin/sdk/go1.17.2 #gosetup
GOPATH=/Users/emin.sahin/go #gosetup
/Users/emin.sahin/sdk/go1.17.2/bin/go test -c -o /private/var/folders/2_/s1hp0w_n6kl2wc6b974fht109b462r/T/GoLand/___Test_IPostNewProductWithGivenID_in_backend_test_front_end.test backend/test/front_end #gosetup
/Users/emin.sahin/sdk/go1.17.2/bin/go tool test2json -t /private/var/folders/2_/s1hp0w_n6kl2wc6b974fht109b462r/T/GoLand/___Test_IPostNewProductWithGivenID_in_backend_test_front_end.test -test.v -test.paniconexit0 -test.run ^\QTest_IPostNewProductWithGivenID\E$
=== RUN Test_IPostNewProductWithGivenID
2022/02/27 12:56:47 [ERROR] service exec: ?pact-mock-service?: executable file not found in $PATH
2022/02/27 12:56:57 [ERROR] Expected server to start < 10s. Timed out waiting for Mock Server to start on port 56421 - are you sure it?s running?
2022/02/27 12:56:57 [ERROR] client: failed to wait for Mock Server: Expected server to start < 10s. Timed out waiting for Mock Server to start on port 56421 - are you sure it?s running?
--- FAIL: Test_IPostNewProductWithGivenID (10.00s)
panic: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference [recovered]
panic: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference
[signal SIGSEGV: segmentation violation code=0x1 addr=0x0 pc=0x134c6b2]
goroutine 19 [running]:
testing.tRunner.func1.2({0x138b8e0, 0x1720a40})
/Users/emin.sahin/sdk/go1.17.2/src/testing/testing.go:1209 +0x24e
testing.tRunner.func1()
/Users/emin.sahin/sdk/go1.17.2/src/testing/testing.go:1212 +0x218
panic({0x138b8e0, 0x1720a40})
/Users/emin.sahin/sdk/go1.17.2/src/runtime/panic.go:1038 +0x215
http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/dsl.(*PactClient).StartServer(0xc00017e600, {0xc0002d2180, 0xc, 0xc}, 0xdc65)
/Users/emin.sahin/go/pkg/mod/github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go@v1.6.9/dsl/client.go:107 +0x372
http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/dsl.(*Pact).Setup(0xc000129e58, 0x1)
/Users/emin.sahin/go/pkg/mod/github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go@v1.6.9/dsl/pact.go:200 +0x759
http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/dsl.(*Pact).AddInteraction(0xc000129e58)
/Users/emin.sahin/go/pkg/mod/github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go@v1.6.9/dsl/pact.go:117 +0x27
backend/test/front_end.Test_IPostNewProductWithGivenID(0xc000117520)
/Users/emin.sahin/Desktop/adamgibi/backend/test/front_end/product_test.go:27 +0x111
testing.tRunner(0xc000117520, 0x1400dc8)
/Users/emin.sahin/sdk/go1.17.2/src/testing/testing.go:1259 +0x102
created by testing.(*T).Run
/Users/emin.sahin/sdk/go1.17.2/src/testing/testing.go:1306 +0x35a
Process finished with the exit code 1
matt.fellows
2022-02-27 09:59
in the first place, a standalone terminal, and the other place (from the brief screenshot you posted, helpfully :stuck_out_tongue: ) frrom an IDE
matt.fellows
2022-02-27 09:59
running `export VAR=value` in one terminal does not result in it working in another terminal
matt.fellows
2022-02-27 10:00
you need to:
1. Make it a global environment variable (e.g. add it to your ~/.bashrc or ~./profile)
2. Add it to Goland / IDE (however the IDE supports that)
matt.fellows
2022-02-27 10:05
sorry, those two are options. So the first step is probably all you need
matt.fellows
2022-02-27 10:06
and then open it back up. If you open it from a terminal, do it in the terminal you know has the updated env var
matt.fellows
2022-02-27 10:06
I can?t tell you anything more than that, you should look at your IDE docs for that
ancyaziz
2022-03-02 23:58
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[]?
matt.fellows
2022-03-03 10:55
you can?t put commas like that - that error is a standard Go struct tag problem
matt.fellows
2022-03-03 10:55
So, something like this:
```Tags []string `json:"tags" pact:"example="Name::CustomerName"```
matt.fellows
2022-03-03 10:56
Personally, I think the struct tags are very limiting despite being convenient for simple cases
matt.fellows
2022-03-03 10:56
you can?t test multiple scenarios with them with different data, for instance
ancyaziz
2022-03-03 14:19
this is still throwing me error
`Tags []string `json:"tags" pact:"example="Name::CustomerName""``
may be because there are still 2 " at the end.
Even the below throwing error "parsing failed"
`Tags []string `json:"tags" pact:"example=Name::CustomerName"``
negrolyze
2022-03-04 15:52
been looking at this https://docs.pact.io/slack/pact-go.html#1531267542.000155 as i have ran into the error where i get `No pacts found to verify` . This fails my test, what could be the cause
matt.fellows
2022-03-04 23:35
It's usually because the selectors you're using are incorrect and it can't find any pacts. I.e likely a configuration issue
ancyaziz
2022-03-09 03:51
I have a response body with contents like below, is there a way to match the values in Header using dsl.Match and just validate the type of the fields inside Body part using dsl.Like in pact.AddInteraction WillRespondWith section?
```[
{
"Body": {
"environments": [
{
"createdDate": "2020-05-20",
"id": "abc",
"name": "abc",
"state": "YES",
"tags": [],
"status": false
}
],
"nPageKey": "aabbgggcc==",
"pageSize": 1,
"totalCount": 1
},
"Header": {
"ResponseCode": 200,
"Region": "xyz"
}
}
]```
matt.fellows
2022-03-09 04:22
I think so, you just need to not put matchers (via struct tags) on the things that should be exact matched
ancyaziz
2022-03-09 04:48
Thank you for the reply!
Do you mean if I don't put pact:"example=value" on Struct, it will work using dsl.Match? sorry I am new to pact, so confirming.
matt.fellows
2022-03-09 09:30
I've had a few queries about this lately, I'll take a look tonight on an AWS M1 instance and see what I can do
matt.fellows
2022-03-09 09:31
I'm told Rosetta mode also doesn't work, but have yet to verify for the same reasons as above
matt.fellows
2022-03-10 11:41
BTW I thought AWS had M1 machines, but they are in ?preview? and you have to apply. I?ve applied, but no response yet
jeroen.vandijk
2022-03-16 12:25
hello :slightly_smiling_face: with Pact Go v2, is there a way to set the Provider Log Directory? In v1 it was:
jeroen.vandijk
2022-03-16 12:25
``` pact := dsl.Pact{
Provider: "GoUserService",
LogDir: logDir,
LogLevel: "INFO",
}```
matt.fellows
2022-03-16 12:50
mind raising a feature request (if you want it, of course!). Otherwise, all logging goes to stdout and you can configure via log levels
jeroen.vandijk
2022-03-16 13:39
Thanks Matt, not that keen for it, as did not find it particularly useful. I was curious in case I missed it :thumbsup:
ancyaziz
2022-03-19 01:51
Hi, I have a response file that provides a body like below, some entries with response code 200 and few with 404, and the "Body" tag is different in this case, one with a "monitors" array and another with an error, is there a way to match this response in AddInteraction WillRespondWith section? I tried using this but it's failing matching for the cases with 404 error.
```Body: dsl.EachLike(map[string]interface{}{
"Body": dsl.Like(map[string]interface{}{
"monitors": dsl.EachLike(map[string]interface{}{}, 0),
})```
Response:
```[{"Header":{"Region":"abc","Tenant":"abc","Stage":"dev","Status":"Live","RespCode":200},"Body":{"monitors":[]}},{"Header":{"Region":"xyz","Tenant":"xyz","Stage":"dev","Status":"NotLive","RespCode":404},"Body":{"error":{"code":404,"message":"failed to resolve tenant xyz"}}}]```
matt.fellows
2022-03-19 05:08
I'm not sure I understand sorry, you can definitely test the body shape in that JSON you shared. This looks like it's failing the verification though, which would indicate the request is not eliciting the response shape you're after..
Can you please share the req/res details your expecting, the consumer pact test and the provider verification output?
ancyaziz
2022-03-21 00:33
sorry for delayed response. My issue here is that when the RespCode is 200, I get an an array of "monitors" object, and when the RespCode is 404, I get a hash of "error", so it's not matching for cases with RespCode 404 with my Matcher code. I am trying to see if there is an option to match with both cases. Our internal provider is reading data from a third party and providing the response, that's why we are getting RespCode 200 and 404.
matt.fellows
2022-03-21 00:36
You need to create two separate test cases - one for each of the `200` and `404` scenarios. You would then use a Provider State in the consumer test to control the desired outcome from the provider.
Pact is not designed to be tested against a live system for this reason - it?s hard to control the state of the provider. You really should be running the provider in a controlled (unit test-like) environment, where you can manipulate external dependencies as needed
jeffrey2011998
2022-03-28 10:33
I have a question regarding a go provider verifying contracts. When verification of a contract fails I don't want my entire test run to fail but I just want pact to publish the results to the broker. Is this possible?
matt.fellows
2022-03-28 10:48
No, the exit code will always be a failure. You can always run the suite separate to your other tests (e.g. using build tags) and choose how to behave based on that code
jeffrey2011998
2022-03-28 12:05
Reading the documentation, it is possible to set the branch on a provider using the pact-provider-verifier. Only, the pact-provider-verifier seems only able to verify HTTP based contracts by testing against a real API. I'm using message based contracts. Is it possible to set the branch of my provider?
matt.fellows
2022-03-28 12:47
(unless you mean https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/dsl/verify_mesage_request.go, in which case, you?re right, it needs to be added)
matt.fellows
2022-03-28 12:47
We are currently planning the final work for branches/environments/releases so this would be in scope
jeffrey2011998
2022-03-28 13:58
Right now I got it working by retrieving the git branch in code and adding it as a tag.
Although for convenience I also made a PR: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/pull/209
jeffrey2011998
2022-03-28 14:41
Just noticed an error occurs when using the change: "unknown field 'TagWithGitBranch' in struct literal of type types.VerifyRequest".
I probably need to add some definition somewhere, looking into it
ancyaziz
2022-03-30 11:13
is it possible to update the pact generated contract json before uploading to pact-broker by consumer or before verification by provider? I want to replace my path variable with a different value.
matt.fellows
2022-03-30 11:42
You definitely can, but I'd love to know more about the use case. It could be a rather fragile approach
ancyaziz
2022-03-30 11:46
my provider path is something like this "/api/xyz/v2/envs?pageSize=1&filter=state(ENABLED)&abc=false&bcd=false&xyz=false&env=uvw" and I am using a mock client with path mock/uvw for consumer
ancyaziz
2022-03-30 11:48
so while verification it fails saying expected and actual path is different, so I am looking for a way to use the same path. Previously I was updating the path value before provider verification as I was copying the contracts manually, but now I start using pact-broker, so I am rying to find a way to update the path before it gets uploaded to the pact-broker
ancyaziz
2022-03-30 11:54
I tried using the same path, but it was giving me error, maybe I am doing something wrong
ancyaziz
2022-03-31 03:35
I was able to fix it!! Thank you for responding even while you are on vacation.
justin
2022-03-31 18:12
Trying to get v2 running on windows,
I've got gcc installed via msys2/mingw64
Running pact-go install returns
```2022/03/31 11:24:39 [INFO] package libpact_ffi not found
2022/03/31 11:24:39 [INFO] downloading library from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases/download/libpact_ffi-v0.1.2/libpact_ffi-windows-x86_64.dll.gz to /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.dll
2022/03/31 11:24:39 [ERROR] Your Pact library installation is out of date and we were unable to download a newer one for you: bad response code: 404```
I tried manually downloading and copying the `libpact_ffi.dll` and `libpact_ffi.so` to C:\msys64\mingw64\lib
And it's running the tests now (got some failures to work out first)
justin
2022-03-31 18:16
```[DEBUG] executing verifier FFI with args [--hostname localhost --port 51603 --state-change-url http://localhost:51603/__setup --broker-url https://paxi.pactflow.io --token MyTokenValue --provider-version 1.0.0 --provider-name Notifications --publish --loglevel info]
ERROR pact_ffi::verifier::verifier] error verifying Pact: "error: The argument '--token <token>' requires 1 values, but 2 were provided
USAGE:
pact_verifier_cli --broker-url <broker-url> --dir <dir>... --file <file>... --hostname <hostname> --loglevel <loglevel> --port <port> --provider-name <provider-name> --provider-version <provider-version> --publish --scheme <scheme> --state-change-url <state-change-url> --token <token> --url <url>...
For more information try --help" Error { message: "error: The argument '--token <token>' requires 1 values, but 2 were provided
USAGE:
pact_verifier_cli --broker-url <broker-url> --dir <dir>... --file <file>... --hostname <hostname> --loglevel <loglevel> --port <port> --provider-name <provider-name> --provider-version <provider-version> --publish --scheme <scheme> --state-change-url <state-change-url> --token <token> --url <url>...
For more information try --help", kind: WrongNumberOfValues, info: Some(["token"]) }```
I don't see it passing 2 tokens in, and no spaces or symbols in the token. Using http://pactflow.io
justin
2022-03-31 18:19
``` // Verify the Provider - Latest Published Pacts for any known consumers
err := verifier.VerifyProvider(t, VerifyRequest{
Provider: "Notifications",
ProviderBaseURL: fmt.Sprintf("http://127.0.0.1:%d", port),
BrokerURL: os.Getenv("PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL"),
PublishVerificationResults: true,
ProviderVersion: "1.0.0",
StateHandlers: stateHandlers,
EnablePending: pending,
BrokerToken: os.Getenv("PACT_BROKER_TOKEN"),
})```
matt.fellows
2022-03-31 21:27
Ah. Double check you don't also have PACT_ env vars set. The underlying argument parser sees them as duplicates, not a hierarchy
ancyaziz
2022-04-06 11:47
I am getting this error while running the tests in pact-go:
2022/04/06 17:11:53 [INFO] checking pact-mock-service within range >= 3.5.0, < 4.0.0
2022/04/06 17:11:53 [ERROR] CLI tools are out of date, please upgrade before continuing
I have tried to reinstall pact ruby standalone release, but still same error. Can anyone please suggest a resolution?
matt.fellows
2022-04-06 12:00
What happens if you run `pact-mock-service version` in the same terminal you're running the tests?
guillaume.camus
2022-04-06 13:58
Hi all, I use Pact-go http://v2.XXX. And I try to describe a float number with a matcher like this:
```WithJSONBody(Map{
"id": Integer(21),
"name": S("foo 2"),
"brand": S("bar 2"),
"price_incl_vat": Regex("23.125", "[0-9]+\\.[0-9]+"),
"price_excl_tax": Regex("18.185", "[0-9]+\\.[0-9]+"),
}).```
but that generates a string and not a float, so when I unmarshal the response I have errors.
How I can generate a float ?
guillaume.camus
2022-04-06 15:56
Is there a command with pact-go to publish contracts in pact-brocker?
matt.fellows
2022-04-07 01:15
are you positive the go tests are running in the same shell configuration?
ancyaziz
2022-04-07 09:01
I was running the tests from zsh terminal, pact-mock-service version command was not recognized there. I tried the command in bash terminal and the tests also run without error there. The tests used to run in both zsh and bash terminals before, now only running in bash.
matt.fellows
2022-04-07 09:09
i?m guessing you added an export to your bash profile, but not your zsh one
justin
2022-04-07 19:44
Almost have v2 pact provider verification working in github action, but it's failing to publish for some reason when running in the github action (ubuntu-based)
But not when running locally on windows, with manually setting matching environment variables
```Publishing verification results back to the Pact Broker
Fetching path '/pacticipants/Notifications' from pact broker
Failed to push branch feature/pact-v2 for provider version 1.214.1-a2d64f325200e3b5931ce5e9623041dbd8f50773
Publishing of verification results failed with an error: Error with the content of a HAL resource - Request to pact broker URL 'https://paxi.pactflow.io/pacticipants/Notifications/branches/feature/pact-v2/versions/1.214.1-a2d64f325200e3b5931ce5e9623041dbd8f50773' failed - HTTP status client error (404 Not Found) for url (https://paxi.pactflow.io/pacticipants/Notifications/branches/feature/pact-v2/versions/1.214.1-a2d64f325200e3b5931ce5e9623041dbd8f50773)```
justin
2022-04-07 19:52
It does appear to be auto-escaping the `/` on windows, but not on linux (replaced the / with %2F, and it published.
matt.fellows
2022-04-08 00:51
how are you publishing may I ask - using the CLI or the publisher in the Golang code?
If the latter, i?d suggest using the CLI - I?m going to deprecate the Golang publisher because it is lacking a number of useful features (tagging, branches, etc.)
matt.fellows
2022-04-08 22:24
Thanks, that'll be the problem. I can fix that problem but if still highly recommend switching to the CLI
jeroen.vandijk
2022-04-14 08:39
On Pact v2, with regards to Configuring the branch when publishing verification results (https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/branches#configuring-the-branch-when-publishing-verification-results) is the `ProviderBranch` in https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/provider/verify_request.go
jeroen.vandijk
2022-04-14 08:39
the same as the `--provider-version-branch $GIT_BRANCH` in the `provider-verifier` CLI? I think not, as it is not officially supported yet (https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/branches#support)?
matt.fellows
2022-04-14 09:35
It is, I think that table is out of date. Apologies, I will have it updated.
jeroen.vandijk
2022-04-14 14:37
When using *consumer version selector* `{ "deployedOrReleased": true }` am I right in thinking that when that results in more than one Pact needing to be verified, then the Broker will serve each Pact one at a time and publish back these multiple results back to the broker? All done within a single call to `err = verifier.VerifyProvider(t, provider.VerifyRequest{`?
guillaume.camus
2022-04-21 13:30
Hi, I?m trying to play with `StateHandlers` but I don?t see how I can change the response status code. Do you have an example?
matt.fellows
2022-04-22 00:58
StateHandlers don?t exist to change the response directly from the verification, they exist to setup the internal state of the provider, such that they can return as needed
matt.fellows
2022-04-22 00:58
e.g. if you want a `404` you make sure a resource isn?t in the database vs a `200` where you ensure the resource does exist
guillaume.camus
2022-04-22 07:34
@matt.fellows mmh, Are you sure ? I?m using the pact-go V2 and the StateHandler must return a `ProviderStateV3Response` https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/examples/provider_test.go#L74-L88
My Pb is that _ProviderStateV3Response_ is a map of fields used to generate the response body. But I cannot interact with other parts of the response. And If I return `nil` instead of the ProviderStateV3Response, that doesn?t call my ms.
Do you have an example to interact with the database and `ProviderStateV3Response` ?
matt.fellows
2022-04-22 08:47
They are like a hook for a specific test (interaction). They give you the opportunity to modify the internal state of the provider - but don?t give you access to the request/response
matt.fellows
2022-04-22 08:47
(`RequestFilters` can do that, but it?s not really used for this purpose)
matt.fellows
2022-04-22 08:50
> My Pb is that _ProviderStateV3Response_ is a map of fields used to generate the response body
no, the `ProviderStateV3Response` is not a response body for the provider test. It?s parameters to configure the current state setup
edouard.lopez
2022-04-25 08:39
Hello, I'm trying to execute my test on a Ubuntu machine using `pact-go@2.x.x branch`. However, the `pact-go` install command fails
```pact-go -l DEBUG install
2022/04/25 10:40:43 [INFO] package libpact_ffi found
2022/04/25 10:40:43 [DEBUG] unable to determine current version of package libpact_ffi this is probably because the package is currently being installed```
And the `go test` command throws a `ld` related error;
```? go test ./...
? ?/pact-consumer-b2c-example-for-go/cmd/pactgoconsumerexample [no test files]
? ?/pact-consumer-b2c-example-for-go/cmd/pactgoconsumerexample/docs [no test files]
# http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2/internal/native
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lpact_ffi
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
FAIL ?/pact-consumer-b2c-example-for-go/internal/b2b [build failed]
FAIL ?/pact-consumer-b2c-example-for-go/internal/b2c [build failed]
FAIL```
nuno.frias
2022-04-25 15:10
Hello
I am experiencing this issue (2.x.x: Support for Arm64 Architecture) https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/199
I attempted to solve it by pulling the `pact-reference` project (https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference), build it locally following this instructions (https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference) and then copy the compiled `libpact_ffi.dylib` to `/usr/local/lib` -- following the advice in the manual installation instructions https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/README.md#manual
Still when I run the tests I get the error:
nuno.frias
2022-04-25 15:10
```# http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2/internal/native
Undefined symbols for architecture arm64:
"_pactffi_cleanup_mock_server", referenced from:
__cgo_c5f0653e4b8d_Cfunc_pactffi_cleanup_mock_server in _x004.o
(maybe you meant: __cgo_c5f0653e4b8d_Cfunc_pactffi_cleanup_mock_server)
"_pactffi_create_mock_server", referenced from:
__cgo_c5f0653e4b8d_Cfunc_pactffi_create_mock_server in _x004.o
(maybe you meant: __cgo_c5f0653e4b8d_Cfunc_pactffi_create_mock_server, __cgo_c5f0653e4b8d_Cfunc_pactffi_create_mock_server_for_pact )```
nuno.frias
2022-04-25 15:16
I don't think the `libpact_ffi.dylib` in `/usr/local/lib` is being used -- when I remove that file altogether I get the exact same error.
aparnachaudhari
2022-04-25 20:09
Hello, any updates on https://pact.canny.io/feature-requests/p/support-grpc
aparnachaudhari
2022-04-25 22:43
one of our service engineers wants to add pact tests for gPRC and wanted to get some updated on this ^
matt.fellows
2022-04-25 22:44
my colleague (Ron) is currently working on the gRPC transport plugin. that?s getting pretty close
matt.fellows
2022-04-25 22:45
Once these have some good examples in Rust (the core) and Java (the example language) I?ll add support to the API in the v2 interface
nuno.frias
2022-04-26 08:50
I need to do a few more tests, but I'll try to submit a merge request to branch https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/tree/2.x.xhttp://2.x.as soon as I can.
edouard.lopez
2022-04-26 09:01
Importing `"http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2/sugar"` and running the linter I got this error:
```golangci-lint run --skip-dirs cmd/pactgoconsumerexample_tester
WARN [runner] Can't run linter goanalysis_metalinter: inspect: failed to load package sugar: could not load export data: no export data for "http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2/sugar"
ERRO Running error: 1 error occurred:
* can't run linter goanalysis_metalinter: inspect: failed to load package sugar: could not load export data: no export data for "http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2/sugar"```
edouard.lopez
2022-04-26 10:11
I created an issue : https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/212
edouard.lopez
2022-04-27 09:11
Same error when I
```? sudo cp ~/.local/lib/libpact_ffi.so /usr/local/lib/```
edouard.lopez
2022-04-27 09:15
The issue seem to be with `gotestsum`:
```? gotestsum --junitfile .ignore/report.xml --format standard-verbose -- -count=1 -race -coverprofile=.ignore/coverage.txt -covermode=atomic (go list ./...)
? git.manomano.tech/qraft/contract-testing/pact-consumer-b2c-example-for-go/cmd/pactgoconsumerexample [no test files]
? git.manomano.tech/qraft/contract-testing/pact-consumer-b2c-example-for-go/cmd/pactgoconsumerexample/docs [no test files]
# http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2/internal/native
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lpact_ffi
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
WARN invalid TestEvent: FAIL git.manomano.tech/qraft/contract-testing/pact-consumer-b2c-example-for-go/internal/b2b [build failed]
bad output from test2json: FAIL git.manomano.tech/qraft/contract-testing/pact-consumer-b2c-example-for-go/internal/b2b [build failed]
WARN invalid TestEvent: FAIL git.manomano.tech/qraft/contract-testing/pact-consumer-b2c-example-for-go/internal/b2c [build failed]
bad output from test2json: FAIL git.manomano.tech/qraft/contract-testing/pact-consumer-b2c-example-for-go/internal/b2c [build failed]
=== Errors
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lpact_ffi
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status```
As `pact-go` find the lib
```? pact-go -l DEBUG install
2022/04/27 11:13:48 [INFO] package libpact_ffi found
2022/04/27 11:13:48 [DEBUG] unable to determine current version of package libpact_ffi this is probably because the package is currently being installed```
edouard.lopez
2022-04-27 10:11
Fixed the permissions and it's good:
https://github.com/gotestyourself/gotestsum/issues/247#issuecomment-1110817138
edouard.lopez
2022-04-29 08:59
This issue seems similar, but my lack of acquaintance with `go` is limiting my understanding of the solution
https://github.com/golangci/golangci-lint/issues/2280
edouard.lopez
2022-04-29 09:12
It's talking about
> can't run linter goanalysis_metalinter: *buildir*
while my issue is
> can't run linter goanalysis_metalinter: *inspect*
Not sure how relevant that is
edouard.lopez
2022-04-29 13:24
@matt.fellows would you mind having a look at https://github.com/golangci/golangci-lint/issues/2788 ?
The author of `golangci-lint` mention you are using `CGO` and not `go`
matt.fellows
2022-04-30 00:02
> The author of `golangci-lint` mention you are using `CGO` and not `go` (edited)
we have to use CGO, because we rely on and link to a shared library.
nuno.frias
2022-06-01 15:38
Hello I am hitting an odd issue with my provider tests.
Most of the times the Pact test does not run. It hangs after the last entry.
```nunofrias@Nunos-MacBook-Pro entitlement-orchestrator % go test -tags="provider dynamic" -run ^TestEntitlementsOrchestrator$ entitlement-orchestrator/cmd -v
=== RUN TestEntitlementsOrchestrator
2022/06/01 16:29:45 [INFO] package libpact_ffi found
2022/06/01 16:29:45 [INFO] checking version 0.2.6 for lib libpact_ffi within semver range >= 0.1.2, < 1.0.0
2022/06/01 16:29:45 [INFO] checking version 0.2.6 of libpact_ffi against semver constraint >= 0.1.2, < 1.0.0
2022/06/01 16:29:45 [DEBUG] 0.2.6 satisfies constraints 0.2.6 >= 0.1.2, < 1.0.0
2022/06/01 16:29:45 [DEBUG] version check completed
2022/06/01 16:29:45 [DEBUG] starting new proxy with opts {http localhost:8080 0 [0x1054322c0] /__setup <nil>}
2022/06/01 16:29:45 [DEBUG] starting reverse proxy on port 59826
2022/06/01 16:29:45 [DEBUG] waiting for port 59826 to become available
2022/06/01 16:29:45 [DEBUG] pact provider verification
2022/06/01 16:29:45 [DEBUG] initialising rust mock server interface
2022/06/01 16:29:45 [DEBUG] waiting for port 59826 to become available
2022/06/01 16:29:45 [DEBUG] executing verifier FFI with args [--file /Users/nunofrias/Documents/repos/entitlement-orchestrator/cmd/pacts/reseller-entitlement-service-entitlement-orchestrator.json --hostname localhost --port 59826 --provider-name entitlement-orchestrator --loglevel trace]```
nuno.frias
2022-06-01 15:39
Could this be related with https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/149
nuno.frias
2022-06-01 20:11
Some progress regarding the error above.
Turns out the issue was in the `libpact_ffi.dylib`
matt.fellows
2022-06-01 21:54
1.x.x should work under rosetta mode (it might actually work without it). The latest version of the 2.x.x works on an M1 (I know, because I fixed and tested it the other day :stuck_out_tongue: )
nuno.frias
2022-06-02 12:13
Looks like my problem persists.
First I followed the automatic install instructions https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/tree/2.x.x#installation
```sudo pact-go -l DEBUG install
2022/06/02 12:36:47 [INFO] package libpact_ffi not found
2022/06/02 12:36:47 [INFO] downloading library from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases/download/libpact_ffi-v0.1.2/libpact_ffi-osx-aarch64-apple-darwin.dylib.gz to /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.dylib
2022/06/02 12:36:49 [INFO] setting install_name on library libpact_ffi for osx
2022/06/02 12:36:49 [DEBUG] output from command []
2022/06/02 12:36:49 [INFO] package libpact_ffi found
2022/06/02 12:36:49 [DEBUG] unable to determine current version of package libpact_ffi this is probably because the package is currently being installed```
But the binary did not work:
```go test -tags="provider dynamic" -run ^MyTest$ my-service/cmd -v
# my-service/cmd.test
/opt/homebrew/Cellar/go/1.17.6/libexec/pkg/tool/darwin_arm64/link: running clang failed: exit status 1
ld: can't open file, errno=13 file '/usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.dylib' for architecture arm64
clang: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation)```
Then I cloned the latest `pact-reference` project and built it locally
```cd rust
cargo clean
cargo build```
and copied the `*.dylib` to `/usr/local/lib/`
This time it hangs on the last entry:
```2022/06/02 13:09:55 [INFO] package libpact_ffi found
2022/06/02 13:09:55 [INFO] checking version 0.3.3 for lib libpact_ffi within semver range >= 0.1.2, < 1.0.0
2022/06/02 13:09:55 [INFO] checking version 0.3.3 of libpact_ffi against semver constraint >= 0.1.2, < 1.0.0
2022/06/02 13:09:55 [DEBUG] 0.3.3 satisfies constraints 0.3.3 >= 0.1.2, < 1.0.0
2022/06/02 13:09:55 [DEBUG] version check completed
2022/06/02 13:10:21 [DEBUG] starting new proxy with opts {http localhost:8080 0 [0x1036d5910] /__setup <nil>}
2022/06/02 13:10:21 [DEBUG] starting reverse proxy on port 49359
2022/06/02 13:10:21 [DEBUG] waiting for port 49359 to become available
2022/06/02 13:10:21 [DEBUG] pact provider verification
2022/06/02 13:10:21 [DEBUG] initialising rust mock server interface
2022/06/02 13:10:22 [DEBUG] waiting for port 49359 to become available
2022/06/02 13:10:24 [DEBUG] executing verifier FFI with args [--file /Users/nunofrias/Documents/repos/entitlement-orchestrator/cmd/pacts/reseller-entitlement-service-entitlement-orchestrator.json --hostname localhost --port 49359 --provider-name entitlement-orchestrator --loglevel trace]
Hangs here !```
Mind you. Sometimes it does work.
```2022/06/02 13:12:05 [DEBUG] executing verifier FFI with args [--file /Users/nunofrias/Documents/repos/entitlement-orchestrator/cmd/pacts/reseller-entitlement-service-entitlement-orchestrator.json --hostname localhost --port 49369 --provider-name entitlement-orchestrator --loglevel trace]
Given merchant-entitlement-service create entitlement
WARNING: State Change ignored as there is no state change URL provided
2022/06/02 13:12:07 [DEBUG] http reverse proxy received connection from [::1]:49375 on path /entitlements
2022/06/02 13:12:07 [DEBUG] setting proxy to target
2022/06/02 13:12:07 [DEBUG] incoming request /entitlements
2022/06/02 13:12:07 [DEBUG] outgoing request to target http://localhost:8080/entitlements
2022/06/02 13:12:07 [TRACE] proxy outgoing request
POST /entitlements HTTP/1.1
Host: localhost:8080
User-Agent: Pact Go
Content-Length: 293
Accept: */*
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
Content-Type: application/json
X-Forwarded-For: ::1```
nuno.frias
2022-06-06 00:36
After a bit more debugging I have traced the issue to the rust executable `libpact_ffi`.
More precisely the `make_provider_request` function in `http://provider_client.rs` . It hangs when sending the request:
nuno.frias
2022-06-06 00:36
```let response = request.send()
.map_err(|err| anyhow!(err))
.and_then(native_response_to_pact_response)
.await?;```
nuno.frias
2022-06-07 08:26
I'll perhaps move this to the #libpact_ffi-users channel. It seems more appropriate.
nuno.frias
2022-06-13 06:34
Hello all
On a consumer test is there a way for me to set an expectation for the metadata?
The `.WithMetadata` function only accepts fix values `map[string]string`
nuno.frias
2022-06-13 06:39
I would like to use pact DSL to set the metadata as we have properties on the metadata that are not constants -- namely a timestamp.
negrolyze
2022-06-14 07:26
My issue isn't linked to the sugar package but it's something like:
```"[runner] Can't run linter goanalysis_metalinter: buildir: failed to load package native: could not load export data: no export data for \"http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2/internal/native\""```
matt.fellows
2022-06-14 07:26
cool. I have no idea what it means on what to do about it, but happy to fix it if you know what it is
matt.fellows
2022-06-14 07:26
I suspect it could be unhappy about it being CGo (we have a native dependency)
matt.fellows
2022-06-14 07:28
you could run the linter on a local version of pact go, and remove/change code until it stops complaining
negrolyze
2022-06-14 07:29
the linter doesn't fail locally in my repo, just on the github ci/cd runner
negrolyze
2022-06-14 08:11
just did this and locally golangci-lint did not complain. Is there a difference between github actions golangci-lint and the local one? I am using the same version
matt.fellows
2022-06-14 08:15
I don't use this tool, I'm happy to support a fix but my guess is it's an issue with the linter or it needs Pact Go to be configured with e.g. an ignore rule
They'll need a minimal reproducible example to be able to fix tho
negrolyze
2022-06-14 08:53
V1.42.0 seems to be the last working version with go1.18. After that it fails
negrolyze
2022-06-14 09:25
when i put pact_go into a docker image and called that image in the github runner, it worked
matt.fellows
2022-06-14 09:25
which say install, do you mean something like `pact-go install`? or installing the package via `go get` or something?
negrolyze
2022-06-14 09:26
i probably don't need both but i added both just so i didn't have to go backwards and forward
matt.fellows
2022-06-14 09:27
but doing either of the things above you listed doesn?t do that, so that?s fasctinating
mwilso29
2022-06-24 12:34
Hello, can anyone help me with my issue:
```2022/06/24 11:08:29 [INFO] checking pact-mock-service within range >= 3.5.0, < 4.0.0
2022/06/24 11:08:29 [ERROR] CLI tools are out of date, please upgrade before continuing
FAIL http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/consumer/client 0.002s```
When I run "sudo pact-mock-service version" it returns 3.10.0
I am following the https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/tree/step3 but stuck on the end of step3 and receiving the above issue. Any ideas?
matt.fellows
2022-06-25 07:48
is it possible that the version you?ve installed is not on the path that Pact go sees and there as an old version on the path somewhere?
matt.fellows
2022-06-25 07:54
Something like this should put the path of your known correct version as the default
```export PATH="<add folder containing your version here>:${PATH}"```
then
`go test ?`
matt.fellows
2022-06-27 13:07
It doesn?t use the standalone rust server, it uses the FFI lib. Why do you ask?
ringo
2022-06-27 13:15
Curiosity. As far as I?m following up from the sideline, I understood the FFI setup will be phased out, right?
ringo
2022-06-27 13:19
Then the misunderstanding is fully on my side. With moving to rust, I though I once read this would lower the need for FFI. My bad it remained stuck in my head.
matt.fellows
2022-06-27 22:24
Ah, the move to rust is primarily aiming to remove the Ruby core dependency. Is the FFI causing issues for you?
matt.fellows
2022-06-28 12:43
Attention Golang users - the latest 2.x.x is out (2.0.0-beta.13)! :rocket:
This is quite a big change from the past release, namely I?ve been thinking on the API design with the introduction of V4 and plugins.
Summary:
? V4 Pact support
? Support for synchronous messages
? Support for plugins (e.g. for gRPC support https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/tree/2.x.x/examples/grpc)
Because the API is more complex, i?ve used a type state builder pattern to force which options can be used at any point in time, and ensure that pre-requisite methods are called in sequence.
I?m still not 100% happy with the HTTP package layout (and requiring V2/V3/V4 prefixes on a number of types), so there might be another refactor in that space, but mainly I think it would just be the names of types and packages that could change.
I?ll tidy up the documentation over the next few days, but look to the examples folder in the short term if you?re wondering what?s changed.
I found refactoring the existing examples fairly straightforward, so I hope you do too.
Feedback welcome :pray:
yousafn
2022-06-28 12:50
Epic work Matt :rocket:
Is there a couple of reference PR's or commit refs that show the examples change delta, as that would form a great basis for an upgrade guide?
matt.fellows
2022-06-28 13:02
I have a migration guide from the previous major/stable, which I?ll update over the next few days.
matt.fellows
2022-06-28 13:03
I?m hopeful that with the new API, it should guide the users with the ?next step? and the refactor.
matt.fellows
2022-06-28 13:03
the types say ?ok you can do this next? and in some cases, it?s just one or two options. So once you have the starting point, the code writes itself :wink:
guillaume.camus
2022-06-29 13:29
Hi guys,
I have errors when I perform tests on the content type. And I don?t understand why! I have this message:
``` 2.1) includes header 'Content-Type' with value 'application/json; charset=utf-8'
Expected header 'Content-Type' to have value 'application/json; charset=utf-8' but was 'application/json; charset=utf-8'```
But for me the 2 strings are equal. How can I fix this?
matt.fellows
2022-06-30 00:58
strange. Given the error looks obviously confusing, we?re going to need more detail in order to look into this.
1. Logs (ideally at debug or trace level, which will contain the HTTP response from the provider we can inspect)
2. Code - consumer pact
ringo
2022-06-30 10:35
I have this near the end of a test I?m trying to write:
``` err = mockProvider.ExecuteTest(t, doTestCreateGithubRepo)```
With this as definition:
```var doTestCreateGithubRepo = func() func(config MockServerConfig) error {
return executeTestCreateGithubRepo("foo")
}()
var executeTestCreateGithubRepo = func(repo string) func(config MockServerConfig) error {
...
}```
I would like to have access to `t *testing.T` within `executeTestCreateGithubRepo` for the test logging functions. How can I do that?
matt.fellows
2022-06-30 11:11
I don?t think you need the `doTestCreateGithubRepo` function at all. I think you can just do something like this:
``` err = mockProvider.ExecuteTest(t, executeTestCreateGithubRepo("foo", t))```
and then
```var executeTestCreateGithubRepo = func(repo string, t *testing.T) func(config MockServerConfig) error {
...
}```
ringo
2022-06-30 13:20
How should I write that one property in a `Map` is another composite object (not array)?
```WithJSONBody(Map{
"id": Integer(1296269),
"node_id": S("MDEwOlJlcG9zaXRvcnkxMjk2MjY5"),
"name": S("foo"),
"full_name": S("theorg/foo"),
"owner": Map{
"login": S("theorg"),
},
})```
The above gives me an error on the line where I specify another `Map` for `owner`.
ringo
2022-06-30 13:27
```cannot use (Map literal) (value of type matchers.MapMatcher) as matchers.Matcher value in map literal: matchers.MapMatcher does not implement matchers.Matcher (missing method GetValue)compilerInvalidIfaceAssign```
matt.fellows
2022-07-05 22:56
If you want to put an object in there, you?ll need to use a more general data structure - e.g. an `map[string]interface{}` as the root object where the values are matchers or nested map structures
ravindra.dhaka
2022-07-06 07:14
@matt.fellows when i was runing in local machine its working fine but in gitlab ci/cd getting this error
```make consumer
#/builds/panamera/fcg/service/dapi/pact/bin run --no-config --deadline=10m --enable=misspell --enable=nakedret
--- ?Running Consumer Pact tests
go test -count=1 ./consumer/client -run 'TestClientPact'
go: finding http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go v1.7.1-0.20220627045253-94d333263e43
go: finding http://cloud.google.com/go v0.46.3
go: finding http://github.com/hashicorp/logutils v1.0.0
go: finding http://github.com/hashicorp/go-version v1.5.0
go: finding http://google.golang.org/api v0.13.0
go: finding http://github.com/stretchr/testify v1.7.4
go: finding http://github.com/gorilla/websocket v1.4.2
go: finding http://golang.org/x/net v0.0.0-20210226172049-e18ecbb05110
go: finding http://github.com/stretchr/objx v0.4.0
go: finding http://golang.org/x/crypto v0.0.0-20210921155107-089bfa567519
go: finding http://golang.org/x/text v0.3.3
go: finding http://github.com/gin-gonic/gin v1.7.7
go: finding http://gopkg.in/yaml.v3 v3.0.1
go: finding http://github.com/google/uuid v1.3.0
go: finding http://github.com/klauspost/compress v1.14.2
2022/07/06 05:25:48 [ERROR] service: /builds/panamera/fcg/service/dapi/pact/lib/ruby/bin/ruby: line 6: /builds/panamera/fcg/service/dapi/pact/lib/ruby/bin.real/ruby: No such file or directory
2022/07/06 05:25:58 [ERROR] Expected server to start < 10s. Timed out waiting for Mock Server to start on port 39773 - are you sure it's running?
2022/07/06 05:25:58 [ERROR] client: failed to wait for Mock Server: Expected server to start < 10s. Timed out waiting for Mock Server to start on port 39773 - are you sure it's running?
2022/07/06 05:25:58 Error on Verify: Post http://localhost:39773/interactions: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:39773: connect: connection refused
FAIL http://frontiercargroup.org/dealer/consumer/client 10.026s
FAIL
make: *** [Makefile:221: consumer] Error 1```
ravindra.dhaka
2022-07-06 07:14
MakeFile
```PACT := $(PWD)/pact/bin
$(PACT):
curl -sfL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/master/install.sh | sh -s -- -b $(GOPATH)/bin
.PHONY: pact
pact: $(PACT)
#$(PACT) run --no-config --deadline=10m --enable=misspell --enable=nakedret
.PHONY: consumer
consumer: pact
@echo "--- ?Running Consumer Pact tests "
go test -count=1 ./consumer/client -run 'TestClientPact'```
matt.fellows
2022-07-06 11:41
Just an FYI you don?t need to tag maintainers in the channels - we?re all here and we?ll answer when we can :slightly_smiling_face:
matt.fellows
2022-07-06 11:46
as per the issue you raised, we need some more detail.
You mentioned you?re running in docker - have you read https://docs.pact.io/docker ?
matt.fellows
2022-07-06 11:47
have you tried basic debugging within the container, to see if the CLI tools are properly installed?
ravindra.dhaka
2022-07-10 17:13
getting below error while running *make consumer*
```/builds/panamera/fcg/service/dapi/pact/lib/ruby/bin/ruby: line 6: /builds/panamera/fcg/service/dapi/pact/lib/ruby/bin.real/ruby: No such file or directory
2022/07/06 05:25:58 [ERROR] Expected server to start < 10s. Timed out waiting for Mock Server to start on port 39773 - are you sure it's running?
2022/07/06 05:25:58 [ERROR] client: failed to wait for Mock Server: Expected server to start < 10s. Timed out waiting for Mock Server to start on port 39773 - are you sure it's running?
2022/07/06 05:25:58 Error on Verify: Post http://localhost:39773/interactions: dial tcp 127.0.0.1:39```
matt.fellows
2022-07-10 21:38
Please stop addressing me directly or any maintainers unless requested. I have been traveling and so have not seen your messages, moreover we will see and respond to any message at our discretion and at a time convenient to us.
I have tried to be patient and have asked you several clarifying questions which you've not responded to, including on the several GitHub issues you've raised/commented on.
Please answer these first and we'll try to help.
eirikval
2022-07-11 15:31
Hello pact-go team, this may have been answered somewhere already and my channel and repo search terms may be off-point, but is there a timeline for the v.2.xx.xx release out of beta? I am doing some proof of concept work for my company, work which is moving rapidly. Stability is obviously a priority as we get more serious with it, so v1.xx.xx seems correct for now, but just getting a sense of a timeline for a stable release of v2.xx.xx, at your convenience. Cheers!
srinagasai.krishnasan
2022-07-11 15:37
so @matt.fellows, everything is ready for pact to support grpc for golang, right?
matt.fellows
2022-07-12 03:33
> is it safe to say that pact can talk over http 2.0?
It depends on what you mean by that
matt.fellows
2022-07-12 03:33
> , everything is ready for pact to support grpc for golang, right?
There is a beta branch (2.x.x) that is ready for testing, yes. There will likely be some API changes as we smooth it out, but the gRPC support is there and there is an example project you can base off
2022-07-12 08:24
This message was deleted.
guillaume.camus
2022-07-12 12:55
hello, I made this request :
```curl --location --request GET 'http://localhost:8080/api/v1/product/21' -vvv
Note: Unnecessary use of -X or --request, GET is already inferred.
* Trying ::1:8080...
* Connected to localhost (::1) port 8080 (#0)
> GET /api/v1/product/21 HTTP/1.1
> Host: localhost:8080
> User-Agent: curl/7.77.0
> Accept: */*
>
* Mark bundle as not supporting multiuse
< HTTP/1.1 200 OK
< Content-Type: application/json; charset=utf-8
< Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 12:51:27 GMT
< Content-Length: 88
<
* Connection #0 to host localhost left intact
{"id":21,"name":"foo 2","brand":"bar 2","price_incl_vat":23.125,"price_excl_tax":20.125}% ```
guillaume.camus
2022-07-12 13:00
@matt.fellows And here with TRACE,
```Verifying a pact between ms.pact-consumer-example-for-go.b2c and ms.pact-provider-example-for-go
Given The product with ID 21 exists
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [INFO] executing state handler middleware
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [TRACE] state handler received raw input {"action":"setup","params":{},"state":"The product with ID 21 exists"}
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [TRACE] state handler parsed input (without params) {setup The product with ID 21 exists map[]}
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [TRACE] state handler completed parsing input (with params) {setup The product with ID 21 exists map[params:map[]]}
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [TRACE] skipping state handler for request /api/v1/product/21
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [DEBUG] http reverse proxy received connection from [::1]:54332 on path /api/v1/product/21
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [DEBUG] setting proxy to target
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [DEBUG] incoming request /api/v1/product/21
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [DEBUG] outgoing request to target http://localhost:8080/api/v1/product/21
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [TRACE] proxy outgoing request
GET /api/v1/product/21 HTTP/1.1
Host: localhost:8080
User-Agent: Pact Go
Accept: */*
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
X-Forwarded-For: ::1
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [TRACE] proxied server response
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Length: 88
Content-Type: application/json; charset=utf-8
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 12:50:46 GMT
{"id":21,"name":"foo 2","brand":"bar 2","price_incl_vat":23.125,"price_excl_tax":20.125}
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [INFO] executing state handler middleware
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [TRACE] state handler received raw input {"action":"teardown","params":{},"state":"The product with ID 21 exists"}
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [TRACE] state handler parsed input (without params) {teardown The product with ID 21 exists map[]}
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [TRACE] state handler completed parsing input (with params) {teardown The product with ID 21 exists map[params:map[]]}
Given The product with ID 66 doesn't exists
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [INFO] executing state handler middleware
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [TRACE] state handler received raw input {"action":"setup","params":{},"state":"The product with ID 66 doesn't exists"}
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [TRACE] state handler parsed input (without params) {setup The product with ID 66 doesn't exists map[]}
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [TRACE] state handler completed parsing input (with params) {setup The product with ID 66 doesn't exists map[params:map[]]}
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [WARN] no state handler found for state: The product with ID 66 doesn't exists
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [TRACE] skipping state handler for request /api/v1/product/66
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [DEBUG] http reverse proxy received connection from [::1]:54336 on path /api/v1/product/66
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [DEBUG] setting proxy to target
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [DEBUG] incoming request /api/v1/product/66
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [DEBUG] outgoing request to target http://localhost:8080/api/v1/product/66
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [TRACE] proxy outgoing request
GET /api/v1/product/66 HTTP/1.1
Host: localhost:8080
User-Agent: Pact Go
Accept: */*
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
X-Forwarded-For: ::1
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [TRACE] proxied server response
HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
Content-Length: 2
Content-Type: application/json; charset=utf-8
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 12:50:46 GMT
{}
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [INFO] executing state handler middleware
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [TRACE] state handler received raw input {"action":"teardown","params":{},"state":"The product with ID 66 doesn't exists"}
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [TRACE] state handler parsed input (without params) {teardown The product with ID 66 doesn't exists map[]}
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [TRACE] state handler completed parsing input (with params) {teardown The product with ID 66 doesn't exists map[params:map[]]}
2022/07/12 14:50:46 [WARN] no state handler found for state: The product with ID 66 doesn't exists
a request Product 21
returns a response which
has status code 200 (OK)
includes headers
"Content-Type" with value "application/json; charset=utf-8" (FAILED)
has a matching body (OK)
a request Product 66
returns a response which
has status code 404 (OK)
includes headers
"Content-Type" with value "application/json; charset=utf-8" (FAILED)
has a matching body (OK)```
nuno.frias
2022-07-12 16:24
Hi all,
In `Pact-jvm` you have the option to define different matching rules for an attribute using the OR condition. I have recently gone through the rust codebase of the `libpact_ffi` library which is used by pact-go and I didn't see any support for `OR` matching rules, at least for Pact V3 and V4.
Is there any plan to introduce this feature?
This is kind of useful as i have to deal with some cases when an attribute may be null, but if it isn't it must obey a certain regex.
matt.fellows
2022-07-13 02:52
No, OR is really not recommended and will not be supported in other languages. See the docs for why we don't support optional attributes
matt.fellows
2022-07-13 02:54
Next couple of months. API is almost stable and any changes will be fairly minor leading into the major release
matt.fellows
2022-07-13 02:55
Can't give exact dates, but I'd recommended not using 1.x.x right now. Most future investment will be in the V2 line
ravindra.dhaka
2022-07-13 06:07
@bethskurrie @matt.fellows
```FROM alpine:3.5 AS base
RUN apk update && \
apk add --no-cache \
bc \
ruby \
ruby-bigdecimal \
ruby-bundler \
ruby-io-console \
libressl \
ca-certificates \
python3 \
g++ \
curl \
git \
make \
gcc \
nodejs \
openssl \
tzdata
RUN rm -rf /var/lib/apt/lists/*
RUN mkdir -p /srv/app
RUN mkdir -p $GOPATH/bin/pact
WORKDIR /srv/app
FROM golang:1.16.6-alpine3.13 AS build-env
RUN apk add --no-cache \
bc \
ca-certificates \
python3 \
g++ \
curl \
git \
make \
less \
groff \
gcc \
bash \
nodejs \
nodejs-npm \
openssl \
tzdata \
openssl \
tzdata
RUN curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/master/install.sh | sh -s -- -b $(GOPATH)/bin
# RUN curl -LO https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases/download/v1.88.78/pact-1.88.78-linux-x86_64.tar.gz; \
# tar xzf pact-1.88.78-linux-x86_64.tar.gz; \
# rm pact-1.88.78-linux-x86_64.tar.gz
RUN apk add --no-cache openssh
RUN apk add --no-cache --virtual build-dependencies build-base
RUN apk --no-cache add ca-certificates wget bash \
&& wget -q -O /etc/apk/keys/sgerrand.rsa.pub https://alpine-pkgs.sgerrand.com/sgerrand.rsa.pub \
&& wget https://github.com/sgerrand/alpine-pkg-glibc/releases/download/2.29-r0/glibc-2.29-r0.apk \
&& apk add glibc-2.29-r0.apk
SHELL ["/bin/bash", "-c"]
RUN go get http://golang.org/x/tools/cmd/cover
ENV CGO_ENABLED=0
ENV GO111MODULE=on
RUN curl -LO https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases/download/v1.88.78/pact-1.88.78-linux-x86_64.tar.gz; \
tar -C /usr/local -xzf pact-1.88.78-linux-x86_64.tar.gz; \
rm pact-1.88.78-linux-x86_64.tar.gz
ENV PATH /usr/local/pact/bin:$PATH ```
ravindra.dhaka
2022-07-13 06:09
when i am printing the os name in pipeline
```$ go version
go version go1.13.1 linux/amd64
$ uname -a
Linux runner-zq4mqcga-project-21507-concurrent-0 4.15.0-1057-aws #59-Ubuntu SMP Wed Dec 4 10:02:00 UTC 2019 x86_64 Linux
$ go mod vendor
$ echo $GOPATH
/go
$ echo $pwd```
ravindra.dhaka
2022-07-13 06:10
its `Linux runner-zq4mqcga-project-21507-concurrent-0 4.15.0-1057-aws #59-Ubuntu SMP Wed Dec 4 10:02:00 UTC 2019 x86_64 Linux`
matt.fellows
2022-07-14 20:38
I just built and ran that docker container, and the binary runs fine.
Please update your issues with step by step instructions that reproduce the problem
```docker run -it --rm --entrypoint bash test-pact
bash-5.1# /usr/local/pact/bin/pact-broker
/usr/local/pact/lib/ruby/lib/ruby/gems/2.2.0/gems/bundler-1.9.9/lib/bundler/shared_helpers.rb:78: warning: Insecure world writable dir /go/bin in PATH, mode 040777
Commands:
pact-broker can-i-deploy -a, --pacticipant=PACTICIPANT -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL #
pact-broker create-environment --name=NAME -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL # Create an environment resource in the Pact Broker to represent a real world deployment o...
pact-broker create-or-update-pacticipant --name=NAME -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL # Create or update pacticipant by name
pact-broker create-or-update-webhook URL --uuid=UUID -X, --request=METHOD -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL # Creates or updates a webhook with a provided uuid and using the same switches as a curl ...
pact-broker create-version-tag -a, --pacticipant=PACTICIPANT -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL -e, --version=VERSION # Add a tag to a pacticipant version
pact-broker create-webhook URL -X, --request=METHOD -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL # Creates a webhook using the same switches as a curl request.
pact-broker delete-environment --uuid=UUID -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL # Delete an environment
pact-broker describe-environment --uuid=UUID -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL # Describe an environment
pact-broker describe-pacticipant --name=NAME -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL # Describe a pacticipant
pact-broker describe-version -a, --pacticipant=PACTICIPANT -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL # Describes a pacticipant version. If no version or tag is specified, the latest version i...
pact-broker generate-uuid # Generate a UUID for use when calling create-or-update-webhook
pact-broker help [COMMAND] # Describe available commands or one specific command
pact-broker list-environments -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL # List environments
pact-broker list-latest-pact-versions -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL # List the latest pact for each integration
pact-broker list-pacticipants -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL # List pacticipants
pact-broker publish PACT_DIRS_OR_FILES ... -a, --consumer-app-version=CONSUMER_APP_VERSION -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL # Publish pacts to a Pact Broker.
pact-broker record-deployment --environment=ENVIRONMENT -a, --pacticipant=PACTICIPANT -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL -e, --version=VERSION # Record deployment of a pacticipant version to an environment. See https://docs.pact.io/g...
pact-broker record-release --environment=ENVIRONMENT -a, --pacticipant=PACTICIPANT -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL -e, --version=VERSION # Record release of a pacticipant version to an environment. See See https://docs.pact.io/...
pact-broker record-support-ended --environment=ENVIRONMENT -a, --pacticipant=PACTICIPANT -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL -e, --version=VERSION # Record the end of support for a pacticipant version in an environment. See https://docs....
pact-broker record-undeployment --environment=ENVIRONMENT -a, --pacticipant=PACTICIPANT -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL # Record undeployment of a pacticipant from an environment.
pact-broker test-webhook --uuid=UUID -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL # Test the execution of a webhook
pact-broker update-environment --uuid=UUID -b, --broker-base-url=BROKER_BASE_URL # Update an environment resource in the Pact Broker.
pact-broker version # Show the pact_broker-client gem version```
matt.fellows
2022-07-14 20:39
Also please, final warning - do not `@` any body unless prior requested. We monitor the channels as best we can, an additional notification is not going to get a faster response
je.alvinez
2022-07-20 11:51
hi pact-go team, apologies for the long question. thanks in advance for your help! :pray:
i've upgraded my `pact-go` to `v2.0.0-beta.14` and updated my consumer test to use Pact V4 such as replacing `NewV3Pact()` with `NewV4Pact()`.
i understand that Pact V4 adds a `key`https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/tree/version-4#interactions and its value seems to be some hash when i looked at its value in the pact generated when i ran my test. i'm guessing the hash is calculated using the `description`, `provider_states`, `request`, `response` and `pending` fields in https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/blob/9d30a4411dfab9f0993070ef34d2ea8bf8d28a6d/rust/pact_models/src/v4/synch_http.rs#L397
i ran my consumer test several times without changing the interactions. when i inspected the value of the `key` field in the pact file generated, i was surprised to see that its value changes between runs. should its value stay the same instead since the pact didn't change?
the pact broker thinks my consumer published a new pact, but it shouldn't be the case since i just generated again the same pact and published it without changing anything. i've attached a snippet of my simplified setup of the mock provider with interactions in this thread for reference.
je.alvinez
2022-07-20 11:55
when i tried removing the 3rd argument (request builder func) from `WithRequestPathMatcher()`, the `key` field's value in the pact generated stayed the same between runs though.
but this is not an option for me since i need that 3rd argument :sweat_smile:
matt.fellows
2022-07-20 22:21
Haha well it's expected to be used! Are you using any dynamic values, E.g. in the bearer token?
je.alvinez
2022-07-20 23:22
hey Matt! thanks for the reply. i'm not using any dynamic values in any of the matchers in the request builder of the interaction. for instance, the bearer token is set to just a constant string as in the snippet above :sweat_smile:
when i compared the generated pact json files between test runs, it's only the `key` value that's different. everything else is the same :sob:
matt.fellows
2022-07-20 23:44
If you could please raise an issue that reproduces the problem we can look into it
tarun.gulati1988
2022-07-21 18:49
Hey :wave: We are trying to use pact for creating contracts for kinesis events, the consumer listens for proto?s that are sent through.
We are creating matchers using similar code as below:
```WithContent(map[string]interface{}{
"moneyToMove": term(),
}).WithType(&myproto.MyProtoName)```
The issue we are running into is that the unmarshaller is not able to unmarshal to proto types. Is there some methods that can be overriden to achieve this? The error that we end up getting is:
```VerifyMessageConsumer failed: unable to narrow type to : json: cannot unmarshal string into Go struct field myproto.created_at of type timestamppb.Timestamp```
matt.fellows
2022-07-21 23:30
We actually do support protobufs in the latest https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/tree/2.x.x version. However I don?t have an example there for you yet (the gRPC is probably closest, if that?s what you need).
matt.fellows
2022-07-21 23:30
You can?t specify a custom unmarshaller, because we use a shared core that needs to be aware of it.
matt.fellows
2022-07-21 23:31
Support is via plugins, and specifically this https://github.com/pactflow/pact-protobuf-plugin/
sandy.oberoi
2022-07-22 00:17
thanks, we can look into integrating with 2.x.x. For our use-case we do not need gRPC as the events flow through kinesis
matt.fellows
2022-07-22 00:34
sorry, you did say kinesis - did I mention I just got back to Australia after a trip to US (aka I?m blaming jetlag :laughing: )
sandy.oberoi
2022-07-22 14:29
it seems we need the proto file to be available with this new approach. in our case we have the proto schema in a central place which is responsible for generating the models. in the project we just import the generated models. Also, the proto message refers to types in other proto files, not sure how to provide this to the plugin.
Any guidance on how to work with this setup?
matt.fellows
2022-07-25 00:32
At this stage we need the proto file at test time. I think tools exist to resolve references (e.g. buf.build). Could you download from the central place?
je.alvinez
2022-07-25 13:10
created https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/230. please let me know if you have any concerns about it. thanks! again! :pray:
sandy.oberoi
2022-07-25 19:48
thanks for the suggestion. We can download the proto files. Will look into other suggestion as well
mwilso29
2022-07-26 14:20
Hey does anyone know how to set the port for the mock server during the pact setup in golang?
matt.fellows
2022-07-26 22:48
In the 1.x.x branch you can set `AllowedMockServerPorts` but really it?s best practice to have it set dynamically (https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/dsl/pact.go#L88)
matt.fellows
2022-07-26 22:50
In 2.x.x you can just set `Port` on the relevant consumer entrypoint (e.g. https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/examples/consumer_v2_test.go#L40)
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/consumer/http.go#L69
mwilso29
2022-07-27 12:38
So our issue is that we are trying to run the pact mock server on a function that exists in a different package so we don't have access to the client object within that other package. What would be the best practice there? In the example here https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/blob/step3/consumer/client/client.go the client.go and test file are within the same package so the baseurl of the mock service can be passed into it easily.
mwilso29
2022-07-27 12:41
The function in the different package allows a string and a jwt value and we call a get httprequest within it. So we would look to update that URL to be the baseurl from the pact mock server. We are trying to hardcode the URL for POC testing but obviously having issues if we don't know which port it is going to be ran on
matt.fellows
2022-07-27 12:55
If you?re new to Pact, i?d look start straight away with the 2.x.x package, which is almost stable. You can specify a port in that.
matt.fellows
2022-07-27 12:55
Or you can used the `AllowedMockServerPorts` and just pass a single port for the 1.x.x
mwilso29
2022-07-28 12:52
The AllowedMockServerPorts does not work - when we set this it still selects a random port
mwilso29
2022-07-28 12:52
```func createPact() dsl.Pact {
return dsl.Pact{
Consumer: "car_config",
Provider: "vehicle_targeting",
LogDir: "/home/mwilso29/git/car-configuration/tests/contract/consumer/logs",
PactDir: "/home/mwilso29/git/car-configuration/tests/contract/consumer/pacts",
LogLevel: "INFO",
Host: "localhost",
AllowedMockServerPorts: "8111",
}
}```
hazem
2022-07-28 17:40
Question about 2.x.x. I'm trying out the latest beta and was wondering how to configure the `PactLogDir` for a provider verification. In the latest 1.7, the field is on `VerifyRequest` Is this still configurable?
robert.henzel
2022-07-28 19:53
Hey I'm using pact v2.x.x to write a contract test between two of my grpc services. Andfor consumer get such error:
```=== RUN TestGrpcInteraction
2022/07/28 21:46:13 [DEBUG] pact synchronous message validate config
2022/07/28 21:46:13 [DEBUG] initialising rust mock server interface
2022/07/28 21:46:13 [DEBUG] log_to_stdout res 0
proto: /home/robert/go/src/giltab.elona.com/elona/dev/rosi/module/card/pact_tests/consumer_tests/../../../secure/pb/service_modulesecure.proto
2022-07-28T19:46:13.789357Z ERROR ThreadId(01) pact_ffi::mock_server::handles: Interaction 0x10001 is not a message interaction, it is V4 Synchronous/Messages
2022-07-28T19:46:14.410508Z ERROR ThreadId(01) pact_ffi::plugins: Failed to call out to plugin - Request to configure interaction failed: Failed to process protobuf: Failed to invoke protoc binary: exit code exit status: 1
2022-07-28T19:46:14.411990Z ERROR ThreadId(01) pactffi_create_mock_server_for_transport{pact=PactHandle { pact_ref: 1 } addr=0x2248e10 port=0 transport=0x2248df0 transport_config=0x2248dd0}: pact_ffi::mock_server: Failed to start mock server - Mock server failed to start: Failed to start gRPC mock server: Pact file does not contain any Protobuf descriptors
2022/07/28 21:46:14 unable to start plugin transport: unable to start the mock server
FAIL command-line-arguments 0.628s
FAIL```
is it because the .proto file is not reachable
when I do
```cat /home/robert/go/src/giltab.elona.com/elona/dev/rosi/module/card/pact_tests/consumer_tests/../../../secure/pb/service_modulesecure.proto ```
it prints the protofile.
matt.fellows
2022-07-28 22:57
There is no option to log to file in the 2.x.x line, hence why that field doesn?t exist
matt.fellows
2022-07-28 22:58
> Failed to invoke protoc binary: exit code exit status: 1
I?m not sure if this is the cause, but it seems to not be able to run the `protoc` binary.
matt.fellows
2022-07-28 22:58
There should also be logginsg at the plugin level that may indicate what is going on.
matt.fellows
2022-07-28 22:59
In your ~/.pact/plugins directory there should be the installed protobuf plugin. Please double check the permissions there and ensure the binary can run.
matt.fellows
2022-07-28 22:59
The framework attempts to automatically install protoc if it doesn?t exist, this may have failed also
robert.henzel
2022-07-29 06:37
Funny thing happend. When I regenerated the proto file with name `servicemodulesecure.proto` instead of `service_modulesecure.proto` I could reach it and the `protoc` binary was invoked. At first I thought that it cannot parse `_` from path but after I changed it back to `service_modulesecure.proto` it alswo worked. :confused:
Edit: I think the permissions are all right because I was able to run the tests from `pact-go/examples/grpc` directory without problems.
robert.henzel
2022-07-29 12:13
What if a providers grpc handler calls another grpc method (provider is a consumer here e.g crypt service). How can I test provider in that case. Right now I have it mocked but it does not work.
robert.henzel
2022-07-29 12:14
```1) Verifying a pact between module-card and module-secure - Secure Module - GetSecureDetails - Verification failed with an error - Failed to verify the request: transport error
There were 1 pact failures
=== RUN TestGrpcProvider/Provider_pact_verification
plugin_verifier.go:56: the verifier failed to successfully verify the pacts, this indicates an issue with the provider API
=== CONT TestGrpcProvider
get_card_secure_details_test.go:129:
Error Trace: get_card_secure_details_test.go:129
Error: Received unexpected error:
the verifier failed to successfully verify the pacts, this indicates an issue with the provider API
Test: TestGrpcProvider
controller.go:269: missing call(s) to *mock_pb.MockHsmModuleServiceClient.DecryptPin(is anything, is equal to pinBlock:"567891234567" pan:"1234567891234567" keyGroup:"visa" (*modulehsm.DecryptPinRequest)) /home/robert/go/src/gitlab.elona.com/elona/dev/rosi/module/secure/pact_tests/provider_tests/get_card_secure_details_test.go:81
controller.go:269: aborting test due to missing call(s)
--- FAIL: TestGrpcProvider (10.51s)
--- FAIL: TestGrpcProvider/Provider_pact_verification (0.00s)
FAIL```
matt.fellows
2022-07-29 12:27
The failure seems to be because your code is not calling the downstream service, which is currently mocked. I can't say much more because I don't know your code, but mocking/stubbing is totally reasonable here and is what I'd recommend
guillaume.camus
2022-07-29 13:43
hi, when i try to install pact with `pact-go -l DEBUG install` , I have some errors
```2022/07/29 13:40:25 [INFO] package libpact_ffi not found
2022/07/29 13:40:25 [INFO] downloading library from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases/download/libpact_ffi-v0.3.2/libpact_ffi-linux-x86_64.so.gz to /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.so
2022/07/29 13:40:27 [ERROR] Your Pact library installation is out of date and we were unable to download a newer one for you: open /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.so: permission denied
make: *** [Makefile:13: install] Error 1 ```
How I could fix this ?
robert.henzel
2022-07-29 14:32
you have to change the permissions of /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.so file
robert.henzel
2022-08-03 17:47
How to run pact-go@v2.x.x in container? The grpc plugin needs bunch of files.
yousafn
2022-08-03 19:45
Assuming looking at the output that this is an alpine container?
I believe it isn't supported https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-net/issues/387#issuecomment-1114365283
You could try a debian stretch which should have all the necessary deps
robert.henzel
2022-08-03 19:50
Yes, it's alpine. I tried in on golang:latest and it worked, only had change the binding address. Thanks for the link I figured out I have to build new docker image for pact tests in Ci. Thank for the tip about deban strech.
yousafn
2022-08-03 19:52
Fab mate, did you find this page in our docs at all?
https://docs.pact.io/docker#alpine-linux
it is where we will update to state for v3 users , the warning about Alpine, as I imagine it will come up a bit.
I wonder if we could actually detect if its running in a container and that container is alpine and put a note to the user, so you wouldn't have to go searching
robert.henzel
2022-08-03 19:56
Sadly no, I haven't gotten to the docker section yet. I just started to implement it in container as I just succeed to make the test work on my local machine.
Yes, some kind of prompt would be nice.
matt.fellows
2022-08-05 00:57
> I wonder if we could actually detect if its running in a container and that container is alpine and put a note to the user, so you wouldn?t have to go searching
We could do that in the `pact-go install` command. Unfortunately, trying to run the tests is too late with golang (it needs to be able to link to the shared library before the Go code can run, which is obviously too late)
edouard.lopez
2022-08-05 09:58
Hello, on your `v2.0.0-beta.14` branch, in https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/v2.0.0-beta.14/examples/consumer_v3_test.go#L89 you do:
``` ExecuteTest(t, test)```
Where does the `test` come from?
matt.fellows
2022-08-05 10:19
That's the unit test you define to make sure your code does what it says it does.
hazem
2022-08-25 16:23
It's possible there might be a bug with libpact_ffi install on mac M1. I dont have an M1 laptop but one of my developers experienced a similar issue reported in this thread https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9UTHTFFB/p1654172034425639.
Following the instructions https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/tree/2.x.x#installation, the error reported on M1 was:
```ld: can't open file, errno=13 file '/usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.dylib' for architecture arm64
clang: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation) ```
A work around was to manually download the file relating to https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases/download/libpact_ffi-v0.3.8/libpact_ffi-osx-aarch64-apple-darwin.dylib.gz and unzip into `/usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.dylib` . These were steps noted in the output during install.
matt.fellows
2022-08-25 21:44
If I can get a reliable big report that would help. I use M1 exclusively now but on Rosetta mode (because there are just so many inconveniences otherwise)
hazem
2022-08-25 21:53
if this was a reply for https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9UTHTFFB/p1661444633201449, then what sort of information would be help?
eg, what a big report?
> If I can get a reliable big report that would help.
matt.fellows
2022-08-25 22:28
I think:
? A dump of the go environment
? A report of what the `pact go install` command returns with verbose enabled (try removing the `~/.pact` dir and any existing lib)
? Try also a `file /use/local/lib/libpact_ffi.dylib`
hazem
2022-08-25 23:21
hey matt, i'll write up some instructions for our developer to try and reproduce.
however, while running on my mac, i noticed this error
```2022/08/25 16:18:11 [ERROR] Your Pact library installation is out of date and we were unable to download a newer one for you: open /Users/me/.pact/pact-go.yml: permission denied```
curious if this https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/bb647dd3be75d4fffdae10941a77eee012464267/installer/installer.go#L423 s/b `0755` instead. i dont think this relates to the underlying problem tho. just an annoying error instead
hazem
2022-08-26 00:12
here's some more info without having rerun pact go install
```####
go env
GO111MODULE="on"
GOARCH="arm64"
GOBIN=""
GOCACHE="/Users/dev/Library/Caches/go-build"
GOENV="/Users/dev/Library/Application Support/go/env"
GOEXE=""
GOEXPERIMENT=""
GOFLAGS=""
GOHOSTARCH="arm64"
GOHOSTOS="darwin"
GOINSECURE=""
GOMODCACHE="/Users/dev/go/pkg/mod"
GONOPROXY="http://bitbucket.org/dev/*,bitbucket.org/dev/*export"
GONOSUMDB="http://bitbucket.org/acme/*,bitbucket.org/dev/*export"
GOOS="darwin"
GOPATH="/Users/dev/go"
GOPRIVATE="http://bitbucket.org/acme/*,bitbucket.org/dev/*export"
GOPROXY="https://proxy.golang.org,direct"
GOROOT="/opt/homebrew/Cellar/go@1.17/1.17.11/libexec"
GOSUMDB="http://sum.golang.org"
GOTMPDIR=""
GOTOOLDIR="/opt/homebrew/Cellar/go@1.17/1.17.11/libexec/pkg/tool/darwin_arm64"
GOVCS=""
GOVERSION="go1.17.11"
GCCGO="gccgo"
AR="ar"
CC="clang"
CXX="clang++"
CGO_ENABLED="1"
GOMOD="/Users/dev/code/fun-engine/go.mod"
CGO_CFLAGS="-g -O2"
CGO_CPPFLAGS=""
CGO_CXXFLAGS="-g -O2"
CGO_FFLAGS="-g -O2"
CGO_LDFLAGS="-g -O2"
PKG_CONFIG="pkg-config"
GOGCCFLAGS="-fPIC -arch arm64 -pthread -fno-caret-diagnostics -Qunused-arguments -fmessage-length=0 -fdebug-prefix-map=/var/folders/9d/j7s32bkx70j85cchpy1fvdvc0000gn/T/go-build945175549=/tmp/go-build -gno-record-gcc-switches -fno-common"
####
sudo file /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.dylib
/usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.dylib: Mach-O 64-bit dynamically linked shared library arm64```
hazem
2022-08-26 00:13
curious what's the best way to re-run the install? is this good
```rm -rf ~/.pact && pact-go -v -l DEBUG install```
hazem
2022-08-26 17:20
more info on install
```rm -rf ~/.pact && pact-go -v -l DEBUG install -f
2022/08/26 09:59:16 [INFO] downloading library from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases/download/libpact_ffi-v0.3.8/libpact_ffi-osx-aarch64-apple-darwin.dylib.gz to /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.dylib
2022/08/26 09:59:17 [ERROR] Your Pact library installation is out of date and we were unable to download a newer one for you: open /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.dylib: permission denied```
dylib file info
```ls -l /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.dylib
-rw------- 1 root wheel 19531936 Aug 25 10:39 /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.dylib```
and
```stat -f %A /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.dylib
600```
my none m1 mac is `622`
matt.fellows
2022-08-27 12:09
Strange that `/usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.dylib` is root - `/usr/local/lib` is editable by me on my M1 and I?m positive I haven?t changed those perms from the default.
Did you run the install with `sudo` or manually drop the file there?
matt.fellows
2022-08-27 12:09
It looks like it couldn?t overwrite the existing library.
I think you?re right in that the perm need adjusting though.
matt.fellows
2022-08-27 12:10
Also I was hopinsg for a `file` on the dylib so I could see what the architecture etc. was, but I think it won?t be too helpful until we?ve removed the existing file and reliably can get pact-go to install it for you
hazem
2022-08-29 17:12
the instructions i passed off to developers did not include `sudo`, they have since tried using that as well
hazem
2022-08-29 17:14
yeah, i think re-install is somewhat a separate but tangentially related issue. the initial issue is after original install the error is ` can't open file, errno=13 file '/usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.dylib' for architecture arm64`
hazem
2022-09-01 19:28
:wave::skin-tone-4: not sure if there's some sort of mismatch issue for my build ci image, but i keep hitting an issue. see thread for details.
hazem
2022-09-01 19:30
```/usr/bin/ld: $WORK/b514/_x004.o: in function `_cgo_4d7c60128d63_Cfunc_pactffi_with_header_v2':
/tmp/go-build/cgo-gcc-prolog:328: undefined reference to `pactffi_with_header_v2'
/usr/bin/ld: $WORK/b514/_x004.o: in function `_cgo_4d7c60128d63_Cfunc_pactffi_with_query_parameter_v2':
/tmp/go-build/cgo-gcc-prolog:384: undefined reference to `pactffi_with_query_parameter_v2'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status @```
it seems to coincide with this https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/commit/2e09eb70615706397bd911dfb79d793ba2cf0ed4, and downgrading the module to the commit prior resolves the issue.
matt.fellows
2022-09-01 22:59
You'll need to get the latest FFI, it has a new versioned method to use.
matt.fellows
2022-09-01 23:02
You can set `LD_DEBUG=all` and it should show you what library it is loading from
matt.fellows
2022-09-08 13:45
this error says your provider test `func` returned an error - you?ll need to look at that error (Pact returns it to the test for you to handle)
yousafn
2022-09-08 14:03
Hi @snehasingh291506
please note our guidelines for asking for support questions in Slack
https://docs.pact.io/help/how_to_ask_for_help
It is quite difficult to help without full context and a screenshot and the audience is made up on primarily community users whose time is precious :thumbsup:
snehasingh291506
2022-09-09 00:39
Need Clarification on this:
According to the Pact-Go instructions, we must have our provider API running in the background in order to perform provider verification. Additionally, I could see in the example that there is code to start the server as well as for the API handler. However, in one of the videos I watched about adding provider verification in go, the person didn't set up a mock server. I'm confused. Do we need to set up a mock server in the test.go file for provider verification, or could I just leave my backend server running in the background and pact will pull API details from the contract, make the request, and validate the response received against what we have in the contract since we are providing pactUrls in the pact.VerifyProvider or something else?
matt.fellows
2022-09-09 02:08
> could I just leave my backend server running in the background and pact will pull API details from the contract, make the request, and validate the response received against what we have in the contract since we are providing pactUrls in the pact.VerifyProvider or something else? (
Yes exactly, this is what you do for the provider test.
matt.fellows
2022-09-09 02:09
Start your local provider and point Pact at it, and tell Pact where to find the contracts (e.g. from local files, but more likely from a Pact Broker / Pactflow)
matt.fellows
2022-09-09 05:58
There is a go workshop available and examples if you?d like to look at those
2022-09-09 05:59
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
snehasingh291506
2022-09-09 06:36
just curious though, why are starting the server and adding api route handler in the below example.. could you please clarify that?
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/examples/provider_test.go
snehasingh291506
2022-09-09 06:38
this is the same route they have mocked in https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/examples/consumer_test.go
matt.fellows
2022-09-09 06:38
> just curious though, why are starting the server and adding api route handler in the below example.. could you please clarify that?
in that example, that _is_ the API provider. You have to run the provider for the pact test to work
matt.fellows
2022-09-09 06:39
the consumer needs that route to work, which is why it?s in the consumer test
matt.fellows
2022-09-09 06:40
1. Write a unit test of your Consumer API client, using Pact to mock the provider
2. This should generate a pact file, which you should upload to a pact broker / Pactflow
3. Write a provider test that fetches the pacts, and replays the request against your real provider (running locally, stubbing out dependencies)
hazem
2022-09-12 18:19
Does the _Auto-generate matchers from struct tags_ documented https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/docs/consumer.md#auto-generate-matchers-from-struct-tags support injecting _FromProviderState_?
I really like both of these features and opt to always use the Auto-generate, but in cases where I need to inject the provider state then I just go old school. Curious if this is supported and if not what would it take?
matt.fellows
2022-09-13 00:07
It could probably be added, but I think the struct tags would end up getting so complicated they would end up a first class language in themselves
matt.fellows
2022-09-13 00:08
You could take a look and propose an API though. I could imagine a `fromProviderState` component that would override the others perhaps?
nickm
2022-09-20 16:29
Hey all? curious if the v2 beta is close to stable/ready to go, and if people are using it without issues. We desperately need to get off of the Ruby tooling, but I can?t just swap one set of problems my team is having for a whole new set :lol: It doesn?t appear there?s been much activity the past couple months, but not sure if that?s because it?s stable or just contributor time constraints.
matt.fellows
2022-09-21 00:10
there is a branch off the side of the 2.x.x branch which is finalising the plugins interface, as well as the async/sync messaging for V4 pact support.
A few of the interfaces are changing as we work through user feedback etc.
matt.fellows
2022-09-21 00:10
if you?re not using Plugins or sync messages (V4 spec), it?ll probably be mostly OK
dkwak
2022-09-26 06:31
Using `pact-go v2.0.0-beta-14` on macOS.
Two questions:
1) Is there something special I have to do to generate a pact file with multiple interactions for a given consumer? I have a consumer test with 3 cases that pass, but the pact file only seems to have the last interaction in the file
2) Is there something special I have to do to generate an interaction entry for a case that returns an error? I have a `404` test case, and the client under test responds to `404` by returning an error, which I check in my test (using the `testify/assert.Error` function). This test passes yet doesn?t generate an interaction in a pact file, even when the test is the only one executed.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
matt.fellows
2022-09-26 07:25
1. No, it should just append. do you have anything setup to clear the pact file prior to writing to it? Do the `debug` level logs indicate any reason as to why? It?s possible if you use the same description + state it will be overwritten
2. No, it should work as per any other test
Could you please share your test so we can see?
dkwak
2022-09-26 22:50
Thanks for the response, it was helpful.
re: #1, it was indeed the ?UponReceiving? statement that was duplicated that was leading to overwritten interactions, so I was able to address that issue.
re: #2, it seems that ?not returning? an error upon a `404` response for the client library resulted in the interaction being recorded. Is there another way to write my test to work with the existing client (I don?t own that code) AND work with `pact-go`? I?m a total noob to `golang` so I am quite unfamiliar with what is acceptable or not.
a code snippet of the issue
```t.Run("404test", func(t *testing.T) {
// mockProvider is instance of consumer.NewV2Pact
mockProvider.
AddInteraction().
Given("resource does not exist")).
UponReceiving("GET for resource").
WithRequest(<GET request>).
WillRespondWith(404)
}
err = mockProvider.ExecuteTest(t, func(config consumer.MockServerConfig) error {
var client Client
client = Client{
ServiceURL: fmt.Sprintf("http://%s:%d", config.Host, config.Port),
<additional client config>
}
_, err := client.GetCall(<params>)
assert.Error(t, err)
return err
})
assert.Error(t, err)
})```
matt.fellows
2022-09-27 01:14
For #2 the `ExecuteTest` function accepts a user defined test. If the test errors (i.e. the test did not work as expected) you should return an error. If the error is expected, you should test for that.
I can see you are doing an `assert.Error(?)` . That?s probably correct, albeit you might want to check the type of that error, because it could potentially fail for other reasons and give you a false positive.
I would `return nil` in the case there is no issue with your test, and the assertions are correct.
Best to talk to somebody who knows this code better though to ensure what is being tested here is correct and valid
dkwak
2022-09-27 02:38
thanks for the explanation. i?ll go talk with the code owners to see what can be modified. I appreciate the support here.
edouard.lopez
2022-10-03 10:19
The v1.x.x docs for Golang says https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/go/readme#pending-pacts and WIP Pact work only on PactFlow, is it still the case?
> _NOTE_: This feature is currently only available on https://pactflow.io
sam.tavakoli
2022-10-19 13:18
Hello :wave:
The https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go README mentioned that the support for async interaction is experimental. Why is it considered to be experimental and is there anything to read about it?
matt.fellows
2022-10-19 13:43
Ah, that text should definitely be removed now. Thanks for spotting, I can remove tomorrow (or feel free to send a PR if you're so inclined)
sam.tavakoli
2022-10-19 13:48
Does `pact-go` have support for V4 of the specification for the sync message feature using Rust stand alone server?
jason.taylor2
2022-11-01 22:33
trying to follow the v4 example consumer for 2.x.x but can?t seem to get the matcher to work. it seems to want to do an exact match on the request no matter which matcher I select. this is in my WithRequest block:
```Header("Authorization", matchers.Like("Bearer 111.222.333")).```
and get this error running the consumer test:
```2022/11/01 22:28:59 [INFO] pact validation failed, errors:
Mismatch with header 'Authorization': Expected 'Bearer 111.222.333' to be equal to 'Bearer aaa.bbb.ccc'
: expected: Bearer 111.222.333
actual: Bearer aaa.bbb.ccc```
here is the CLI:
```~/go/bin/pact-go version
Pact Go CLI v2.0.0-beta.14```
hazem
2022-11-01 23:26
curious if this is a bug with `atLeastOneLike` . in my case i see body match fail for a fields response array mentioning index 0 and 2 failed to match but not index 1. so in reality at least one matched but the test still failed on the pact-go provider.
hazem
2022-11-01 23:28
```1.1) has a matching body
$.events[2].data.image -> Actual map is missing the following keys: imageUrl
$.events[0] -> Actual map is missing the following keys: appointment
$.events[0].data.image -> Actual map is missing the following keys: imageUrl
$.events[2] -> Actual map is missing the following keys: appointment```
matt.fellows
2022-11-01 23:36
the above errors are saying that some of the objects in the array are missing key elements
hazem
2022-11-01 23:38
yeah, that's seems to be how it works then... although the name is kind of confusing, `atLeastOneLike`. thanks for the quick reply.
jason.taylor2
2022-11-02 19:39
seeing same thing when using V3. for v3 matchers and injection from provider state callbacks should I be instead using the pact-go 1.7.0 version?
jason.taylor2
2022-11-02 21:32
@matt.fellows for 1.7, i see some code in message.go with provider state params, but not seeing references anywhere else. am i missing something?
jason.taylor2
2022-11-02 21:49
ah - looks like the callbacks are tied to v3 generators? so would need to stick with 2.x.x. so just need to sort out how to get the matcher to work
jason.taylor2
2022-11-03 14:07
after reinstalling things looks like v3 matchers are working as expected with 2.x.x
grace.quek
2022-11-03 16:31
@vladislav.ledniov - here is where you can post your questions about Go integration.
matt.fellows
2022-11-04 02:04
sorry, was late to this party, but looks like you?ve sorted it. You?re right though,only 2.x.x supports the callbacks
vladislav.ledniov
2022-11-07 08:54
good time of the day everybody !
I?m having some troubles launching Provider tests on golang, specifically, I?m getting a message that my Pact CLI is out of date:
```2022/11/07 08:46:42 [INFO] checking pact-mock-service within range >= 3.5.0, < 4.0.0
2022/11/07 08:46:42 [ERROR] CLI tools are out of date, please upgrade before continuing```
from my `go.mod`:
```http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go v1.7.0```
I?m seeing that 2.x.x version is still in beta, so want to try Pact with a stable version first before doing a transition to 2.x.x.
vladislav.ledniov
2022-11-07 09:06
I?m launching PactFlow tests on PR creation / pushed via CircleCI, here?s the dependency installation step form Makefile:
```pact-dependencies:
echo "--- ? Installing Pact CLI dependencies";\
curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/master/install.sh | bash;
export PATH=$(PATH):/opt/pact/bin```
matt.fellows
2022-11-07 09:08
That `install.sh` script doesn?t put the files in `/opt/pact/bin` it extracts the files into the current working directory. So you would end up with `/<cwd>/pact/bin` at the end of it.
matt.fellows
2022-11-07 09:09
so you could simply change the last line (that exports the PATH) to use `$PWD` in place of `/opt`
vladislav.ledniov
2022-11-07 09:11
okay okay, thank you, let me try and update these steps on my side :thankyou:
jason.taylor2
2022-11-16 14:25
any chance VerifyPluginRequest will be getting support for StateHandlers and RequestFilter in the near future?
matt.fellows
2022-11-17 00:44
Yes. I have a branch that actually will amalgamate the verifier into an all in one verifier
mwilso29
2022-11-19 16:09
Hi Matt thanks a lot for this it resolved my issues locally. I am now seeing this when running it in the gitlab runner in my pipeline. Do you know what I would need to export the PATH to be within the pipeline? / Where does the pact binary get installed in a gitlab runner?
matt.fellows
2022-11-21 07:10
> Hi Matt thanks a lot for this it resolved my issues locally. I am now seeing this when running it in the gitlab runner in my pipeline. Do you know what I would need to export the PATH to be within the pipeline? / Where does the pact binary get installed in a gitlab runner?
If you?re running that bash script, it?s relative to the current working directory. So wherever the default `$PWD` is
github2
2022-12-07 20:21
The GitHub user https://github.com/bethesque has signed out.
Use the following command/s to recreate subscriptions
/github subscribe pact-foundation/pact-go
jason.taylor2
2022-12-08 21:11
latest update to pact-go 2.x.x seems to have issues retrieving pacts from the broker:
```[2022-12-08T19:55:52.829Z] 2022-12-08T19:55:49.588545Z INFO ThreadId(03) pact_verifier::pact_broker: Fetching path '/' from pact broker
[2022-12-08T19:55:52.829Z] 2022-12-08T19:55:49.611054Z INFO ThreadId(03) pact_verifier::pact_broker: Fetching path '/pacts/provider/provider/for-verification' from pact broker
[2022-12-08T19:55:52.829Z] 2022-12-08T19:55:49.617698Z WARN ThreadId(03) pact_verifier: Ignoring no pacts error - Could not load pacts from the pact broker ```
jason.taylor2
2022-12-08 21:19
sure - how do i enable extra logging? i am making the SetLogLevel to trace but i think this is down inside the pactffi_verifier_execute call?
jason.taylor2
2022-12-08 21:37
also for 2.x.x the provider state doesn?t seem to be getting put into the contract and i don?t see the state handlers getting called for gRPC - opened https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/253
jason.taylor2
2022-12-08 22:24
tx, much more detail in the output with that. as expected it seems to not be using the Provider param from the VerifyRequest and is just sending ?provider? for that name so the url ends up provider/provider:
```2022-12-08T22:17:00.954892Z DEBUG ThreadId(01) pact_ffi::verifier::handle: Pact source to verify = PactBrokerWithDynamicConfiguration(https://redacted.com, provider_name='provider', enable_pending=false, include_wip_since=None, provider_tags=[], provider_branch=Some(""), consumer_version_selectors='[ConsumerVersionSelector { consumer: None, tag: None, fallback_tag: None, latest: None, deployed_or_released: None, deployed: None, released: None, environment: None, main_branch: Some(true), branch: None, matching_branch: None }], auth=None')```
jason.taylor2
2022-12-08 22:52
and one more 2.x.x issue - the HTTP request filter seems to no longer be getting called: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/254
jason.taylor2
2022-12-12 13:52
opened an issue for this:
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/256
varnit.garg2424
2022-12-23 07:53
Hi, we use https://github.com/onsi/ginkgo testing library to write unit tests! Would it be compatible with pact-go?
matt.fellows
2022-12-23 08:12
Hmmmm good question. I think it mostly is, but the verification process currently accepts a testing.T type.
Does ginkgo wrap that or is it completely separate?
matt.fellows
2022-12-23 08:13
I think we expose the raw variant which could be wrapped by ginkgo otherwise
varnit.garg2424
2022-12-30 02:55
Thanks for the response! Yep, realised that raw variant is already exposed and that should work out of the box:slightly_smiling_face:
will
2023-01-03 11:54
Hey Pact folks, and happy new year! I?ve followed the README for pact-go that talks about installing the standalone CLI tools, and adding their location to the PATH var. I?ve also cloned the `pact-workshop-go` repo, and if i run `make consumer` in there, everything runs okay, and the contract is generated, but I?ve tried doing the same thing for one of our own services, and whenever I try to run the consumer test there, I get an error saying that the CLI tools are out of date. Currently running on an M1 Mac. I?ve since tried using the `pactfoundation/pact-cli` docker image, and that seems to at least read the test, but just wondering if there?s anything obvious I?ve missed from the standalone CLI installation, or what the recommended setup would be for an M1 Mac.
matt.fellows
2023-01-03 23:18
First up, I'd recommend jumping straight to the 2.x.x release. It's close to stable now and has more features and better support
matt.fellows
2023-01-03 23:24
The fact the workshop project works tells me it's likely you haven't got the tools properly added to the path and the runtime is unable to find the binaries.
But with 2.x.x there is no dependency on the standalone (which won't natively run on M1 outside of Rosetta, btw).
The docker image can then be used for publishing etc (albeit really that's a CI only thing anyway)
will
2023-01-04 09:30
Thanks a lot Matt, appreciate your help, will take a gander at the 2.x.x releases and see where I get to.
jason.taylor2
2023-01-04 15:59
looks like a regression in the gRPC provider verification with the 2.x.x branch:
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/260
vika.karman
2023-01-05 10:46
Hello! I've got a question regarding request/response bodies matching. In my consumer test I describe interaction this way:
``` body := waveplanner.CreateWavePlanBody{
Waves: []waveplanner.Wave{
{
CutoffTime: "04:00",
FromTime: "10:00",
ToTime: "15:59",
},
{
CutoffTime: "12:00",
FromTime: "16:00",
ToTime: "20:59",
},
{
CutoffTime: "16:00",
FromTime: "21:00",
ToTime: "09:59",
},
},
}
created := waveplanner.CreateWavePlanResponse{
ID: uuid.NewString(),
MfcID: mfc,
CreatedBy: "user-id",
Waves: []waveplanner.WaveItem{
{
ID: uuid.NewString(),
CutoffTime: "04:00",
FromTime: "10:00",
ToTime: "15:59",
Schedules: []waveplanner.ScheduleItem{},
},
{
ID: uuid.NewString(),
CutoffTime: "12:00",
FromTime: "16:00",
ToTime: "20:59",
Schedules: []waveplanner.ScheduleItem{},
},
{
ID: uuid.NewString(),
CutoffTime: "16:00",
FromTime: "21:00",
ToTime: "09:59",
Schedules: []waveplanner.ScheduleItem{},
},
},
}
mockProvider.
AddInteraction().
Given(fmt.Sprintf("retailer %s, mfc %s exists", retailer, mfc)).
UponReceiving(fmt.Sprintf("a request to post wave plan for for retailer %s mfc %s", retailer, mfc)).
WithRequest(http.MethodPost, fmt.Sprintf("/v1/retailers/%s/mfcs/%s/wavePlan", retailer, mfc), func(b *consumer.V4RequestBuilder) {
b.
Headers(matchers.HeadersMatcher{
"X-Env-Type": {matchers.Like("env")},
"X-Token": {matchers.Like("token")},
"Content-Type": {matchers.S("application/json")},
}).
JSONBody(matchers.Like(body))
}).
WillRespondWith(http.StatusCreated, func(repsb *consumer.V4ResponseBuilder) {
repsb.
Headers(matchers.HeadersMatcher{
"Content-Type": {matchers.S("application/json")},
}).
JSONBody(matchers.Like(created))
})```
running the test I get pact created, with these matching rules for _request/response bodies_:
```"matchingRules": {
"body": {
"$": {
"combine": "AND",
"matchers": [
{
"match": "type"
}
]
}
},```
and of course the pact contains request /response body content.
My question is: does this matchingRule means that on Provider verification stage the request/response body example will be used as a source of expected request format?
Before this I was using the older pact version and used _*Body: dsl.Like(map[string]interface{}{})*_ way of describing expected response format, which produced exact matching rules per field.
yousafn
2023-01-06 13:13
Yes I believe so, it will look at every node in your response given by the provider and check that is matches the type specified in the interaction response
Do you have a copy of the matchers generated from your older test? I assume they are v2.0.0 not v3? v4 is shown in your example
vika.karman
2023-01-07 19:04
Right..so this piece of code:
```Body: dsl.Like(map[string]interface{}{
"code": dsl.Term(code, uuidMatcher),
"mfc-id": dsl.Like("D02"),
"complete-at": dsl.Timestamp(),
"started-at": dsl.Timestamp(),
"picked-at": dsl.Timestamp(),
"closed-at": dsl.Timestamp(),
"cutoffs": dsl.EachLike(dsl.Timestamp(), 1),
"status": dsl.Term("SPLIT", "INCOMPLETE|NEW|SPLIT|PROGRESS|COMPLETE"),
"type": dsl.Term("PRELIM", "PRELIM|DELTA"),
"zone": dsl.Term("STORE", "STORE|OSR|MANUAL"),
"total-lines": dsl.Like(10),
"total-lines-complete": dsl.Like(9),
"total-units": dsl.Like(30),
"total-units-picked": dsl.Like(25),
"out-of-stock-units": dsl.Like(1),
}),```
generates these matching rules for response body:
```"matchingRules": {
"$.body": {
"match": "type"
},
"$.body.closed-at": {
"match": "regex",
"regex": "^([\\+-]?\\d{4}(?!\\d{2}\\b))((-?)((0[1-9]|1[0-2])(\\3([12]\\d|0[1-9]|3[01]))?|W([0-4]\\d|5[0-2])(-?[1-7])?|(00[1-9]|0[1-9]\\d|[12]\\d{2}|3([0-5]\\d|6[1-6])))([T\\s]((([01]\\d|2[0-3])((:?)[0-5]\\d)?|24\\:?00)([\\.,]\\d+(?!:))?)?(\\17[0-5]\\d([\\.,]\\d+)?)?([zZ]|([\\+-])([01]\\d|2[0-3]):?([0-5]\\d)?)?)?)?$"
},
"$.body.code": {
"match": "regex",
"regex": "[0-9a-fA-F]{8}\\b-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}\\b-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}\\b-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}\\b-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}"
},
"$.body.complete-at": {
"match": "regex",
"regex": "^([\\+-]?\\d{4}(?!\\d{2}\\b))((-?)((0[1-9]|1[0-2])(\\3([12]\\d|0[1-9]|3[01]))?|W([0-4]\\d|5[0-2])(-?[1-7])?|(00[1-9]|0[1-9]\\d|[12]\\d{2}|3([0-5]\\d|6[1-6])))([T\\s]((([01]\\d|2[0-3])((:?)[0-5]\\d)?|24\\:?00)([\\.,]\\d+(?!:))?)?(\\17[0-5]\\d([\\.,]\\d+)?)?([zZ]|([\\+-])([01]\\d|2[0-3]):?([0-5]\\d)?)?)?)?$"
},
"$.body.cutoffs": {
"min": 1
},
"$.body.cutoffs[*].*": {
"match": "type"
},
"$.body.cutoffs[*]": {
"match": "regex",
"regex": "^([\\+-]?\\d{4}(?!\\d{2}\\b))((-?)((0[1-9]|1[0-2])(\\3([12]\\d|0[1-9]|3[01]))?|W([0-4]\\d|5[0-2])(-?[1-7])?|(00[1-9]|0[1-9]\\d|[12]\\d{2}|3([0-5]\\d|6[1-6])))([T\\s]((([01]\\d|2[0-3])((:?)[0-5]\\d)?|24\\:?00)([\\.,]\\d+(?!:))?)?(\\17[0-5]\\d([\\.,]\\d+)?)?([zZ]|([\\+-])([01]\\d|2[0-3]):?([0-5]\\d)?)?)?)?$"
},
"$.body.mfc-id": {
"match": "type"
},
"$.body.out-of-stock-units": {
"match": "type"
},
"$.body.picked-at": {
"match": "regex",
"regex": "^([\\+-]?\\d{4}(?!\\d{2}\\b))((-?)((0[1-9]|1[0-2])(\\3([12]\\d|0[1-9]|3[01]))?|W([0-4]\\d|5[0-2])(-?[1-7])?|(00[1-9]|0[1-9]\\d|[12]\\d{2}|3([0-5]\\d|6[1-6])))([T\\s]((([01]\\d|2[0-3])((:?)[0-5]\\d)?|24\\:?00)([\\.,]\\d+(?!:))?)?(\\17[0-5]\\d([\\.,]\\d+)?)?([zZ]|([\\+-])([01]\\d|2[0-3]):?([0-5]\\d)?)?)?)?$"
},
"$.body.started-at": {
"match": "regex",
"regex": "^([\\+-]?\\d{4}(?!\\d{2}\\b))((-?)((0[1-9]|1[0-2])(\\3([12]\\d|0[1-9]|3[01]))?|W([0-4]\\d|5[0-2])(-?[1-7])?|(00[1-9]|0[1-9]\\d|[12]\\d{2}|3([0-5]\\d|6[1-6])))([T\\s]((([01]\\d|2[0-3])((:?)[0-5]\\d)?|24\\:?00)([\\.,]\\d+(?!:))?)?(\\17[0-5]\\d([\\.,]\\d+)?)?([zZ]|([\\+-])([01]\\d|2[0-3]):?([0-5]\\d)?)?)?)?$"
},
"$.body.status": {
"match": "regex",
"regex": "INCOMPLETE|NEW|SPLIT|PROGRESS|COMPLETE"
},
"$.body.total-lines": {
"match": "type"
},
"$.body.total-lines-complete": {
"match": "type"
},
"$.body.total-units": {
"match": "type"
},
"$.body.total-units-picked": {
"match": "type"
},
"$.body.type": {
"match": "regex",
"regex": "PRELIM|DELTA"
},
"$.body.zone": {
"match": "regex",
"regex": "STORE|OSR|MANUAL"
}
}```
matt.fellows
2023-01-09 01:12
Yep, that looks about right to me.
``` "$.body": {
"match": "type"
},```
Says ?recursively check the JSON to ensure it matches the same field types?.
Then every specific matcher overrides that matching cascade, where there is a more specific matcher
matt.fellows
2023-01-09 01:13
BTW, how are you finding the 2.x.x interface compared to 1.x.x? I?m looking to release 2.x.x as stable soon, there is just one area I?d like to improve in the plugins/v4 interface
vika.karman
2023-01-09 09:01
it looks good so far, but I've just started and this was my first test for post request. Before I wrote tests only for GET and it was easier:) F.i., I've found that content-type header is added to the request automatically and your service has to have it also, right?
Also I still have doubts regarding list matching and optional fields. My response has an array field that may contain some values or may be empty depending on the data. I'm using matchers.ArrayMinLike, but it requires man array length 1. So I ended up having 2 different interactions: one with empty list, the other one with list with some values. Maybe you could suggest another solution here.
matt.fellows
2023-01-09 11:00
> F.i., I?ve found that content-type header is added to the request automatically and your service has to have it also, right?
Pact must know the content-type, yes, I think that?s true
matt.fellows
2023-01-09 11:00
> Also I still have doubts regarding list matching and optional fields. My response has an array field that may contain some values or may be empty depending on the data. I?m using matchers.ArrayMinLike, but it requires man array length 1. So I ended up having 2 different interactions: one with empty list, the other one with list with some values. Maybe you could suggest another solution here.
that?s the solution
nuno.frias
2023-01-10 11:34
Hi all,
I am using the latest v2.x.x and I am noticing that the BeforeHooks are running before each of the state handler functions.
But going through the code comments on the `verify_request.go` file they should run only once.
matt.fellows
2023-01-11 21:27
I don?t believe so, at least not as far as the Pact library is concerned. The packages are under different namespaces and should be separate go modules
vika.karman
2023-01-12 20:54
I continue to compare pact v1 and v2 and here is another diff:
before this part of interaction
``` WillRespondWith(
dsl.Response{
Status: http.StatusOK,
Headers: dsl.MapMatcher{
"Content-Type": dsl.String("application/json"),
},
Body: dsl.Like(map[string]interface{}{
"code": dsl.Term(code, uuidMatcher),
"closed-at": dsl.Timestamp(),
}),
},
)```
generated this part of contract:
vika.karman
2023-01-12 20:55
with v2 the same piece of interaction looks this way:
```WillRespondWith(http.StatusOK, func(b *consumer.V4ResponseBuilder) {
b.
Header("Content-Type", matchers.S("application/json")).
JSONBody(matchers.MapMatcher{
"code": matchers.Term(code, uuidMatcher),
"closed-at": matchers.Timestamp(),
})
},
)```
and the contract:
vika.karman
2023-01-12 20:56
we can see that there are 2 new fields added to the body:
```"contentType": "application/json",
"encoded": false```
hazem
2023-01-13 01:05
What do you say about an enhancement for pact-go 2.x.x Verifier as it relates to webhook re-verification? See thread https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/CLS16AVEE/p1673564994052859.
It's probably easy to fall into this trap like I did. I have a webhook that triggers the provider verification during an event such as `Contract published that requires verification`. Utilizing the webhook template library https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/webhooks/template_library#bitbucket---trigger-pipeline-run, I set the env var `PACT_URL`. However that doesnt actually seem to do much when using pact-go@2.x.x. and I am not sure how it works prior to using pact_ffi cli. I seem to recall a few `PACT_*` env vars being automatically read by the ruby cli tools. Could/should this env var also be automatically configured in pact-go verifier?
vika.karman
2023-01-13 09:12
*Hello!*
I continue to compare pact v1 and v2 and here is another diff:
in v1 this part of interaction
``` WillRespondWith(
dsl.Response{
Status: http.StatusOK,
Headers: dsl.MapMatcher{
"Content-Type": dsl.String("application/json"),
},
Body: dsl.Like(map[string]interface{}{
"code": dsl.Term(code, uuidMatcher),
"closed-at": dsl.Timestamp(),
}),
},
)```
generated this part of contract:
vika.karman
2023-01-13 09:13
with v2 the same piece of interaction looks this way:
```WillRespondWith(http.StatusOK, func(b *consumer.V4ResponseBuilder) {
b.
Header("Content-Type", matchers.S("application/json")).
JSONBody(matchers.MapMatcher{
"code": matchers.Term(code, uuidMatcher),
"closed-at": matchers.Timestamp(),
})
},
)```
and the contract:
vika.karman
2023-01-13 09:13
we can see that there are 2 new fields added to the body:
```"contentType": "application/json",
"encoded": false```
why does pact add them if we have header content-type?..
vika.karman
2023-01-14 13:41
hi Matt! Sure:
```func (s *PicklistSuite) TestClosePicklist() {
//contract description
var retailer, env, code, token = "", "", "bbe797fd-b557-4549-9a5e-913a0d14b936", "token"
mockProvider.AddInteraction().
Given(fmt.Sprintf("picklist with code '%s' exists", code)).
UponReceiving(fmt.Sprintf("a request to close picklist by code '%s'", code)).
WithRequest(http.MethodPost, fmt.Sprintf("/v3/picklists/%s/close", code), func(b *consumer.V4RequestBuilder) {
b.Header("X-Token", matchers.S(token))
}).
WillRespondWith(http.StatusOK, func(b *consumer.V4ResponseBuilder) {
b.
Header("Content-Type", matchers.S("application/json")).
JSONBody(matchers.MapMatcher{
"code": matchers.S(code),
"closed-at": matchers.Timestamp(),
})
},
)
// define test
err := mockProvider.ExecuteTest(s.T(), func(config consumer.MockServerConfig) error {
isps.URLFormat = fmt.Sprintf("http://localhost:%d/v3/", config.Port)
isps.URLFormat = isps.URLFormat + "%s" + "%s"
ctx := context.Background()
params := isps.ClosePicklistReqParams{
Retailer: retailer,
Env: env,
Token: token,
PicklistCode: code,
}
// execute function
response, err := app.inStorePickingService.ClosePicklist(ctx, params)
s.NoError(err)
s.NotNil(response)
s.Equal(code, response.Code)
s.NotNil(response.ClosedAt)
return nil
})
s.Require().NoError(err)
}```
matt.fellows
2023-01-15 21:06
How is the mock provider setup?
Also after you clearing out the existing Pact file?
Anything else in the setup you can share?
vika.karman
2023-01-16 08:36
```mockProvider, err = consumer.NewV4Pact(consumer.MockHTTPProviderConfig{
Consumer: "outboundbff-picklist",
Provider: "isps",
PactDir: "../common/services/pacts",
})```
btw didn't manage to setup logs... in prev version during pact init I specified LogDir...
matt.fellows
2023-01-16 11:24
something is not right for sure. I?ll need a repro project if you wouldn?t mind so I can get to the bottom of it
yousafn
2023-01-16 17:05
It should be feasible to create a minimal reproducible examples in a public repo. You could fork the pact-go repo and create examples in the test suite. Appreciate you cannot share your private code
vika.karman
2023-01-17 08:42
But it is not the first version of the test which does not work. The test worked with v1...and does not work with v2. Service code didn't change. The only part which seems different is how I describe the response body
```Body: dsl.Like(map[string]interface{}{
"code": dsl.Term(code, uuidMatcher),
"closed-at": dsl.Timestamp(),
}),```
and
``` JSONBody(matchers.MapMatcher{
"code": matchers.Term(code, uuidMatcher),
"closed-at": matchers.Timestamp(),
})```
What is the difference in these 2 descriptions?
vika.karman
2023-01-18 10:40
@matt.fellows I've compared pacts generated with V2HTTPMockProvider, V3HTTPMockProvider and V4HTTPMockProvider. I guess this part
```"contentType": "application/json",
"encoded": false```
appears only in V4 where we have body containing "content" and "contentType". Maybe pactflow should ignore contentType and encoded during pact and provide specification comparison.
matt.fellows
2023-01-23 01:05
Yeah, something is definitely not right here Viktoriia. Could you please raise a bug on the git repo?
nuno.frias
2023-01-23 10:21
Hi all,
Just wanted confirmation regarding provider states.
Pact only calls the next provider state when the previous one successfully returns (no panic or return error) correct?
I.e. provider states are always synchronously executed in the order they were specified in the contract, correct?
nuno.frias
2023-01-23 10:22
I ask this because I am experiencing a race condition in one of my provider tests and I want to exclude Pact as a cause.
matt.fellows
2023-01-23 12:20
I?m not sure the order in the contract is guaranteed. But they are called synchronously before the test is called, yes, and subsequent states won?t be called if one fails
will
2023-01-24 11:20
Hey all! I?m looking through the examples in pact-go, and in some of the tests where you?re specifying things like headers, some the values that are strings look like `S("string")` and I have absolutely no idea what the `S` relates to. GoLand obvs complains about it as well, but I?ve noticed if you add the flag to ignore the file by the build tool, it stops complaining. Anyone have any ideas what it?s for or what it does? I?m guessing it?s meant to represent a string value to Pact, but then not sure why GoLand doesn?t like it
matt.fellows
2023-01-24 11:23
In some examples `S` is aliased to a function, because the type it accepts is a matcher
will
2023-01-24 11:32
Hmmm so looking in https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/examples/consumer_v3_test.go, I?m not sure what S is meant to alias too :thinking_face:
will
2023-01-24 11:36
Also Matt, one other question whilst you?re here. How come all the pact libraries continue to support multiple versions of the Pact spec? It feels like it would be more straightforward to just deprecate the prior version of the spec when the new one is released, or at least, it?s felt kinda confusing coming into Pact with fresh eyes and not really understanding why there are multiple examples with diff versions of Pact and it not being super obvious what should or shouldn?t be used :smile:
will
2023-01-25 13:52
Anyone any ideas on printing out response after the verifier has run? Currently getting a 422 back from our provider, and the logs that are getting printed are super verbose and i?m not sure what?s meant to be what. Can I just stick something in an afterEach hook? And if so, how do I access the response?
matt.fellows
2023-01-26 23:26
hmmm I don?t think we provide access to the request/response cycle. We could potentially expose that though, as it?s just standard HTTP middleware
matt.fellows
2023-01-26 23:26
If you wanted to share the logs, I can see if I can help, and also improve the logging
will
2023-01-30 11:56
Thanks Matt, I think it?s actually okay though, gonna leave it to my devs to figure out what the actual issue is. But yeah if I?m the first person asking, probably isn?t that much of a requirement. If anything it just suggests I?m too lazy to actually setup the service locally to figure it out :grin:
will
2023-01-30 13:34
Actually Matt, so briefly, all our services are deployed in k8s. Some of the services have dependant services that means it?s difficult to just spin up a service by itself to test against.
So we?re currently thinking that the way we?d want to use pact is?
? On PR, have a github action that deploys the branched version of the service into our dev env
? Run the Pact tests against it
? Redeploy the main branch back into dev env
But in this scenario, if we get a 422 response back for a test that was expecting a 201, all we really get back in the error messaging from Pact is that the body doesn?t match, and that the status doesn?t match, but doesn?t return back anything we got from the error response, so makes it a bit more difficult to figure out any errors without trying to dive into logs/traces etc.
Ideally, I?d love to be able to also print out the response body on error, so we can glean more info from the Pact test itself.
Is there any way to handle this currently in Pact, or does it look like it would be a feature request of some kind? And if so, do I just need to raise that on Github?
will
2023-01-31 15:32
Also sorry for the ping @matt.fellows, our hours are really out of sync with us being on almost opposite sides of the world :sweat_smile:, but if there?s any chance you?d have any suggestions or thoughts for the above, I?d really appreciate it :slightly_smiling_face:
matt.fellows
2023-02-07 03:45
My apologies, I did totally miss this (we had a number of workshops last week so was a bit flat out)
matt.fellows
2023-02-07 03:46
> Is there any way to handle this currently in Pact, or does it look like it would be a feature request of some kind? And if so, do I just need to raise that on Github?
yes please, a feature request on GitHub would be great, and we?ll see if we can find a way
will
2023-02-07 09:49
Hey all. I?m trying to run pact-go in docker in our CI/CD, but I?m having issues building the container in CI. The plan is to create a test binary in an initial build stage, and then copy that binary alone into the next stage to keep the image size down. So in the build stage, I?m downloading and unzipping the FFI library into the correct location, but when I then try to build the binary, pact-go seems to have issues with finding the library that cause the build to fail. There?s no other obvious setup thats mentioned on the github, has anyone else had any success in getting a docker image built with pact-go?
will
2023-02-07 10:06
```# syntax=docker/dockerfile:1
FROM europe-docker.pkg.dev/management1c0c88c4/oci/go:latest AS builder
USER root
ARG NAME
ARG VERSION=unknown
ARG GITHUB_AUTH_TOKEN
ENV VERSION=$VERSION
ENV GITHUB_AUTH_TOKEN=$GITHUB_AUTH_TOKEN
ENV GOOUT=.
COPY . .
RUN \
wget https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases/download/libpact_ffi-v0.4.0/libpact_ffi-linux-x86_64.so.gz
RUN gunzip libpact_ffi-linux-x86_64.so.gz
RUN mv libpact_ffi-linux-x86_64.so /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.so
RUN ldconfig /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.so
RUN \
GOMODCACHE=/usr/src/.go/pkg/mod \
go test -c ./internal/provider/mas
# Stage 2 - Copy binary from Build Stage
FROM pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest
COPY --from=builder /mas.test /go-tests
COPY --from=builder /pact/entrypoint.sh /go-tests
ENTRYPOINT ["/go-tests/entrypoint.sh"]```
There?s still some stuff I?ve been playing around with in there, but this is the current state
matt.fellows
2023-02-07 10:35
OK so I can?t reproduce with your docker image for various reasons (which are no doubt obvious to you :laughing: )
But what is obviously standing out is that it can?t access the `native` package
matt.fellows
2023-02-07 10:35
the fully qualified package is `"http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2/internal/native"`
matt.fellows
2023-02-07 10:37
I?m wondering if the mod file is incorrect and hasn?t pulled in the package properly?
will
2023-02-07 10:38
Haha yeah thought you?d struggle to replicate :smile: Okay let me take a gander at that package
will
2023-02-07 10:40
Hmmm so I?ve not explicitly got the native package called out anywhere, but I?m guessing it would just implicitly be apart of `http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2` anyways right?
will
2023-02-07 10:42
Our `go.sum` currently has the following two lines
```http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2 v2.0.0-beta.17.0.20230125022501-fa1a8deab0a0 h1:z0o1WaPGcDEHQ8uNRfwL0V6OfWqAt7/P26jWmMHn8TA=
http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2 v2.0.0-beta.17.0.20230125022501-fa1a8deab0a0/go.mod h1:kB2X26JGY+sd07XdG9LI4OK+aY8cTQ/IB56oBg2wT9o=```
And `go.mod` has
```http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2 v2.0.0-beta.17.0.20230125022501-fa1a8deab0a0```
I?ve just used `go install` to add them
matt.fellows
2023-02-07 10:55
I don?t think you do need all of the sub packages there, but if it was just the consumer that could be a problem.
will
2023-02-07 10:56
Have you had any experience with running it in github actions? Part of the reason I am where I am is because there didn?t seem to be a clear way to generate the contract in one action, and then pass the contract into the CLI docker image in order to push it into the broker
will
2023-02-07 10:56
I?m not sure if I?m missing something and there?s actually a more sensible way to do it perhaps
matt.fellows
2023-02-07 10:57
I was about to question the whole enterprise of build stages, because I can?t see why that?s a good thing to do :laughing:
will
2023-02-07 10:58
Hahaha yeah it seemed like the most simple course when I was chatting with one of my devs. Because of the FFI lib pre-req, I didn?t know how to get that running in actions
matt.fellows
2023-02-07 10:58
> Have you had any experience with running it in github actions? Part of the reason I am where I am is because there didn?t seem to be a clear way to generate the contract in one action, and then pass the contract into the CLI docker image in order to push it into the broker
so you just want to:
1. Run the pact tests
2. Publish the contract file
In a single action, or must it be across multiple stages?
matt.fellows
2023-02-07 10:59
This is how the pact go CI build does it: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/Makefile#L40
matt.fellows
2023-02-07 10:59
(please ignore the use of tags, it is not really important for the build, but should be using `--branch` because that?s what we tell people to do)
will
2023-02-07 10:59
A single action in itself would be fine ye. Currently the test runs as part of the unit tests, but the pact one always fails because the lib isn?t installed iirc
matt.fellows
2023-02-07 11:01
Apologies, the latest version of that for the 2.x.x branch is https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/Makefile
matt.fellows
2023-02-07 11:01
it?s very similar, but there are other parts of the Makefile that might be helpful - e.g. installing the lib
will
2023-02-07 11:02
Yeah I?ll see where I can get with this, thanks Matt. One last q, do these all run as part of a single action, or is it across multiple?
matt.fellows
2023-02-07 11:04
I run it as a single. There is usually no need to delay publishing the pact file. You could have it as a separate step in the pipeline (we do that in our examples, see howtoexamples) but that?s up to you
matt.fellows
2023-02-07 11:04
The Pact Broker/PactFlow is designed to have large amounts of duplicate pacts published - so just send it without fear. It?s our job to make it performant
nuno.frias
2023-02-13 13:42
Hi all,
Is it possible to inject a value from provider state into the URL of the request?
If so is there any example for Pact-go ? (I am using v2.x.x)
will
2023-02-13 18:03
Hey @matt.fellows is this mainBranch property available to configure anywhere for consumers in pact-go?
will
2023-02-13 18:06
What?s the context around what you want to do exactly?
There are examples https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/examples/provider_test.go of modifying the request before the test runs to add in authorization headers. It?s possible you could use that same function to modify the URL as well, but I?m not 100% clear on whether that?s necessarily a good idea or not
nuno.frias
2023-02-13 18:12
I have some ID's on the URL that need to match the ID's of objects created on the provider test.
nuno.frias
2023-02-13 18:14
The `RequestFilter` is a good shout. I was looking at the Pact-go equivalent of https://pactflow.io/blog/injecting-values-from-provider-states/ for URL, but `RequestFilter` should do it.
matt.fellows
2023-02-13 23:32
The consumer side of Pact Go doesn?t need to do anything here.
The main branch property is set when you publish the contract, which you do using the CLI tools
matt.fellows
2023-02-13 23:33
Yes, we support that feature. Here is an example: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/examples/provider_test.go#L92
nuno.frias
2023-02-16 14:03
Thanks @matt.fellows
So on the consumer side I would have to put a placeholder on the URL. Something like this:
```...
WithRequest(http.MethodPost, "/ns/${uuid}/search, func(req *consumer.V4RequestBuilder) {
req.Header("Content-Type", matchers.S("application/json"))
...```
nuno.frias
2023-02-16 14:04
Assuming I returned provider state like in your example:
``` return models.ProviderStateResponse{"uuid": "1234"}, nil```
matt.fellows
2023-02-17 08:56
Yes, except on the consumer side imyou need to use a matcher and not a string:
`FromProviderState(expr, example)`
See the consumer docs for all matchers
vika.karman
2023-02-17 10:59
Finally I got to issue creation and I've found that even pact generated by the existing tests in 2.x.x branch has the mentioned fields. I've included the link to the lines:
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/273
matt.fellows
2023-02-17 11:47
Sorry I must have misread your original thread here. Are you having problems or not? The provider test in the repo passes, the contract file is just how Pact serialises the interaction.
matt.fellows
2023-02-17 11:47
Pactflow does not yet not how to properly render v4 pacts. This is coming soon, and is possibly why the confusion exists
vika.karman
2023-02-17 11:49
ah! I guess that is my answer! "_*Pactflow does not yet not how to properly render v4 pacts.*_"
matt.fellows
2023-02-17 11:50
Sorry about the confusion. I must have felt there was a bug where the actual field was expected and the test was failing, but it's just how it shows in the UI
nuno.frias
2023-02-27 11:33
Hi all
I would like to be able to use regex as part of the `FromProviderState` matcher. This would look like something like this `FromProviderState(expr, example, regex)` .
This would allow me to enforce a tighter rule on the format of that field, which could be useful because I have no guarantees that the the value returned from provider state complies with the format the consumer is expecting.
I cannot implement a custom matcher because the `Matcher` interface (in `matchers/matcher.go`) has a private method `isMatcher` -- preventing implementations outside of the `matchers` package.
Is anyone aware of an alternative ?
Is it worth creating a issue to convert the `isMatcher` into a public method ?
nuno.frias
2023-02-28 12:32
Thanks @matt.fellows
Any idea how I could validate the attribute matches the regex? Short of building that validation on the state handler -- I don't like this approach because it wouldn't be reflected on the contract.
sathish.sundararajan
2023-02-28 16:17
Any timeline on when a fix would be available for the random panics ? We started to observe quite often and blocking us from using provider tests. Thanks. @jason.taylor2
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/269
matt.fellows
2023-02-28 23:22
I don?t believe you can put a regex matcher in there, it can only check the type of the value provider
matt.fellows
2023-02-28 23:26
I don?t have any timelines for this Sathish. We haven?t gotten to the bottom of the problem, and until we do that it?s going to be difficult to say when it will be fixed.
If you had any views on what the source of the issue might be, any information you can share would obviously be very helpful
sathish.sundararajan
2023-03-01 03:23
Sure Matt! We will try to find out on our end and let you know! Thanks
nuno.frias
2023-03-01 20:23
Hi all
Is there any chance to increate the timeout to run the state handlers?
I am getting this error:
```Err(Provider state failed: (interaction_id: ...) Invalid response: error sending request for url (http://localhost:50159/__setup): operation timed out)```
matt.fellows
2023-03-02 02:03
It?s definitely possible. We should perhaps expose that - could you please raise a feature request on github?
nuno.frias
2023-03-06 14:09
Hi Matt
Here is the new feature request: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/277
jason.taylor2
2023-03-08 15:00
am running pact-go 2.x.x branch and v3 matchers. the header matching seems to be always doing a strict match. is that expected? for example, given this:
```Header("x-b3-spanid", matchers.Like("flexible")).```
The pact has:
```x-b3-spanid": "flexible",```
And then running yields:
``` 1.1) includes header 'x-b3-spanid' with value 'flexible'
Expected header 'x-b3-spanid' to have value 'flexible' but was 'bee11777fdc9b79c'```
jason.taylor2
2023-03-10 16:24
opened an issue with the diff to apply to the example test to reproduce: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/281
nuno.frias
2023-03-15 10:17
Looks like the build failed :disappointed: .
I can give it a look if no-one's already it.
matt.fellows
2023-03-15 10:47
Thanks, it?s failing due to https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/269. If you can solve that, i?ll track you down and give you a hug. Or failing that, buy you a coffee or something :laughing:
matt.fellows
2023-03-15 10:49
The real problem is I forgot to push with tags - build running now: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/actions/runs/4425457986
nuno.frias
2023-03-15 10:54
No problem whatsoever.
I though strange the previous issue was the culprit as the builds for go1.17 and 1.18 failed.
nuno.frias
2023-03-16 14:57
On my consumer tests I have used some random values in certain matcher examples (e.g. `time.Now()`).
This means that the deduplication mechanism (https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker/advanced_topics/consumer_version_selectors#deduplication) will not be able effectively deduplicate the contracts, correct ?
yousafn
2023-03-16 15:29
Correct, if you try and upload the contract with the same commit sha you should be prevented if there is differing data in your pact file.
You can use a date matcher (if there is one in go, or reg) and use a generator to provide a fixed value if that is possible for your test
nuno.frias
2023-03-19 18:42
Thanks :+1:
I am very aware that you can't upload a contract with the same commit sha if there are differences in the contract.
My concern is that when you do the provider verification, the deduplication mechanism uses the full contract content as the basis for deduplication, which means that if the example data in the contract is different between the main branch and the feature branch (even though the rules are the same) the provider test will run twice -- assuming your consumer version selectors pick up the 2 contracts.
nuno.frias
2023-03-19 18:44
It seems that having the deduplication mechanism exclude the examples would be sensible.
matt.fellows
2023-03-19 22:46
yes, it would be ideal. Worth raising a feature at http://pact.canny.io if not already there.
I think this was raised recently somewhere in slack also
sandy.oberoi
2023-03-20 22:15
hi all, checking if you have an example for running a pact consumer test using a twirp client?
I am referencing this https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/examples/grpc/grpc_consumer_test.go to setup the test
this is the error I am getting
```net/http: HTTP/1.x transport connection broken: malformed HTTP response ```
sandy.oberoi
2023-03-21 17:20
https://blog.twitch.tv/en/2018/01/16/twirp-a-sweet-new-rpc-framework-for-go-5f2febbf35f/ is a RPC framework that supports communication over both http/1.1 and http/2
we are using protobuf for defining our apis
i could try to setup an example twirp client based on the https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/tree/2.x.x/examples/grpc you have, if that would help
matt.fellows
2023-03-22 03:20
You might need to share how you?ve set the example up. I think the gRPC plugin is not re-usable for this purpose, so you?d need to set the transport back to HTTP. What?s the payload you?re sending over it?
denispegan4
2023-03-22 14:21
Hey guys, I'm testing message-queue-based service (lambda) and have a question:
Currently I get the error when I try to validate the contract: `[ERROR] API handler start failed: accept tcp [::]:42053`
But basically I just need to validate the Handler's "handle" function and can do it in my unit tests by calling that func with mocked Handler's dependencies. I want to do the same with my contract tests.
Is it possible to validate the contract wihout the need to run local Handler or the running Handler is required?
denispegan4
2023-03-22 20:05
if i'm not mistaken it shouldn't launch any mocks for messages as per description
matt.fellows
2023-03-23 00:27
This example might be helpful: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/examples/consumer_v3_test.go#L92
denispegan4
2023-03-23 14:42
@matt.fellows thanks for your answer!
My sample code is: https://github.com/denispeganovri/sampleHandler
And unfortunately, I'm not able to run your example:
`den@WIN-S95P35K3NPM:/.../pact-go/examples$ go test -run TestMessagePact`
`...`
`../consumer/http.go:82:31: undefined: native.MockServer`
`../consumer/http.go:114:24: undefined: native.NewHTTPPact`
`../consumer/http.go:117:48: undefined: native.SPECIFICATION_VERSION_V2`
`../consumer/http.go:119:48: undefined: native.SPECIFICATION_VERSION_V3`
`../consumer/http.go:121:48: undefined: native.SPECIFICATION_VERSION_V4`
`../consumer/http.go:123:9: undefined: native.Init`
`../consumer/http.go:316:16: undefined: native.GetTLSConfig`
`../consumer/interaction.go:16:35: undefined: mockserver.Interaction`
`../consumer/http_v4.go:461:65: undefined: native.INTERACTION_PART_REQUEST`
`../consumer/http_v4.go:542:65: undefined: native.INTERACTION_PART_RESPONSE`
`../consumer/http_v4.go:542:65: too many errors`
`FAIL http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2/examples [build failed]`
And your example seems to be helpful, could you help me run this consumer_v3_test please?
denispegan4
2023-03-23 14:56
In my code I get such error when I try to validate the contract:
`den@WIN-S95P35K3NPM:/.../sampleHandler/handler$ go test -run Test_verifyContract`
`2023/03/23 15:51:47 [INFO] checking pact-provider-verifier within range >= 1.36.1, < 2.0.0`
`2023/03/23 15:51:47 [INFO] checking pact-broker within range >= 1.22.3`
`2023/03/23 15:51:48 [INFO] checking pact-mock-service within range >= 3.5.0, < 4.0.0`
`2023/03/23 15:51:48 [WARN] state handler not found for state: given a SQS message`
`2023/03/23 15:51:48 [ERROR] *message handler not found for message description: expected to receive no error*`
`2023/03/23 15:51:48 [ERROR] *API handler start failed: accept tcp [::]:41565: use of closed network connection*`
`--- FAIL: Test_verifyContract (0.86s)`
`--- FAIL: Test_verifyContract/has_matching_content (0.00s)`
`pact.go:638: Verifying a pact between Sample Consumer and Sample Handler Given given a SQS message expected to receive no error has matching content`
`pact.go:644: Verifying a pact between Sample Consumer and Sample Handler Given given a SQS message expected to receive no error has matching content`
`An error was raised while verifying the message. The response body is:`
`FAIL`
`exit status 1`
`FAIL sampleHandler/handler 0.867s`
denispegan4
2023-03-24 13:19
Hi guys, I'm not able to run message provider test: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/examples/messages/provider/message_pact_provider_test.go
I get such error:
`[WARN] state handler not found for state: an order exists`
`[ERROR] API handler start failed: accept tcp [::]:40025: use of closed network connection`
I've tried it on different machines (wsl, mac) but the error is the same.
Could anyone help please?
matt.fellows
2023-03-25 00:30
Hmm wondering if it's maybe an IPv6 thing? Can you please see if you can get a repro going by forking the repo and getting that test to fail on CI? Hard for us to see the problem otherwise
denispegan4
2023-03-26 19:03
Hey @matt.fellows, thanks for your asnwer. I'm not the only one person who get such error, I've asked few more people to check and they get the same error. Could you check if you are able to run that example please? Was it working before?
matt.fellows
2023-03-27 02:34
```? consumer git:(master) go test -v -tags consumer .
=== RUN TestExampleMessageConsumer_UserExists
2023/03/27 13:33:10 [INFO] checking pact-provider-verifier within range >= 1.36.1, < 2.0.0
2023/03/27 13:33:12 [INFO] checking pact-broker within range >= 1.22.3
2023/03/27 13:33:13 [INFO] checking pact-mock-service within range >= 3.5.0, < 4.0.0
--- PASS: TestExampleMessageConsumer_UserExists (9.01s)
=== RUN TestExampleMessageConsumer_Order
--- PASS: TestExampleMessageConsumer_Order (2.77s)
=== RUN TestExampleMessageConsumer_Fail
message_pact_consumer_test.go:59:
--- SKIP: TestExampleMessageConsumer_Fail (0.00s)
PASS
ok github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/examples/messages/consumer 12.374s
? consumer git:(master) ../provider
? provider git:(master) go test -v -tags provider .
=== RUN TestExampleMessageProvider_Success
2023/03/27 13:33:32 [DEBUG] pact setup logging
2023/03/27 13:33:32 [DEBUG] pact setup
2023/03/27 13:33:32 [DEBUG] checking CLI compatibility
2023/03/27 13:33:32 [INFO] checking pact-broker within range >= 1.22.3
2023/03/27 13:33:32 [DEBUG] running binary pact-broker
2023/03/27 13:33:33 [DEBUG] checking version for binary pact-broker version 1.65.0
2023/03/27 13:33:33 [DEBUG] checking if version 1.65.0 within semver range >= 1.22.3
2023/03/27 13:33:33 [DEBUG] 1.65.0 satisfies constraints 1.65.0 >= 1.22.3
2023/03/27 13:33:33 [INFO] checking pact-mock-service within range >= 3.5.0, < 4.0.0
2023/03/27 13:33:33 [DEBUG] running binary pact-mock-service
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] checking version for binary pact-mock-service version 3.9.0
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] checking if version 3.9.0 within semver range >= 3.5.0, < 4.0.0
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] 3.9.0 satisfies constraints 3.9.0 >= 3.5.0, < 4.0.0
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [INFO] checking pact-provider-verifier within range >= 1.36.1, < 2.0.0
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] running binary pact-provider-verifier
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] checking version for binary pact-provider-verifier version 1.36.1
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] checking if version 1.36.1 within semver range >= 1.36.1, < 2.0.0
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] 1.36.1 satisfies constraints 1.36.1 >= 1.36.1, < 2.0.0
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] setting up a service manager
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] starting service removal monitor
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] starting service creation monitor
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] API handler starting: port 50078 ([::]:50078)
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] waiting for port 50078 to become available on localhost after 10s
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] pact provider verification
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] client: verifying a provider
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] waiting for port 50078 to become available on localhost after 10s
2023/03/27 13:33:34 [DEBUG] starting verification service with args: [/Users/matthew.fellows/development/public/pact-go/examples/messages/provider/../../pacts/pactgomessageconsumer-pactgomessageprovider.json --format json --provider-base-url http://localhost:50078 --provider PactGoMessageProvider --log-dir /Users/matthew.fellows/development/public/pact-go/examples/messages/provider/log --log-level DEBUG]
2023/03/27 13:33:39 [WARN] state handler not found for state: an order exists
2023/03/27 13:33:39 [ERROR] API handler start failed: accept tcp [::]:50078: use of closed network connection
=== RUN TestExampleMessageProvider_Success/Pact_between__and__
=== RUN TestExampleMessageProvider_Success/has_matching_content
pact.go:637: Verifying a pact between PactGoMessageConsumer and PactGoMessageProvider Given user with id 127 exists a user has matching content
=== RUN TestExampleMessageProvider_Success/has_matching_content#01
pact.go:637: Verifying a pact between PactGoMessageConsumer and PactGoMessageProvider Given an order exists an order has matching content
--- PASS: TestExampleMessageProvider_Success (6.85s)
--- PASS: TestExampleMessageProvider_Success/has_matching_content (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestExampleMessageProvider_Success/has_matching_content#01 (0.00s)
--- PASS: TestExampleMessageProvider_Success/Pact_between__and__ (0.00s)
PASS
ok http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/examples/messages/provider 7.410s
? provider git:(master) pwd
/Users/matthew.fellows/development/public/pact-go/examples/messages/provider```
matt.fellows
2023-03-27 02:37
My guess is that `localhost` is mapped to an ipv6 address and either:
1. Pact Go doesn?t support ipv6 (which would basically mean something in go itself is misconfigured or doesn?t support it)
2. Your machine is not allowing clients to bind to ipv6 addresses.
Can you check your `/etc/hosts` configuration to see what it is?
matt.fellows
2023-03-27 02:37
```? provider git:(master) host localhost
localhost has address 127.0.0.1```
matt.fellows
2023-03-27 07:35
hmm strange.
See also https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9UTHTFFB/p1679884470364199?thread_ts=1679663992.765239&cid=C9UTHTFFB. Let?s stick to one of the threads so we can follow the context if that?s OK?
matt.fellows
2023-03-27 07:44
OK looked at your code, there are 3 problems:
1. The scenario in your consumer doesn?t match up with the mapping in your provider
2. The provider state in your consumer doesn?t match up with the mapping in your provider
3. Your consumer is exact value matching, and your provider is returning a different value. Either return the exact value in your provider, or use a matcher in your consumer
matt.fellows
2023-03-27 07:44
Diff:
```diff --git a/handler/handler_contract_test.go b/handler/handler_contract_test.go
index 11d6b8b..ed1b4b1 100644
--- a/handler/handler_contract_test.go
+++ b/handler/handler_contract_test.go
@@ -3,8 +3,9 @@ package handler
import (
"path/filepath"
- "http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/dsl"
"testing"
+
+ "http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/dsl"
)
var data *SQSEvent
@@ -14,7 +15,7 @@ func Test_verifyContract(t *testing.T) {
// Map test descriptions to message producer (handlers)
functionMappings := dsl.MessageHandlers{
- "received data": func(m dsl.Message) (interface{}, error) {
+ "expected to receive no error": func(m dsl.Message) (interface{}, error) {
if data != nil {
return data, nil
} else {
@@ -26,7 +27,7 @@ func Test_verifyContract(t *testing.T) {
}
stateMappings := dsl.StateHandlers{
- "data exists": func(s dsl.State) error {
+ "given a SQS message": func(s dsl.State) error {
data = &SQSEvent{
SqsData: "12341234",
}```
matt.fellows
2023-03-27 07:45
(sorry about the formatting part of the diff, my editor does that automatically)
denispegan4
2023-03-27 07:58
Hey @matt.fellows, I can see you have the same error in your logs:
```[ERROR] API handler start failed: accept tcp [::]:50078: use of closed network connection```
This is exactly what I am wondering about, could you look into that error please? Why it exists...
matt.fellows
2023-03-27 09:43
See other thread, it should be a `DEBUG` level item - I think it?s just the network adapter trying to bind to the various interfaces and rejecting the IPv6 one. It?s a red herring
denispegan4
2023-03-27 13:59
@matt.fellows
Many thanks for your detailed answer! Glad it's not a "real" error and will look into my code.
yu.xie
2023-03-28 17:28
Hi team,
I?ve been trying to set-up `pact-go` in a monorepo/bazel environment, since it depends on `pact_ffi`?
1. I saw https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/pull/255 to bazelify pact-reference but it did not get much attention.
2. Another way I guess it might work is fetching the `.a` files as static library from releases like https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases/tag/libpact_ffi-v0.4.1 using https://bazel.build/rules/lib/repo/http, and then linking them through https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_go/blob/master/docs/go/core/rules.md#go_library.
Is there an officially recommended way to do this?
matt.fellows
2023-03-28 21:24
there is no official way with Bazel I?m afraid, I don?t know much about it
yu.xie
2023-03-30 00:22
Asking this question in a different way:
In an automatic build system that you can?t pre-install stuff (such as bazel), to make pact-go work, you would need to download `pact_ffi` static library (i.e., `https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases/download/libpact_ffi-v0.4.1/libpact_ffi-osx-aarch64-apple-darwin.a.gz`) and then tell cgo to link it properly. What would be the arguments to ask cgo to use this `.a` file when linking?
yu.xie
2023-03-30 00:32
I saw cgo link opts are put here:
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/internal/native/lib.go
The problem is how to override things like `/usr/local/lib -lpact_ffi` to make them point to the downloaded static library file.
matt.fellows
2023-03-30 02:11
That?s a good question. Does it _need_ to be a static library or could you use the shared lib? Or is it because you?re expecting to run on heterogeneous OS environments that you want to link to the archive?
matt.fellows
2023-03-30 02:12
> The problem is how to override things like `/usr/local/lib -lpact_ffi` to make them point to the downloaded static library file.
I wish those arguments could be dynamic, but it seems the way cgo wants to work is that they must be pre-defined in the source code.
e.g. it would be nice to allow a user to put the library wherever they want, possibly defined by an env var. I tried several variations on this but never landed on a solution.
If there is a way we can update the `lib.go` file to have locations that work for Bazel environments, i?d happily accept a PR.
yu.xie
2023-03-31 02:43
It worked for me after removing the `/usr/local/lib` part for me. Yeah bazel support patching build files to override what you defined in `lib.go` so no need for a PR here. Thanks!
matt.fellows
2023-03-31 05:34
Awesome, thanks! Is there any lessons we can take to update our docs? Feel free to suggest via a PR or GH issue to scratch out any thoughts. Glad to hear it?s working though!
yu.xie
2023-03-31 17:15
I?m just getting started on trying pact out. It?s just 1st step (getting pact build in monorepo/bazel env). I can probably come back and share something if I end up having the test flow running e2e.
nuno.frias
2023-04-05 10:17
Hi team,
I am aware there are a few issues around the EachKeyLike matcher at least for pact-js, nevertheless I also encountered a similar issue in pact-go therefore I have raised this ticket https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/285
jan.krolikowski
2023-04-13 08:59
Hello,
I'm trying to create a consumer test which matches an `Authorization` header with commas, using pact-go `v2.0.0-beta.18` and libpact_ffi `0.4.3` . The header is configured in `V3` pact as follows:
``` WithRequest("GET", "/endpoint", func(b *V3RequestBuilder) {
b.Header("Authorization", S("OAuth oauth_consumer_key=abcd, oauth_signature_method=\"PLAINTEXT\", oauth_version=\"1.0\", oauth_signature=\"1234&\""))
}).```
and it's being sent with same payload while running the test:
``` req, _ := http.NewRequest("GET", fmt.Sprintf("http://%s:%d/endpoint", mockServerConfig.Host, mockServerConfig.Port), strings.NewReader(""))
req.Header.Add("Authorization", "OAuth oauth_consumer_key=abcd, oauth_signature_method=\"PLAINTEXT\", oauth_version=\"1.0\", oauth_signature=\"1234&\"")
_, err := http://httpClient.Do(req)```
However, even though the headers are exactly the same, I get following error:
```2023/04/13 08:34:08 [INFO] pact validation failed, errors:
Mismatch with header 'Authorization': Expected 'OAuth oauth_consumer_key=abcd, oauth_signature_method=\"PLAINTEXT\", oauth_version=\"1.0\", oauth_signature=\"1234\u0026\"' to be equal to 'OAuth oauth_consumer_key=abcd' for value at index 0
: expected: OAuth oauth_consumer_key=abcd, oauth_signature_method=\"PLAINTEXT\", oauth_version=\"1.0\", oauth_signature=\"1234\u0026\"
actual: OAuth oauth_consumer_key=abcd```
Reproductible script can be found https://github.com/yanekk/pact-go-header-commas-mismatch. I verified with external proxy whether Go is stripping the header somehow, but it was sent correctly. Personally, I'd consider it as bug, especially since similar problem was already raised (and fixed) in https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/1031. However, this is my first attempt to use pact-go, so maybe this is a feature I miss. In case of the latter, how I should fix the interaction definition to match the actual request?
buckley
2023-04-13 20:56
Hello once again. My provider verification appears to not be able to find my consumer pacts. I have a consumer pact published with a `Consumer Version` and a `branch` associated with it. I can see the unverified pact in the UI.
My provider uses the following selector and is on a branch with an identical name as the consumer.
```[]types.ConsumerVersionSelector{
{
MatchingBranch: true,
},
{
MainBranch: true,
},
{
Deployed: true,
},
}```
buckley
2023-04-13 20:56
When I run the verification pact, I get the following log though: `pact.go:421: no pacts found to verify`
matt.fellows
2023-04-14 02:57
Thanks Jan. I think the issue is still present actually - see https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/1058
will
2023-04-14 15:14
That looks like a bit of a weird version selector to me. Not sure what version of pact-go you?re using either, but I?m on the 2.x.x branch
```ConsumerVersionSelectors: []provider.Selector{
&provider.ConsumerVersionSelector{
Branch: "main",
Latest: true,
},
}```
will
2023-04-14 15:22
Yeah not saying for sure that that?s defo the issue, and I know plenty of things have changed between versions of pact-go
kristoffer
2023-04-25 13:37
Ran in to an issue with the Metadata for an asynchronous message. For some unknown reason the Metadata field have been disabled with a comment. See: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/2.x.x/message/v4/message.go#L24
kristoffer
2023-04-27 07:03
We pass Content-Type among other things as Kafka message attributes, the content type is used for internal routing. It is possible to hack in a workaround, but it would be better if metadata was in the AsynchronousMessage.
matt.fellows
2023-04-27 12:33
ah, any reason you can?t use the `v3` interface? That should support metadata I think. I need to remember why I didn?t add that to V4 yet, but there was probably a _good reason_ :tm:
srinivas.nali
2023-04-28 14:31
Hi All, I am trying to publish the pact like this to my localhost once the server up and running,
p := dsl.Publisher{}
err = p.Publish(types.PublishRequest{
PactURLs: []string{"./pacts/myconsumer2-myprovider2.json"},
PactBroker: "https://localhost:1234",
ConsumerVersion: "1.0.0",
})
but receiving 2023/04/28 15:24:00 [INFO] checking pact-mock-service within range >= 3.5.0, < 4.0.0
2023/04/28 15:24:00 [INFO] checking pact-provider-verifier within range >= 1.36.1, < 2.0.0
2023/04/28 15:24:01 [INFO] checking pact-broker within range >= 1.22.3
2023/04/28 15:24:02 [ERROR] service: /Users/srinivas.nali/pact/lib/ruby/lib/ruby/2.4.0/net/protocol.rb:44:in `connect_nonblock': SSL_connect returned=1 errno=0 state=error: wrong version number (OpenSSL::SSL::SSLError)
greg.tyler
2023-04-28 15:18
Looks like you?re trying to use `https` but don?t have an SSL cert. Can you try `http://localhost:1234/` instead?
srinivas.nali
2023-04-28 15:32
2023/04/28 16:31:02 [ERROR] service: PactBroker::Client::hal::ErrorResponseReturned - Error making request to http://localhost:1234 status=500 {"message":"No interaction found for GET /","interaction_diffs":[]}
consumer_test.go:49: Error on publish: exit status 1
--- FAIL: Test_Consumer (21.75s)
srinivas.nali
2023-04-28 15:34
before running my customer test, I did run the server, using the command *pact-mock-service start*
greg.tyler
2023-04-28 15:39
I don?t know much about message testing. What is it you?re expecting to see when you go to localhost:1234?
greg.tyler
2023-04-28 15:44
So you?re expecting the Pact Broker UI? In which case you need to be starting the broker on port 1234, not the mock service, either with the https://hub.docker.com/r/pactfoundation/pact-broker or by https://docs.pact.io/pact_broker#to-have-a-play-around-on-your-local-machine.
matt.fellows
2023-04-28 22:21
You would normally run a pact broker on a centralised service or use something like PactFlow, not your machine (if you're just testing of course then no worries)
nuno.frias
2023-05-02 10:13
Hi all,
I am convinced there is issue with how `BeforeEach` hooks are executed. Rather than being executed once per scenario they are executed before each individual state handler function, both on setup and on cleardown. I think the intended behaviour is for `BeforeEach` hooks to be executed once per provider tests before the state handlers (and never on cleardown).
I have raised an issue for it https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/288 .
yu.xie
2023-05-02 19:15
Hi folks, I saw an issue when trying to use protobuf plugin:
```builder.UsingPlugin(message.PluginConfig{
Plugin: "protobuf",
})```
Curious if this looks familiar to anyone here:
```2023-05-02T01:01:36.348285Z DEBUG tokio-runtime-worker pact_plugin_driver::child_process: Plugin(protobuf, 59762, STDERR) || thread 'main' panicked at 'failed to create appender: Os { code: 1, kind: PermissionDenied, message: "Operation not permitted" }', /Users/runner/.cargo/registry/src/github.com-1ecc6299db9ec823/tracing-appender-0.2.2/src/rolling.rs:499:53```
yu.xie
2023-05-02 22:50
I assume there are some permission issues when it tries to create tracing appender https://github.com/tokio-rs/tracing/blob/388fff8371fef1ec0f75bc495fe1ad4cfa045f7b/tracing-appender/src/rolling.rs#L555-L569.
uglyog
2023-05-03 00:04
I think this is file permissions. It is trying to create a log file in the plugin directory
yu.xie
2023-05-03 00:05
Yeah seems like the case, I?ve checked that files are there tho and permissions look okay. Should `-rw-r--r--` be good for it?
```ls -l /Users/yu.xie/.pact/plugins/protobuf-0.3.0/log
total 0
-rw-r--r-- 1 yu.xie staff 0 May 1 17:48 plugin.log.2023-05-02
-rw-r--r-- 1 yu.xie staff 0 May 1 17:48 plugin.log.json.2023-05-02```
srinivas.nali
2023-05-03 09:09
hi @matt.fellows thank you for the input. I am learning about the setup and testing the tool for now. FYI, Our use case is message pacts
nuno.frias
2023-05-04 12:37
Hi all,
I just noticed that on Pact V4 every time you run a test a new interaction key is generated, which if I am not mistaken means that the contract content will be different every time you run the test, thus preventing you from publishing the contract unless the provider version changes.
```...
"interactions": [
{
"description": "My description",
"key": "32761b74ddf11016", <====
...```
yousafn
2023-05-04 13:37
Hey @nuno.frias
I think it is related to this issue
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/issues/264
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/issues/264#issuecomment-1530809990
> I'm going to remove the key generation, it is causing too may issues. This was meant to be a user supplied key (See https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/issues/72) and the idea was to auto-calculate it if it was not supplied by a user.
yousafn
2023-05-04 13:42
ty, would you mind posting on there and just note you will be expecting it in a pact-go release, and would be willing to help test (if you are)
yousafn
2023-05-04 13:43
also may be useful just to note your pact-go version as well :slightly_smiling_face:
nuno.frias
2023-05-04 14:53
Actually it is already been raised https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/230
nuno.frias
2023-05-04 17:17
Hi @matt.fellows
Is there any progress on this issue ?
From my early investigations I suspect the issue lies on the ffi library but going through the ffi releases I have not seen any fixes that could be pertinent to this problem.
matt.fellows
2023-05-05 02:13
I?ve just commented - I haven?t got capacity to look at this properly, but I think I know the resolution.
srinivas.nali
2023-05-23 07:20
hi All, if I want to go with pactbroker localhost route, how will it work for two sides' pipelines?
matt.fellows
2023-05-23 07:29
are you saying you have a CI pipeline (presumably not running on your machine) but want to connect it to a Pact Broker on your localhost (which presumably is your dev machine?)(
matt.fellows
2023-05-23 07:30
The pact broker is really a central piece of infra you run across the org - that?s the way it should be run
srinivas.nali
2023-05-23 08:40
if I don't want to use pactflow as pact broker, can I build some server using org infra and those docker images? so different jenkins pipelines can access.
srinivas.nali
2023-05-30 16:12
Hi All, for message pacts, on provider side, trying to understand MessageHandler and StateHandlers, what is the difference between these two? what should happen in each of these? appreciate any help, thanks.
matt.fellows
2023-05-31 00:01
`MessageHandler`s are for mapping asynchronous/synchronous messages to the scenarios being tested. Because in message Pact we don?t have a transport, we need to register the functions that would produce the relevant message
matt.fellows
2023-05-31 00:01
`StateHandler` s are for setting up the provider state for a given interaction (e.g. seeding a database, setting up a mock etc.)
srinivas.nali
2023-06-06 13:39
Hi All, when I tried to run pact tests in Jenkins machine after all Go dependencies, it is throwing below error? has anyone faced it?
```14:05:57 2023/06/06 13:05:57 [INFO] checking pact-broker within range >= 1.22.3
14:05:57 2023/06/06 13:05:57 [ERROR] CLI tools are out of date, please upgrade before continuing```
srinivas.nali
2023-06-06 14:04
hi Yousaf, yes, below is what I have put in Makefile
`install:`
`@if [ ! -d pact/bin ]; then\`
`echo "--- ? Installing Pact CLI dependencies"; \`
`curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/master/install.sh | bash -x; \`
`fi`
srinivas.nali
2023-06-06 14:05
```
14:53:42 + make install test-unit
14:53:42 --- ???? Installing Pact CLI dependencies```
```14:53:59 === RUN TestHandler_ModelMandatoryCheck
14:53:59 2023/06/06 13:53:59 [INFO] checking pact-mock-service within range >= 3.5.0, < 4.0.0
14:53:59 2023/06/06 13:53:59 [ERROR] CLI tools are out of date, please upgrade before continuing```
yousafn
2023-06-06 14:13
is it available on the path tho?
is you echo $PATH, you should have a entry that points to `pact/bin` folder wherever it is located
yousafn
2023-06-06 14:14
ie can you run `pact-mock-service --help` or do you need to specify the full path to the executable, pact-go expects the tools to be on the `PATH` as per the docs.
You could also try v2 which uses the pact-rust core via the FFI library instead, and doesn't need to download the CLI tools, but I believe adding to your path should resolve
srinivas.nali
2023-06-06 15:11
thanks Yousaf, I updated my Jenkinsfile stage
"Unit Tests": {
sh('make install')
env._PATH_ = "$PATH:$HOME/pact/bin"
echo "latest PATH value is : ${env.PATH}"
sh('make test-unit')
},
srinivas.nali
2023-06-06 15:11
```latest PATH value is : /usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/go/bin:/root/go/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/go/bin:/root/pact/bin```
srinivas.nali
2023-06-06 15:12
still same issue
16:03:54 2023/06/06 15:03:54 [INFO] checking pact-mock-service within range >= 3.5.0, < 4.0.0
16:03:54 2023/06/06 15:03:54 [ERROR] CLI tools are out of date, please upgrade before continuing
yousafn
2023-06-06 15:41
I'm not sure that is the path you downloaded the tools too, your logs previously showed it was downloading to `pact/bin` relative to your project folder, not the root
srinivas.nali
2023-06-06 16:19
it says
```17:13:33 + echo 'pact-ruby-standalone v2.0.1 installed to /workspace/ntract-testing-poc-consumer_PR-6/pact'
17:13:33 pact-ruby-standalone v2.0.1 installed to /workspace/ntract-testing-poc-consumer_PR-6/pact```
srinivas.nali
2023-06-06 16:20
17:13:33 + echo 'pact-ruby-standalone v2.0.1 installed to /workspace/ntract-testing-poc-consumer_PR-6/pact'
17:13:33 pact-ruby-standalone v2.0.1 installed to /workspace/ntract-testing-poc-consumer_PR-6/pact
17:13:33 + echo -------------------
17:13:33 -------------------
17:13:33 + echo 'available commands:'
17:13:33 available commands:
17:13:33 + echo -------------------
17:13:33 -------------------
17:13:33 ++ pwd
17:13:33 + ls -1 /workspace/ntract-testing-poc-consumer_PR-6/pact/bin
17:13:33 pact
17:13:33 pact-broker
17:13:33 pact-message
17:13:33 pact-mock-service
17:13:33 pact-plugin-cli
17:13:33 pact-provider-verifier
17:13:33 pact-publish
17:13:33 pact-stub-service
17:13:33 pactflow
17:13:33 [Pipeline] echo
17:13:33 latest PATH value is : /usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/go/bin:/root/go/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/go/bin:/pact/bin
17:13:33 [Pipeline] sh
17:13:33 + make test-unit
17:13:33 go test -v -coverprofile=coverage_unit.out $(go list ./... | grep -v /practiceExamples)
17:14:00 === RUN TestHandler_ModelMandatoryCheck
17:14:00 2023/06/06 16:14:00 [INFO] checking pact-provider-verifier within range >= 1.36.1, < 2.0.0
17:14:00 2023/06/06 16:14:00 [ERROR] CLI tools are out of date, please upgrade before continuing
yousafn
2023-06-06 19:05
the path is /workspace/ntract-testing-poc-consumer_PR-6
in the folder pact/bin
it is shown in the output of the downloader
srinivas.nali
2023-06-07 06:44
I have defined path setup like this
`#Install Pact CLI`
`install-pact-cli:`
`@if [ ! -d pact/bin ]; then\`
`echo "--- Installing Pact CLI dependencies"; \`
`curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/master/install.sh | bash -x; \`
`fi`
`update-path:`
`@echo "adding pact-cli to the PATH..."`
`PATH:=$(PATH):$(PWD)/pact/bin`
srinivas.nali
2023-06-07 06:45
and updated Jenkinsfile with stage('Unit Tests'){
sh('make install-pact-cli')
sh('make update-path')
sh('make test-unit')
}
anshu.behera.02
2023-07-04 08:01
Hello Team, is there an equivalent of pact-jvm's https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-jvm/issues/1260 for pact-go?
anshu.behera.02
2023-07-04 09:55
Hey Matt, thanks for the response. Was rewriting something from Kotlin to Go and couldn't find the equivalent feature. If it is the default behaviour then that's good enough for me.
buckley
2023-07-10 18:55
If I have a DTO which uses a `*time.Time` value within a struct, how can I tell the `dsl.Matcher` to marshal it to a string or nil as go would? As of now, it's sending `{}` which is unable to be unmarshalled.
buckley
2023-07-10 21:07
I should probably mention that I'm using pact-go version 1.7.0 due to v2 only being marked as having beta stability.
matt.fellows
2023-07-10 22:25
It needs to be serialised into a string, like you would if you sent it over the wire.
P.S. v2 is no longer beta
buckley
2023-07-10 22:27
the readme here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/README.md specifies that its stability is `beta` , is that not updated?
```Specification Compatibility
Version Stable Spec Compatibility Install
2.0.x Beta 2, 3 See installation```
matt.fellows
2023-07-10 22:29
_(I only dropped the unstable tag last night, and forgot about that table)_
buckley
2023-07-10 22:29
The time itself is sent as a string over the wire but when the matcher creates an example object, the object it makes contains the time property as a JSON object. We're using oapi-codegen to fill in our provider models.
buckley
2023-07-10 22:31
We're also doing something similar to unmarshal the time from the consumer end. Perhaps the advised workflow is to create an intermediate object for use only with pact?
matt.fellows
2023-07-10 23:16
How are you passing it to the Pact matchers though? Are you using the struct tags?
matt.fellows
2023-07-10 23:18
I can see why it might not work, because I don?t think the `Match` feature is clever enough to first serialise the `time.Time` thing
matt.fellows
2023-07-10 23:25
OK unfortunately it looks like it won?t work. The `Match` function is quite primitive.
It could probably be made to be less so if you were up for some tinkering?
buckley
2023-07-10 23:28
for now, it seems like the best workaround is probably going to be to use the `StructMatcher` , does that sound correct?
buckley
2023-07-10 23:51
a related question: is there an easy way to specify that a property within a StructMatcher is able to be nil?
hazem
2023-07-12 23:40
```[Container] 2023/07/12 23:38:21 Running command pact-go -l DEBUG install
2023/07/12 23:38:21 [ERROR] Your Pact library installation is out of date and we were unable to download a newer one for you: exit status 1
[Container] 2023/07/12 23:38:21 Command did not exit successfully pact-go -l DEBUG install exit status 1```
hazem
2023-07-13 00:09
yeah - ran the usual `go install http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2@2.x.x`
hazem
2023-07-13 00:10
the first attemp was with `-f` and still failed. i removed it because i noticed a branch when `!i.force`
matt.fellows
2023-07-13 00:12
That's a different command that installs the pact golang package. Did you run the other one too to install the FFI?
hazem
2023-07-13 00:14
i usually run this
```'go install http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2@2.x.x',
'pact-go -l DEBUG install -f'```
matt.fellows
2023-07-13 00:16
yep. Sorry it wasn?t clear above that you ran the second command (just the `go install` one was mentioned)
matt.fellows
2023-07-13 00:20
So anyway, maybe I?m missing something. When you run `pact-go -l DEBUG install -f` what is the output? Are you able to shell into the container and run it there?
matt.fellows
2023-07-13 00:23
I reckon it could be this check that?s failing:
```// checkMusl checks if the OS uses musl library instead of glibc
func (i *Installer) checkMusl() error {
lddPath, err := exec.LookPath("ldd")
if err != nil {
return fmt.Errorf("could not find ldd in environment path")
}
cmd := exec.Command(lddPath, "/bin/echo")
out, err := cmd.CombinedOutput()
if strings.Contains(string(out), "musl") {
log.Println("[WARN] Usage of musl library is known to cause problems, prefer using glibc instead.")
}
return err
}```
Given the `exit status 1` error, this is the only thing I think might return that
matt.fellows
2023-07-13 00:24
Just looking at that, we probably shouldn?t error the install because we couldn?t check if it was a musl setup.
matt.fellows
2023-07-13 00:29
No worries. See also #646c3eb - i?d love to know if that fixes your isnsue
wesley.newcomb
2023-07-13 16:32
Hi Pact Team, I am writing a consumer test in go using the new gRPC workflow. I am trying to call (*message.SynchronousPact).AddSynchronousMessage() twice within the same test because my gRPC server has multiple RPCs. When I run the test with just one call to (*message.SynchronousPact).AddSynchronousMessage() the test passes and a valid pact is generated but I still see this log
```2023-07-13T16:02:55.872397Z ERROR ThreadId(01) pact_mock_server::server_manager: Failed to shutdown plugin mock server with ID 97fa0c1e-3e37-4199-807f-3c16e3c0a94c - transport error```
If I add a second call to (*message.SynchronousPact).AddSynchronousMessage() the test fails due to this error
```2023-07-13T16:02:56.418779Z ERROR ThreadId(01) pact_ffi::plugins: Mock server is already started```
Is this a known issue or is there some workaround. - Thanks. Cc: @sathish.sundararajan @jason.taylor2
wesley.newcomb
2023-07-13 19:33
For context, basically if you have multiple (*message.SynchronousPact).AddSynchronousMessage() calls within the same go test, e.g. func TestConsumer(t *testing.T){?} you will get the above errors.
matt.fellows
2023-07-13 21:45
Perhaps we need to handle that situation better. Could you please raise an issue? This being said do you really need them in the same test? They will be tested separately on the provider aide
hazem
2023-07-14 16:11
cool - that worked!
```2023/07/13 15:57:04 [DEBUG] unable to check for presence musl library due to error: exit status 1
2023/07/13 15:57:04 [INFO] downloading library from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases/download/libpact_ffi-v0.4.5/libpact_ffi-linux-x86_64.so.gz to /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.so
&{}
2023/07/13 15:57:05 [DEBUG] obtaining hash for file /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.so```
wesley.newcomb
2023-07-17 13:22
Yes will raise an issue for this. Also yes the separating the calls in to multiple tests works, however, for my use case it would be ideal to call AddSynchronousMessage() twice within the same test to the same *message.SynchronousPact.
sathish.sundararajan
2023-07-21 08:58
Hi Folks, we are writing pact consumer test for message. Trying to pass in headers using WithMetadata but its failing. Could someone please help ?
```err := p.AddAsynchronousMessage().
Given("Event is received").
ExpectsToReceive("Event").
UsingPlugin(message.PluginConfig{
Plugin: "protobuf",
Version: "0.3.4",
}).
WithContents(protoMessage, "application/protobuf").
WithMetadata(headers).
ExecuteTest(t, func(m message.AsynchronousMessage) error {
return nil
})
p.AddAsynchronousMessage().Given("Event is received").ExpectsToReceive("Evenr").UsingPlugin((message.PluginConfig literal)).WithContents(protoMessage, "application/protobuf").WithMetadata undefined (type *v4.AsynchronousMessageWithPluginContents has no field or method WithMetadata)```
christophe.laranjo
2023-08-22 22:30
Hello,
I'm having the same problem as described in this conversation, but I'm on Windows: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9UTHTFFB/p1686058771769559
in my environment variables I have the GOPATH to \Users\myUser\go and in the PATH I have %USERPROFILE%\go\bin
but when I try to run a test I get this error message:
`2023/08/23 00:23:26 [INFO] checking pact-mock-service within range >= 3.5.0, < 4.0.0`
`2023/08/23 00:23:26 [ERROR] CLI tools are out of date, please upgrade before continuing`
this link explains how to install the standalone, but I don't find it very clear: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/releases
once I've downloaded the right version for windows and unzipped it, I get a pact folder with two folders in it, but in the link it just says to extract the /pact/bin and change what's inside to .bat. But when I extract the folder there is a bin subfolder and a lib subfolder in the pact folder.
Should I put the pact folder in my go directory (the one in my GOPATH), or should I copy the inside of the folders and put them somewhere else? Because if I put the pact folder in my go folder, I always get the error message.
Thank you for your help
matt.fellows
2023-08-22 22:36
The files inside `bin` need to be on the `PATH` environment variable. The files inside `bin` also need the `.bat` extension, apparently.
matt.fellows
2023-08-22 22:36
> Should I put the pact folder in my go directory (the one in my GOPATH)
No, they can go anywhere you like on your system
matt.fellows
2023-08-22 22:37
If you put them in `\Users\myUser\pact` then you would add the following to the `PATH` variable:
```\Users\myUser\pact\bin```
matt.fellows
2023-08-22 22:38
There is nothing special about Pact here. This is just the same as you would do for any program - for it to be available on the system for other apps to discover, it needs to be on the path
christophe.laranjo
2023-08-23 09:34
Ok thanks, but still not working, PATH is \Users\myUser\go\bin and all the file are inside with .bat and I have the same result
matt.fellows
2023-08-23 10:32
If you go into a shell and type `pact-broker` what happens? If it doesn't print out a help message, the PATH is incorrectly set
christophe.laranjo
2023-08-23 10:59
I'm searching but for me it look like correct the path for the bin C:\Users\chris\go\bin
with everything inside
My user variable seems also correct
and inside my environnement varaible the PATH seems also correct
christophe.laranjo
2023-08-23 11:55
ok thanks for the help, seems to be fix, the pact folder need to be in the bin folder and un the variable I need to had the path for it
kkanova
2023-08-25 13:25
Hi everyone!
I'm playing with the Pact for some time, using pact-js for consumer and pact-go for provider. I've tried to use V3 schema and got blocked on the teardown (probably). I don't want to execute any specific teardown, I'm wiping all the data during `afterEach` method. But in the logs I can see:
```2023-08-25T13:18:39.954253Z INFO ThreadId(13) pact_verifier: Running teardown provider state change handler <mystate> for <mygiven>
LOG: createAppAndComponents method was executed
2023/08/25 15:18:39 http: panic serving [::1]:52442:
Your test failed.```
The `LOG` here is logged from the function that is supposed to be run just for the setup of provider. I'm a bit confused with that. Is there some documentation/example that I can check?
I'll put a snippet of my code to the thread. Thank you!
kkanova
2023-08-25 13:27
in one file I have state defined
``` verifyRequest.StateHandlers = models.StateHandlers{
"App myapp exists and has component gh-component and quay-component": <-createAppAndComponents(HASAppNamespace),
}```
and the function in the second file (will shorten it for better readability)
```
func createAppAndComponents(HASAppNamespace string) <-chan models.StateHandler {
stateHandler := make(chan models.StateHandler)
go func() {
defer close(stateHandler)
stateHandler <- func(setup bool, s models.ProviderState) (models.ProviderStateResponse, error) {
println("LOG: createAppAndComponents method was executed")
<my logic there>
return nil, nil
}
}()
return stateHandler
}```
kkanova
2023-08-28 13:34
I've removed the channel (in the past I introduced it there as I saw some asynchronous behaviour) so now the code seems like that:
``` verifyRequest.StateHandlers = models.StateHandlers{
"App myapp exists and has component gh-component and quay-component": createAppAndComponents(HASAppNamespace),
}```
and the method itself:
```func createAppAndComponents(HASAppNamespace string) models.StateHandler {
var stateHandler = func(setup bool, s models.ProviderState) (models.ProviderStateResponse, error) {
<some logic>
}
return stateHandler
}```
and this is log from the run:
```023-08-28T13:30:06.724217Z INFO ThreadId(13) pact_verifier: Running provider verification for 'Get app with its components.'
2023-08-28T15:30:06+02:00 INFO Stopping and waiting for webhooks
2023-08-28T15:30:06+02:00 INFO Wait completed, proceeding to shutdown the manager
2023-08-28T13:30:06.724298Z INFO ThreadId(13) pact_verifier::provider_client: Sending request to provider at http://localhost:44835/
2023-08-28T13:30:06.724307Z INFO ThreadId(13) pact_verifier::provider_client: Sending request HTTP Request ( method: GET, path: /apis/appstudio.redhat.com/v1alpha1/namespaces/default/applications/myapp, query: None, headers: Some({"Content-type": ["application/json"]}), body: Missing )
2023-08-28T13:30:06.728033Z INFO ThreadId(13) pact_verifier::provider_client: Received response: HTTP Response ( status: 200, headers: Some({"content-length": ["1990"], "content-type": ["application/json"], "audit-id": ["1661d23b-781f-4cb2-b6ce-8c0483154de9"], "date": ["Mon, 28 Aug 2023 13:30:06 GMT"], "cache-control": ["no-cache", "private"], "x-kubernetes-pf-prioritylevel-uid": ["ad80173c-8794-407b-b8e8-4832c173cd9f"], "x-kubernetes-pf-flowschema-uid": ["c0ea09c8-f75f-416a-a4e9-f5bc9e03116b"]}), body: Present(1990 bytes, application/json) )
2023-08-28T13:30:06.728067Z INFO ThreadId(13) pact_matching: comparing to expected response: HTTP Response ( status: 200, headers: Some({"Content-Type": ["application/json"]}), body: Present(1063 bytes) )
2023-08-28T13:30:06.728824Z INFO ThreadId(13) pact_verifier: Running teardown provider state change handler 'App myapp exists and has component gh-component and quay-component' for 'Get app with its components.'
LOG: createAppAndComponents method was executed
2023/08/28 15:30:06 http: panic serving [::1]:33954:
Your test failed.
Ginkgo panics to prevent subsequent assertions from running.
Normally Ginkgo rescues this panic so you shouldn't see it.
But, if you make an assertion in a goroutine, Ginkgo can't capture the panic.
To circumvent this, you should call
defer GinkgoRecover()
at the top of the goroutine that caused this panic.
goroutine 705 [running]:
net/http.(*conn).serve.func1()
/usr/local/go/src/net/http/server.go:1825 +0xbf
panic({0x2285b20, 0x2da9290})
/usr/local/go/src/runtime/panic.go:844 +0x258
http://github.com/onsi/ginkgo.Fail({0xc000cbda40, 0x13f}, {0xc000ca4568?, 0xc000cbda40?, 0xc000e5b680?})
/home/katka/go/pkg/mod/github.com/onsi/ginkgo@v1.16.5/ginkgo_dsl.go:291 +0xdd
http://github.com/onsi/gomega/internal.(*Assertion).match(0xc00030df80, {0x2dc48e0, 0x437e1c8}, 0x1, {0x0, 0x0, 0x0})
/home/katka/go/pkg/mod/github.com/onsi/gomega@v1.24.1/internal/assertion.go:106 +0x1f0
http://github.com/onsi/gomega/internal.(*Assertion).Should(0xc00030df80, {0x2dc48e0, 0x437e1c8}, {0x0, 0x0, 0x0})
/home/katka/go/pkg/mod/github.com/onsi/gomega@v1.24.1/internal/assertion.go:50 +0xb5
http://github.com/redhat-appstudio/application-service/controllers.createAppAndComponents.func1(0x0?, {{0xc0012f1590?, 0xc000494c30?}, 0x42?})
/home/katka/hac/application-service/controllers/application_pact_test_state_handlers.go:46 +0x457
http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2/provider.stateHandlerMiddleware.func1.1({0x2dd44b0, 0xc000a5e8c0}, 0xc0012ed400)
/home/katka/go/pkg/mod/github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2@v2.0.0-beta.23/provider/verifier.go:295 +0x6b4
net/http.HandlerFunc.ServeHTTP(0x2db87a0?, {0x2dd44b0?, 0xc000a5e8c0?}, 0x440f76?)
/usr/local/go/src/net/http/server.go:2084 +0x2f
http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2/proxy.chainHandlers.func1.1({0x2dd44b0, 0xc000a5e8c0}, 0xc000ac1240?)
/home/katka/go/pkg/mod/github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2@v2.0.0-beta.23/proxy/http.go:68 +0x90
net/http.HandlerFunc.ServeHTTP(0x0?, {0x2dd44b0?, 0xc000a5e8c0?}, 0x413305?)
/usr/local/go/src/net/http/server.go:2084 +0x2f
net/http.serverHandler.ServeHTTP({0x2dc0e78?}, {0x2dd44b0, 0xc000a5e8c0}, 0xc0012ed400)
/usr/local/go/src/net/http/server.go:2916 +0x43b
net/http.(*conn).serve(0xc0009121e0, {0x2dd5b08, 0xc000b13dd0})
/usr/local/go/src/net/http/server.go:1966 +0x5d7
created by net/http.(*Server).Serve
/usr/local/go/src/net/http/server.go:3071 +0x4db
2023-08-28T13:30:06.730080Z ERROR ThreadId(13) pact_verifier: Provider teardown state change for 'App myapp exists and has component gh-component and quay-component' has failed - MismatchResult::Error("Invalid response: error sending request for url (http://localhost:44835/__setup): connection closed before message completed", None)```
kkanova
2023-08-28 15:04
I was able to workaround it by adding if:
```func createAppAndComponents(HASAppNamespace string) models.StateHandler {
var stateHandler = func(setup bool, s models.ProviderState) (models.ProviderStateResponse, error) {
if !setup {
println("skipping state handler")
return nil, nil
}
...
}
}```
but I would rather know where the hell is that setup bool being setup to false... :smile: Is there some doc about how to use the teardown? I've gone through the pact-go code briefly, but haven't found that yet. Thanks
kkanova
2023-08-28 15:06
Or is it preferred way of usage, to have if/else switch in every state handler? :thinking_face:
sathish.sundararajan
2023-08-28 16:22
I have added metadata info as you mentioned. But metadata is missing in the contract. To make sure, i tested out with the eg provided https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/examples/protobuf-message/protobuf_consumer_test.go which also fails to record metadata. Please find the bug i created for your ref: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/331
matt.fellows
2023-08-28 22:29
It?s mentioned here https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/docs/provider.md
kkanova
2023-08-29 07:59
Hm, ok, I didn't get that before. It confused me that https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/docs/provider.md#lifecycle-of-a-provider-verification is `StateHandler (post)` and it basically means the tear down method. I though it is something else. It was also not clear to me from the doc that it is required to have this switch as the same method will run twice. Sorry, it's probably just my misunderstanding. Thank you for your time, help and kindness :slightly_smiling_face:
yousafn
2023-08-30 13:19
Hello Pact-Gophers!
Would anyone happen to be located in or near London, who has some Pact GoLang experience, and would to speak at a local meetup in September?
If so let me know in a thread, and can discuss details!
christophe.laranjo
2023-09-01 19:10
Hello, I'm trying to run the test from the exemples but I get this error:
someone know how to fix it?
christophe.laranjo
2023-09-01 21:03
from this https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/tree/master/examples
seems to be link with the V2
matt.fellows
2023-09-02 04:11
It is the V2 package. How are you running it? Have you disabled cgo by any chance?
christophe.laranjo
2023-09-04 08:47
what do you mean by "how are you rrunning it?", I didn't touch the cgo at all, how I can check if it's disable?
matt.fellows
2023-09-04 09:49
I just mean how are you running the tests? I'd look at the CI builds for Pact Go and see what might be different
sathish.sundararajan
2023-09-05 17:12
Does pact-go support rewriting grpc request headers/body to support provider side testing for handling different states ?
sathish.sundararajan
2023-09-06 13:31
Yes thats correct but not as part of metadata but in the actual request
jason.taylor2
2023-09-06 15:52
Seeing an issue with protobuf where the consumer test cannot find an enum definition when the message definitions are in multiple proto files. Opened an issue against pact-go with the details - but might be a plugin issue?
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/334
f.barril
2023-09-06 21:53
Hi everyone, I have the following test
```package events
import (
"http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/dsl"
"systems-management/database"
"testing"
)
var cenas = func(m dsl.Message) error {
return processTrackerUpdateEvent(*m.Content.(*TrackerUpdateEvent))
}
func TestMessageConsumer_Success(t *testing.T) {
pact := dsl.Pact{
Consumer: "MyConsumer",
Provider: "MyProvider",
}
message := pact.AddMessage()
message.Given("couves").
ExpectsToReceive("assadas").
WithContent(
//TrackerUpdateEvent{
// Tracker: database.Tracker{},
// TrackerUpdateRequest: database.TrackerUpdateRequest{},
//},
map[string]interface{}{
"Tracker": database.Tracker{},
"TrackerUpdateRequest": database.TrackerUpdateRequest{},
},
).
AsType(TrackerUpdateEvent{})
pact.VerifyMessageConsumer(t, message, cenas)
}```
and I am getting the error
``` panic: interface conversion: interface {} is map[string]interface {}, not *events.TrackerUpdateEvent [recovered]
panic: interface conversion: interface {} is map[string]interface {}, not *events.TrackerUpdateEvent```
any help ? thank you :pray:
f.barril
2023-09-06 21:56
I've tried with also (comes from your example on docs)
``` WithContent(map[string]interface{}{
"id": like(127),
"name": "Baz",
"access": eachLike(map[string]interface{}{
"role": term("admin", "admin|controller|user"),
}, 3),```
f.barril
2023-09-06 22:08
may help
```type TrackerUpdateEvent struct {
Tracker database.Tracker `json:"tracker"`
TrackerUpdateRequest database.TrackerUpdateRequest `json:"update_request"`
}```
matt.fellows
2023-09-06 23:27
Gotcha. I think for now, I?d follow the other guidance and remove auth from the contract (see howtoauth)
2023-09-06 23:27
Approaches to handling authentication in Pact tests: https://docs.pact.io/provider/handling_auth
sathish.sundararajan
2023-09-07 00:10
hmm, what if the grpc request is for checking if the user is authorized but nothing else ?
sathish.sundararajan
2023-09-07 00:28
Proto looks something like this
```{
"pact:proto": "/home/service.proto",
"pact:proto-service": "Service/Validate",
"pact:content-type": "application/protobuf",
"request": {
"token": "matching(type, 'bj8qnqw9cnalksnd9qwnk1j9cjm')"
},
"response": {
"valid": "matching(boolean, true)"
}
}```
matt.fellows
2023-09-07 00:43
Can you stub the service that validates the token when the verification happens?
sathish.sundararajan
2023-09-07 00:53
Actually the service under test here validates the token. Its not handled by another service
matt.fellows
2023-09-07 01:08
Is a valid token worth testing? Probably not, especially if you?re just going to replace it in the test itself anyway!
sathish.sundararajan
2023-09-07 01:16
In some cases, it gets a little complicated where auth is needed to further process the request! Rewriting auth header would be helpful
matt.fellows
2023-09-07 03:39
Yep, understand. It gets a little tricker because Go / Client language would probably have to receive a raw `[]byte` and then hand it back to the framework. But I think it?s doable
matt.fellows
2023-09-07 03:40
@uglyog I seem to recall this being discussed somewhere but FYI. Something for us to consider in the future.
sathish.sundararajan
2023-09-08 14:43
@matt.fellows is there a good gRPC example of using provider states for setting different states on provider side ?
matt.fellows
2023-09-11 02:44
I don?t think so. But provider states for gRPC are the same as anything else - unless I?m missing something?
srinivas.nali
2023-09-12 10:37
Hi all, quick query, if consumer is storing data in to DB without any handler service, how to generate the contract without calling handler's validation code? can we skip that to generate the json without using any code logic to check but go according to some json schema
srinivas.nali
2023-09-12 15:53
Provider Step
AWS Lambda produces a JSON file into AWS S3
Consumer Step
S3 content is copied into DB by parsing the file and using SQL queries
I want to publish a contract by Consumer, so the provider conforms to a model schema.
Since there isn?t a code handler wrapper I can use to verify here, how to generate the contract on consumer side?
matt.fellows
2023-09-12 23:48
You can?t use JSON schema in place of Pact tests, but you could of course use it in a test if you wanted
matt.fellows
2023-09-12 23:48
Surely there is a part of your code base that knows how to parse such a data structure. That would be the target of your consumer test (it would also be a message Pact test, not a regular HTTP test in case you had thought that)
matt.fellows
2023-09-12 23:49
See https://docs.pact.io/getting_started/how_pact_works#how-to-write-message-pact-tests. If you can test the part of the code that generates the JSON (provide/producer side), but not the bit that writes to S3, then you should be good.
allen.ayala
2023-09-14 18:13
Our CI server doesn?t have the PACT CLI installed and the teams using the pact-go are seeing an error when running the contract tests in the CI server. Is there a way for teams to have the cli in their repo and mention it in the Go package manager, so that the Go Pact SDK can use that cli for the contract tests ? I see a similar capability exists on the node and pact node version (9) allows us to test using it
matt.fellows
2023-09-14 21:50
Not at the moment, it currently requires it to be in the path - can you CI not install that during build?
hazem
2023-09-28 18:50
Cross posting this here in case anyone knows? https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C02BXLDJ7JR/p1695926833910029
yousafn
2023-09-28 22:58
i saw a similar issue raised in the repo hmmmmm
i assume this is with ventura 13.6? if not, what version are you running, and on which hardware, intel or apple silicon.
i have test beds at home for both, so will have a look tomorrow.
it?s plausible that macos have changed the dyld paths so that our expected load paths are no longer included ( that is my sneaky suspicion )
i also wonder if apple are changing up delivery mechanisms as i am still waiting release of the kernel development kit for 14.0rcX and 13.6b!
yousafn
2023-09-29 11:45
Those path lookups are normal places MacOS looks for dylibs, although it should include `/usr/local/lib` in there to find our added libraries but it doesn?t appear to be the case.
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/345#issuecomment-1740742887
You can try setting `DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/lib` prior to running your go test to see if that helps?
matt.fellows
2023-10-01 23:30
Hi Haz, I?ll take a look at this this week. I suspect it relates to OS updates. I?m on the latest 13.5.x line so can add another perspective on it.
Thanks for your awesome debugging too Yousaf.
kkanova
2023-10-02 12:47
Hi guys, we're extending our tests so I tried to use `pending pact` feature for synchronization. The good thing is it doesn't fail the suite, but it seems the tests are run twice - is that expected? It also seems that the `verifyRequest.AfterEach` is ignored somehow as the second run reports that resources already exist. Maybe I have something bad in my configuration, could you help me find a culprit please? Adding screens and log to the thread.
kkanova
2023-10-02 12:48
```...
The pact at https://pact-broker-hac-pact-broker.apps.hac-devsandbox.5unc.p1.openshiftapps.com/pacts/provider/HAS/consumer/HACdev/pact-version/8f7d677e2bd85f9e523914e612b3082c558c6b17 is being verified because the pact content belongs to the consumer version matching the following criterion:
* all consumer versions tagged 'PR808' (37dc07b)
This pact is in pending state for this version of HAS because a successful verification result for a version of HAS from branch 'main' 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
Verifying a pact between HACdev and HAS
Get app with its components. (1s 53ms loading, 2s 846ms verification)
Given Application exists
And Application has components
returns a response which
has status code 200 (OK)
includes headers
"Content-Type" with value "application/json" (OK)
has a matching body (OK)
CDQ was created (1s 53ms loading, 6ms verification)
Given CDQ exists
returns a response which
has status code 201 (OK)
includes headers
"Content-Type" with value "application/json" (OK)
has a matching body (FAILED)
Create an application. (1s 53ms loading, 6ms verification)
Given No app with the name app-to-create in the default namespace exists.
returns a response which
has status code 201 (OK)
includes headers
"Content-Type" with value "application/json" (OK)
has a matching body (OK)
This pact is still in pending state for any version of HAS from branch 'main' as the successful verification results have not yet been published.
The pact at https://pact-broker-hac-pact-broker.apps.hac-devsandbox.5unc.p1.openshiftapps.com/pacts/provider/HAS/consumer/HACdev/pact-version/015fa7731662a83578a37f235f4f4b43b8c2fe5b is being verified because the pact content belongs to the consumer version matching the following criterion:
* all consumer versions tagged 'PR808' (e28530f)
This pact is in pending state for this version of HAS because a successful verification result for a version of HAS from branch 'main' 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
Verifying a pact between HACdev and HAS
Get app with its components. (1s 53ms loading, 7ms verification)
Given Application exists
And Application has components
Request Failed - One or more of the setup state change handlers has failed
CDQ was created (1s 53ms loading, 5ms verification)
Given CDQ exists
returns a response which
has status code 201 (FAILED)
includes headers
"Content-Type" with value "application/json" (OK)
has a matching body (FAILED)
Create an application. (1s 53ms loading, 6ms verification)
Given No app with the name app-to-create in the default namespace exists.
returns a response which
has status code 201 (FAILED)
includes headers
"Content-Type" with value "application/json" (OK)
has a matching body (FAILED)
This pact is still in pending state for any version of HAS from branch 'main' as the successful verification results have not yet been published.
Pending Failures:
1) Verifying a pact between HACdev and HAS Given CDQ exists - CDQ was created
1.1) has a matching body
$ -> Actual map is missing the following keys: status
2) Verifying a pact between HACdev and HAS Given Application exists And Application has components - Get app with its components. - One or more of the setup state change handlers has failed
3) Verifying a pact between HACdev and HAS Given CDQ exists - CDQ was created
3.1) has a matching body
$.status -> Type mismatch: Expected Map {"conditions":[{"lastTransitionTime":"2022-06-01T19:46:56Z","message":"ComponentDetectionQuery is processing","reason":"Success","type":"Processing"}]} but received String "Failure"
$ -> Actual map is missing the following keys: spec
$.apiVersion -> Expected 'http://appstudio.redhat.com/v1alpha1' (String) but received 'v1' (String)
$.kind -> Expected 'ComponentDetectionQuery' (String) but received 'Status' (String)
$.metadata -> Actual map is missing the following keys: creationTimestamp, generation, name, namespace
3.2) has status code 201
expected 201 but was 409
4) Verifying a pact between HACdev and HAS Given No app with the name app-to-create in the default namespace exists. - Create an application.
4.1) has a matching body
$ -> Actual map is missing the following keys: spec
$.apiVersion -> Expected 'http://appstudio.redhat.com/v1alpha1' (String) but received 'v1' (String)
$.kind -> Expected 'Application' (String) but received 'Status' (String)
$.metadata -> Actual map is missing the following keys: creationTimestamp, generation, managedFields, name, namespace, resourceVersion, uid
4.2) has status code 201
expected 201 but was 409
There were 4 non-fatal pact failures on pending pacts or interactions (see http://docs.pact.io/pending for more information)
...```
kkanova
2023-10-02 12:49
aaah, yeah now I see that, I expected it to run just latest from the branch, I'll fix that, thx! But it still seems that after method is ignored, right?
matt.fellows
2023-10-02 12:50
First one:
```The pact at https://pact-broker-hac-pact-broker.apps.hac-devsandbox.5unc.p1.openshiftapps.com/pacts/provider/HAS/consumer/HACdev/pact-version/8f7d677e2bd85f9e523914e612b3082c558c6b17 is being verified because the pact content belongs to the consumer version matching the following criterion:
* all consumer versions tagged 'PR808' (37dc07b)```
Second one:
```This pact is still in pending state for any version of HAS from branch 'main' as the successful verification results have not yet been published.
The pact at https://pact-broker-hac-pact-broker.apps.hac-devsandbox.5unc.p1.openshiftapps.com/pacts/provider/HAS/consumer/HACdev/pact-version/015fa7731662a83578a37f235f4f4b43b8c2fe5b is being verified because the pact content belongs to the consumer version matching the following criterion:
* all consumer versions tagged 'PR808' (e28530f)```
matt.fellows
2023-10-02 12:50
> But it still seems that after method is ignored, right?
It shouldn?t, so it could be a bug
matt.fellows
2023-10-02 12:54
> is ignored somehow as the second run reports that resources already exist.
are you able to elaborate on this point further?
kkanova
2023-10-02 13:07
I'll try to explain - it runs against two version, in both the `Get app with its components.` and `Create an application.` are not touched and should succeed. The second run fails though, saying that resources (those applications) already exists:
```2023-10-02T10:35:57.119775Z DEBUG ThreadId(01) verify_interaction{interaction="Create an application."}: pact_verifier::provider_client: body:
{"kind":"Status","apiVersion":"v1","metadata":{},"status":"Failure","message":"http://applications.appstudio.redhat.com \"app-to-create\" already exists","reason":"AlreadyExists","details":{"name":"app-to-create","group":"http://appstudio.redhat.com","kind":"applications"},"code":409}```
That indicates that the app was not removed, but should be during the `verifyRequest.AfterEach`.
To verify the method was called, I've put debug text to the After Each method and it appreared 2 times in the middle of logs, seems like some asynchronous behaviour to me. Not sure if it is bug or my issue. I can try to move that logic to teardown suite.
kkanova
2023-10-02 13:08
Ah, I get it now, AfterSuite was executed just twice after those 2 passing tests in the first run. Makes sense, sorry
matt.fellows
2023-10-02 23:19
> Is it intended though that AfterEach is not executed when the test fails?
It?s a good question. Ideally it should still run I think
hazem
2023-10-03 15:48
@matt.fellows and @yousafn - we confirmed this has been resolved now with the latest pact-go installer. Thank you for taking up this issue so quickly.
+stan
matt.fellows
2023-10-03 22:55
Awesome, great to hear that. Thanks for confirming too :slightly_smiling_face:
ananya
2023-10-11 10:58
Hey folks,
I am trying to run pact-go with `go test -mod=readonly -v .`
Getting this error when I include the `"http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2/consumer"` package
Is anyone familiar with this?
```# http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2/internal/native
Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:
"_pactffi_create_mock_server_for_transport", referenced from:
__cgo_df62a8d4863b_Cfunc_pactffi_create_mock_server_for_transport in _x003.o
(maybe you meant: __cgo_df62a8d4863b_Cfunc_pactffi_create_mock_server_for_transport)
"_pactffi_verifier_add_custom_header", referenced from:
__cgo_df62a8d4863b_Cfunc_pactffi_verifier_add_custom_header in _x005.o
(maybe you meant: __cgo_df62a8d4863b_Cfunc_pactffi_verifier_add_custom_header)
"_pactffi_verifier_add_provider_transport", referenced from:
__cgo_df62a8d4863b_Cfunc_pactffi_verifier_add_provider_transport in _x005.o
(maybe you meant: __cgo_df62a8d4863b_Cfunc_pactffi_verifier_add_provider_transport)
"_pactffi_verifier_new_for_application", referenced from:
__cgo_df62a8d4863b_Cfunc_pactffi_verifier_new_for_application in _x005.o
(maybe you meant: __cgo_df62a8d4863b_Cfunc_pactffi_verifier_new_for_application)
"_pactffi_verifier_set_filter_info", referenced from:
__cgo_df62a8d4863b_Cfunc_pactffi_verifier_set_filter_info in _x005.o
(maybe you meant: __cgo_df62a8d4863b_Cfunc_pactffi_verifier_set_filter_info)
"_pactffi_verifier_set_no_pacts_is_error", referenced from:
__cgo_df62a8d4863b_Cfunc_pactffi_verifier_set_no_pacts_is_error in _x005.o
(maybe you meant: __cgo_df62a8d4863b_Cfunc_pactffi_verifier_set_no_pacts_is_error)
"_pactffi_verifier_set_publish_options", referenced from:
__cgo_df62a8d4863b_Cfunc_pactffi_verifier_set_publish_options in _x005.o
(maybe you meant: __cgo_df62a8d4863b_Cfunc_pactffi_verifier_set_publish_options)
"_pactffi_with_header_v2", referenced from:
__cgo_df62a8d4863b_Cfunc_pactffi_with_header_v2 in _x004.o
(maybe you meant: __cgo_df62a8d4863b_Cfunc_pactffi_with_header_v2)
"_pactffi_with_query_parameter_v2", referenced from:
__cgo_df62a8d4863b_Cfunc_pactffi_with_query_parameter_v2 in _x004.o
(maybe you meant: __cgo_df62a8d4863b_Cfunc_pactffi_with_query_parameter_v2)
ld: symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64
clang: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation)
FAIL //[build failed]
FAIL```
matt.fellows
2023-10-11 12:25
Have you run the https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go#installation step?
ananya
2023-10-11 12:30
Yes..(pact-go command is working)
``` % pact-go -l DEBUG install
2023/10/11 17:59:44 [INFO] package libpact_ffi found
2023/10/11 17:59:44 [INFO] checking version 0.4.5 of libpact_ffi against semver constraint >= 0.4.0, < 1.0.0
2023/10/11 17:59:44 [DEBUG] 0.4.5 satisfies constraints 0.4.5 >= 0.4.0, < 1.0.0
2023/10/11 17:59:44 [INFO] package libpact_ffi is correctly installed
2023/10/11 17:59:44 [DEBUG] skip checking ffi version() call because FFI not loaded. This is expected when running the 'pact-go' command.```
matt.fellows
2023-10-12 02:28
Can you please try that with the `-f` command to force a re-install? I want to ensure the architecture etc. matches the error
matt.fellows
2023-10-12 02:29
> ```ld: symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64
> clang: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation)```
You can also try adding that to the `lib.go` linker arguments to see if there is additional info it can share
ananya
2023-10-12 12:15
> Can you please try that with the `-f` command to force a re-install?
This helped, thanks!
kkanova
2023-10-19 13:34
Hello, I'm a little confused with the Pact behaviour regarding non-defined states on provider side. Currently, the request is called even when state is not defined. Is it possible to fail the test if the state is not defined on provider? I would love to have tests like these `pending` more then passing. Thx!
Log from my test:
```023/10/19 13:00:03 [INFO] executing state handler middleware
2023/10/19 13:00:03 [WARN] no state handler found for state: ComponentDetectionQuery progressing
2023-10-19T11:00:03.919419Z INFO ThreadId(13) pact_verifier: Running provider verification for 'request to return CDQ'
2023-10-19T11:00:03.919461Z INFO ThreadId(13) pact_verifier::provider_client: Sending request to provider at http://localhost:43615/
2023-10-19T11:00:03.919465Z INFO ThreadId(13) pact_verifier::provider_client: Sending request HTTP Request ( ... )
2023-10-19T11:00:03.921893Z INFO ThreadId(13) pact_matching: comparing to expected response: HTTP Response ( status: 200, headers: Some({"Content-Type": ["application/json"]}), body: Present(430 bytes) )
2023-10-19T11:00:03.922307Z INFO ThreadId(13) pact_verifier: Running teardown provider state change handler 'ComponentDetectionQuery progressing' for 'request to return CDQ'
2023/10/19 13:00:03 [INFO] executing state handler middleware
2023/10/19 13:00:03 [WARN] no state handler found for state: ComponentDetectionQuery progressing
...
request to return CDQ (0s loading, 5ms verification)
Given ComponentDetectionQuery progressing
returns a response which
has status code 200 (OK)
includes headers
"Content-Type" with value "application/json" (OK)
has a matching body (OK)```
matt.fellows
2023-10-20 01:18
Why would you want it to fail if the tests pass? That tells me you don?t really need to spend time creating a state handler for it
matt.fellows
2023-10-20 01:19
If it stops working, that will only happen if the code changes in the provider anyway, and would get caught other locally before you commit, or in the CI pipeline for that change.
kkanova
2023-10-20 09:23
Ok, I've not thought about using a tests without state. Is it a good practice? I thought it is better to define a state so it would make tests more stable (maybe I'm wrong, haven't proven that). We wanted to have a rule that every state defined in consumer is implemented in provider. So, when a new consumer comes, they can easily see what states are in place and they can reuse them. It will lower the provider work needed a lot.
Btw, I'm still somehow struggling on how to share the "library" of states and their required parameters. I can't do a simple library as consumer is javascript and provider is golang. Do you have any experience with that?
cody
2023-10-23 21:07
An important part of contract testing is being able to run your service with mocked out dependencies. We have realized that there?s a great opportunity in contract testing to make ?fresh mocks?. Essentially mocks that closely align with their production counterparts, using contract testing to enforce this alignment. We?d like to have mocks that take in requests and look up the appropriate responses by consulting pact interaction files. Logically, we?d need a way of parsing pact interaction files to help us here.
We also realize that this desired behavior is very similar to the pact mock server, but we saw that the pact mock server cannot handle multiple interactions.
So our questions are:
1. Do you have any suggestions on how to integrate pact with mocks such that we can reliably call our mocks and get similar behavior to production counterparts?
2. Is it possible to expose the Pact interaction file parser (or get a code pointer to it)
a. If not, do you know how often the pact parsing logic changes? (We may consider writing our own fork in Golang to avoid CGO issues)
3. Is it a large change to allow the pact mock server to handle multiple interactions at a time? We looked at the code a bit and am concerned about breaking the plugin api.
The team would love to jump on a call to brainstorm with you if someone is willing. Let us know! :pray:
cc @matt.fellows
kkanova
2023-10-24 10:04
Hello, I've tried to use BeforeEach method and I see problems with multiple state setup. The problem is that BeforeEach runs before every state within one interaction, which basically doesn't make sense as it reset the setup from the previous state. My code:
``` interaction('Getting application', ({ provider, execute }) => {
beforeEach(() => {
provider
.given("Application exists", appParams)
.given("Application has components", compParams)
.uponReceiving('Get app with its components.')
.withRequest(contract.request)
.willRespondWith(contract.response);
});
...
}```
The log is like this:
```2023-10-24T08:30:08.922544Z INFO ThreadId(13) pact_verifier: Running setup provider state change handler 'Application exists' for 'Get app with its components.'
beforeeach - clean up
2023/10/24 10:30:08 [INFO] executing state handler middleware
application created
2023-10-24T08:30:09.190301Z INFO ThreadId(13) pact_verifier: Running setup provider state change handler 'Application has components' for 'Get app with its components.'
beforeeach - clean up
application removed
2023/10/24 10:30:09 [INFO] executing state handler middleware
"create component error": "unable to get the Application"```
In the doc I found that multiple state setup is upported in V3 scheme, which is what we're using. Am I doing anything wrong?
srinivas.nali
2023-10-24 16:12
hi all, on Concourse pipeline, I am getting this error
```=== RUN Test_HandlerContract
2023/10/24 16:10:39 [INFO] checking pact-provider-verifier within range >= 1.36.1, < 2.0.0
2023/10/24 16:10:39 [ERROR] CLI tools are out of date, please upgrade before continuing```
while running `go test` even though I installed the pact-cli, updated the path and got pact-go deps
matt.fellows
2023-10-25 09:43
I've only ever seen this when the path and/or tools are incorrectly installed
srinivas.nali
2023-10-26 14:52
looks like the alpine based golang docker image (which is what we used in concourse pipeline) doesn't support this underlying ruby https://docs.pact.io/docker#for-pact-implementations-that-use-the-rust-shared-core-or
br.holanda15
2023-10-27 18:47
Hey guys, I want to clarify some points that I found reading the https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/docs/messages.md#consumer:
? I didn't find the NewMessagePactV3 function inside the repository... Has it upgraded or changed this method?
? I also didn't find the type AsynchronousMessage... We are using inside de userHandlerWrapper that we assume as our adapter, abstracting the implementation and focusing on validating the content of the message.
? How can I publish the contract from this test to a Pact Broker?
matt.fellows
2023-10-29 07:09
You're right, the V3 suffix was replaced with a package instead: here's a working example https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/781c59aa2b450d23bcbb566f71ec2986061ac3ac/examples/consumer_v3_test.go#L14
matt.fellows
2023-10-29 07:09
Publishing is the same as regular Pact. A contract will be generated and you would use the CLI tools to publish the contract
br.holanda15
2023-10-30 12:23
I've got the part from the suffix, and about the contract, Shouldn't we specify the directory to generate the file? I saw that the struct Config has Consumer, Provider, and PactDir as attributes..
```type Config struct {
Consumer string
Provider string
PactDir string
}```
So in the end of the TestMessagePact we didn't declare this part
``` provider, err := message.NewMessagePact(message.Config{
Consumer: "PactGoV3MessageConsumer",
Provider: "V3MessageProvider", // must be different to the HTTP one, can't mix both interaction styles
})```
br.holanda15
2023-10-30 12:47
I think I found the logic to store the files from the pact. If It's empty, It creates a new folder named pacts and put it inside..
```func (p *AsynchronousPact) validateConfig() error {
log.Println("[DEBUG] pact message validate config")
dir, _ := os.Getwd()
if p.config.PactDir == "" {
p.config.PactDir = filepath.Join(dir, "pacts")
}
p.messageserver = mockserver.NewMessageServer(p.config.Consumer, p.config.Provider)
return nil
}```
srinivas.nali
2023-10-31 11:18
hey all, please correct my understanding
I have added contract tests for message pacts using pact-go and got the setup done as below
1. Team A?s Message Pact Consumer side test runs using their JSON model for the data and publishes in Jenkins to the host with git version set to consumer version
2. Team B?s Message Pact Provider side test runs in Jenkins using their JSON Model and verifies against the contract from the host.
3. If there is a model change and both teams not in-sync, contract verification will fail and pipeline will fail, so both teams will have to liaise and fix. The pipeline failures have MSTeams alerts.
I was thinking the above is enough to identify the dependency issues and solving the purpose.
I haven?t incorporated below things, please advise whether these are required.
1. Publishing only when there is a change?
2. Can-i-deploy check?
3. Webhooks to trigger provider pipeline.
Thanks.
yousafn
2023-10-31 12:39
yes to all, its advisable, but with regards to 1, the pact broker will determine if the contents have changed since the last verification and publish an event to trigger a webhook of the pact of that. so you can always publish the pacts from CI, regardless of whether there are changes or not (as that is determined by your broker)
you?ll see specific rationale for each concept in the http://docs.pact.io site
srinivas.nali
2023-10-31 16:50
thanks @yousafn, will go through that site again to understand rationale, otherwise I take those 3 are advisable and my setup should be fine to carry on.
srinivas.nali
2023-10-31 17:05
Hey all, quick confirmation please
for messages-pacts, Consumer test, I have set WithContent like this
`"items": dsl.EachLike(map[string]interface{}{`
`"id": "1270284",`
`"qty": dsl.Integer(),`
`}, 1),`
and on Provider test, used the data for verification like
`"data": {`
`"date": "2023-11-06",`
`"reference": "123",`
`"items": [`
`{`
`},`
`{`
`}`
`]`
`}`
still test is passing. Shouldn't it fail the match? for items
matt.fellows
2023-10-31 23:58
Yes, this idea makes sense.
Probably, the _stub_ server is a better use case here: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-stub-server. It takes a pact file and provides a stub service.
matt.fellows
2023-10-31 23:59
The key issue, I think, is that the stub server doesn?t support plugin interactions to my knowledge
matt.fellows
2023-11-01 00:00
That would need to happen to support your use case (which is gRPC/plugins right?)
matt.fellows
2023-11-01 00:00
> 1. Is it possible to expose the Pact interaction file parser (or get a code pointer to it)
> a. If not, do you know how often the pact parsing logic changes?
The specification governs the pact file format: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/
The JSON schema there might be the best starting point.
matt.fellows
2023-11-01 00:01
However, with the introduction of plugins, the interactions are somewhat opaque to the pact file - each plugin can serialise their interactions in a way that makes sense for the plugin.
matt.fellows
2023-11-01 01:08
note, for multi-line bodies of text, you can use the ?code block? syntax to format it better (triple backtick ``` , or this button in the text box):
matt.fellows
2023-11-01 21:03
How do you know the provider data is incorrect? Could you please set log level to DEBUG and share that?
srinivas.nali
2023-11-02 08:42
on provider side, when below data was used, test is passing
```"data": {
"date": "2023-11-06",
"Reference": "123",
"items": [
{
},
{
}
]
}```
cody
2023-11-02 20:18
I think I need to learn about plugins and plugin interactions a bit.
cc @ctrando @stan196 from my team.
(I didn?t realize they were in this slack :joy: ! :wave:) Maybe ya?ll already know about this?
stan196
2023-11-02 20:22
we do use grpc plugin. Afaik plugins just drop custom data under `metadata.plugins` field - like grpc plugin puts proto filedescriptor set plus the proto itself there.
How much work would it be to have stub server support plugins?
srinivas.nali
2023-11-03 10:22
as the array is empty (incorrect) hoping the test to fail in this case?
ctrando
2023-11-06 07:22
Thanks for the response @matt.fellows!
So if every plugin has its own interaction format, would you recommend that we try to augment the stub server to handle plugins (not sure how big of an undertaking that is) - or try to write a custom parser ourselves that can handle the limited plugins we need (which is just protobuf/grpc to my knowledge) ?
Our company is having some big issues where everyone has their own mocks and only a few of them are correct so people only trust running in prod.
Moreover, even if we migrate people to contract testing, if provider verification is performed on a service with unrealistic mocks, then the pacts can?t be trusted either (correct me if I?m wrong here).
So we?re really looking for solutions on how to use Pact to provide accurate mock behaviors, any suggestions would be greatly appreciated :pray:
yousafn
2023-11-06 10:24
which types of provides are you mocking? currently the stub server is built for http interactions. there was a request for a stub server to be built for, or the existing extended to cover grpc.
there is already tooling to generate grpc
mocks and you could use pact to verify these if required.
plugins can have their own interaction format and most likely will do to deal with specific of their particular use case.
> Moreover, even if we migrate people to contract testing, if provider verification is performed on a service with unrealistic mocks, then the pacts can?t be trusted either (correct me if I?m wrong here).
why would this be the case? the pacts are generated from real services in a unit test and verified against a real service which is running locally.
if you are verifying against a service that is mocked what are you checking? that sounds like a recipe for drift, unless i?m missing something here
ctrando
2023-11-06 16:56
> which types of provides are you mocking? currently the stub server is built for http interactions. there was a request for a stub server to be built for, or the existing extended to cover grpc.
We?re mocking interactions between grpc clients.
> there is already tooling to generate grpc
> mocks and you could use pact to verify these if required.
Can you elaborate more on this? Do you mean using something like https://github.com/uber-go/mock?
> why would this be the case? the pacts are generated from real services in a unit test and verified against a real service which is running locally.
In order to run the pacts against our real service, we have to get our real service running locally, which requires mocking out its dependencies. So if the mocks necessary to have our service run locally aren?t high fidelity, then it?s difficult to trust that the pact was verified on the provider side
> if you are verifying against a service that is mocked what are you checking? that sounds like a recipe for drift, unless i?m missing something here
It?s not that the service is mocked, it?s that the service dependencies are mocked in order to get it to run locally
yousafn
2023-11-06 17:11
> there is already tooling to generate grpc mocks
Here are a few that I?ve bookmarked in the past, or listed via https://github.com/grpc-ecosystem/awesome-grpc#tools
? https://github.com/testinggospels/camouflage
? https://github.com/tokopedia/gripmock
? https://github.com/Fadelis/grpcmock
? old - https://github.com/carvalhorr/protoc-gen-mock
? https://github.com/bradleyjkemp/grpc-tools
? https://learning.postman.com/docs/sending-requests/grpc/using-grpc-mock/
So your provider code, depends on other grpc services, which are being mocked out? and you are lacking confidence in these mocks?
yousafn
2023-11-06 17:12
> In order to run the pacts against our real service, we have to get our real service running locally, which requires mocking out its dependencies. So if the mocks necessary to have our service run locally aren?t high fidelity, then it?s difficult to trust that the pact was verified on the provider side
Pact isn?t a replacement for functional tests, there should be sufficient functional testing of your provider to ensure it can fulfil its purpose. Pact has a side effect of functionally testing your provider. You can generate Provider verification tasks that provide little confidence as they touch too little of the application, that is plausible, but not something a tool can help with I don?t think
yousafn
2023-11-06 17:15
the request for grpc mock support in pact-stub-server https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-stub-server/issues/59
ctrando
2023-11-06 17:16
Yes exactly!
And I?m looking over the mocks you sent - it seems a lot of them are configured by files in a request-response type matching way. We were looking at file based mocks as well, but we wanted to see if Pact could directly verify these request/responses - i.e. we wouldn?t have to convert a file https://github.com/tokopedia/gripmock#static-stubbing from gripmock into a pact interaction file to verify that the mock is accurate.
Rather we would be able to start a grpc mock using pact interaction files alone and then verify them directly. Do you know if that?s possible at the moment?
yousafn
2023-11-06 17:18
negative I believe, you may need to convert the pact interaction into the format required by one of the mocking tools.
yousafn
2023-11-06 17:18
I think it would be cool to have this feature, but I imagine it is some effort. Ideally if we can hook off an existing library that would be ace
yousafn
2023-11-06 17:18
the core lib is written in rust, so maybe there is something we can leverage there
ctrando
2023-11-06 17:20
Ah I see - yeah that?s why we were looking at Pact parsing mechanisms. We would have to handle the various pattern matching keywords in the pact interaction files and convert them to some other file format that a grpc mocking library could handle (or vice versa).
> I believe, you may need to convert the pact interaction into the format required by one of the mocking tools.
do you know if anyone has tried this before?
yousafn
2023-11-06 17:22
I?ve seen Pact -> Postman (https://github.com/ITV/pmpact) albeit for http.
and PactFlow provide guidance for any mock format for HTTP -> Pact Interaction which is the other way round
https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/bi-directional-contract-testing/contracts/pact#converting-mocks-into-a-pact-compatible-format
this pattern used in a feature of wiremock-net and a few other adapters (cypress, msw)
yousafn
2023-11-06 17:23
we?ve got typed schemas for the pact-spec https://github.com/pactflow/pact-schemas
I don?t think there is one for the pact-protobuf-plugin interaction, and its specific keys
ctrando
2023-11-06 17:24
Ah it looks like matchers are ignored in the second link - maybe we can do something like that where we just ignore matching (although it might limit the ability of pact)
But I?ll take a look at the first link to see if we can try and implement our own parser to convert between file formats!
yousafn
2023-11-06 17:29
we ignore matching rules when converting mocks -> pact files for Bi-directional, as the comparison is performed against an OpenAPI file, which doesn?t utilise matchers (it checks the examples are a subset of the openapi schema)
there have been lots of requests to include matchers so people can use the adapters for regular Pact CDCT, with a Pact provider verification, with a few attempting it but giving up/moving on to other things - probably easier just to use Pact on the consumer side natively, rather than indirectly.
yousafn
2023-11-06 17:29
Happy to help provide guidance or jam, so feel feel to soak in some on the reads and come back to us all :slightly_smiling_face:
yousafn
2023-11-06 17:30
ps. the matching is nice in the stub server, because it makes them more flexible for use in higher level tests, but not a deal breaker for a first pass
stan196
2023-11-06 23:48
Thanks for the links and the guidance so far! Reading through the thread and the links.
To kinda take a step back here, pact consumer tests already run a mock server under the hood, it's just configured for a single interaction. Is the stub server based off the same codebase? I'm just wondering on how much work to be to either grab the built-in mock server from consumer tests and expand it to multiple interactions; or add plugin support to stub server.
> Pact isn?t a replacement for functional tests, there should be sufficient functional testing of your provider to ensure it can fulfil its purpose.
Yeah, 100%. I believe you folks discussed this above, might've missed some of the posts.
Basically we were thinking along the lines of - if in my functional tests I mock out a service with which I already have pact contract tests, can I reuse these pacts to either (a) generate mocks from the pacts, which means they satisfy the contract and we have confidence; or (b) use existing pacts to verify the mocks generated by a 3rd party tool. Just to have confidence that the mocks behave in the same way the real services do, to a reasonable extent.
matt.fellows
2023-11-07 22:10
> To kinda take a step back here, pact consumer tests already run a mock server under the hood, it?s just configured for a single interaction. Is the stub server based off the same codebase? I?m just wondering on how much work to be to either grab the built-in mock server from consumer tests and expand it to multiple interactions; or add plugin support to stub server.
Yes, you can https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-stub-server/blob/master/Cargo.toml#L25-L27 uses some of the key libraries of the https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/tree/master/rust.
matt.fellows
2023-11-07 22:10
I think getting plugin support into the stub server would be ideal anyway,
matt.fellows
2023-11-08 10:14
Thanks. As per above, I?d like to see the DEBUG or even TRACE level logs to prove that
christophe.laranjo
2023-12-01 22:57
Hello, I'm trying to verify my provider but I have the error: 1) Failed to load pact - Could not load pacts from the pact broker 'https://mybroker.pactflow.io'
err := verifier.VerifyProvider(t, provider.VerifyRequest{
ProviderBaseURL: "http://0.0.0.0:8080",
Provider: "V3Provider",
ProviderVersion: "1.0.0",
BrokerURL: "https://mybroker.pactflow.io",
BrokerUsername: "",
BrokerPassword: "mypassword",
BrokerToken: "myToken",
Tags: []string{"master", "prod"},
PublishVerificationResults: true,
// PactFiles: []string{
// filepath.ToSlash("/workspaces/go/consumer/pacts/PactGoProductAPIConsumer-PactGoProductAPI.json"),
// },
If I try locally with PactFiles it's working I can verify my provider but if I change to try with the Broker everytime I have this error Failed to load pact and I don't understand why, if someone can help me it will be nice.
matt.fellows
2023-12-01 23:07
So you only use `token` if you use PactFlow, username/password is for a different authentication scheme
matt.fellows
2023-12-01 23:07
I?d set the log level to `debug` and see what the logs say about why it can?t find any pacts
matt.fellows
2023-12-01 23:08
also, you should avoid the use of `Tags` as they are the old way to publish and select pact files - you should look at branches/environment/releases: https://docs.pact.io/blog/2021/07/04/why-we-are-getting-rid-of-tags
christophe.laranjo
2023-12-02 00:02
ok found the issue it was also because of the tags somewhere else in my code
christophe.laranjo
2023-12-07 10:38
Hello, an other question about the integration into the CI/CD pipeline: I'm currently trying to create a workflow to generate and publish my contract into my broker
```name: Build
on:
push:
workflow_dispatch:
jobs:
test:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout@v3
- uses: actions/setup-go@v4
with:
go-version: 1.21.4
- name: change folder
run: cd /opt
- name: pact broker cli
run: |
mkdir -p $HOME/pact/bin
curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pact-foundation/pact-ruby-standalone/master/install.sh | bash -s -- -b $HOME/pact/bin
- name: path
run: export export PATH=$PATH:$HOME/pact/bin
- name: instal pact
run: go install github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2@2.x.x
- name: path for go1
run: export GOPATH=$HOME/go
- name: path for go2
run: export PATH=$PATH:$GOPATH/bin
- name: pact version
run: pact-go -v
- name: Debug pact
run: pact-go -l DEBUG install
- name: Test
run: go test ./consumer
- name: Publish pacts
run: |
pact-broker publish consumer/pacts --consumer-app-version 1.0.0 --broker-base-url=https://mybroker.pactflow.io --broker-token mytoken```
but I have an error of permission
matt.fellows
2023-12-07 10:47
It?s trying to write the lib to `/usr/local/lib` but that directory is not writeable
matt.fellows
2023-12-07 10:48
You can set the download path to one of the other locations Pact Go checks. Here is how our PactFlow terraform client does it: https://github.com/pactflow/terraform-provider-pact/blob/master/.github/workflows/test.yml#L14-L15
matt.fellows
2023-12-07 10:49
_(I don?t the `LD_LIBRARY_PATH` env var is actually important, but I could be wrong about that)_
theteea
2023-12-11 11:26
Hi, is there a course anyone would recommend that is a good first choice for adding contract testing with Pact to Go services? I quickly checked a few on Udemy but didn't see anything that would appear as the go-to -course.
matt.fellows
2023-12-12 00:36
Probably this one: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go
It is using the previous major version though
vinicius.gabriel
2023-12-12 19:07
Hi, there are something wrong or missing with my configurations to verify provider with Pactflow?
My first tests was checking local files and then using local broker (with BrokerUsername and password) and everything worked well, but now trying with Pactflow I receive `1) Failed to load pact - Failed to load pact from 'https://broker.pactflow.io'`
From consumer side, I got it normally
```// Verify the Provider with local Pact Files
err := verifier.VerifyProvider(s.T(), provider.VerifyRequest{
ProviderBaseURL: fmt.Sprintf("http://127.0.0.1:%d", port),
Provider: "web-front",
ProviderVersion: "1.0.0", // TODO: get commit SHA
BrokerURL: "https://broker.pactflow.io", // TODO: get from env
BrokerToken: "token", // TODO: get from env```
vinicius.gabriel
2023-12-12 19:09
I couldn't identify anything relevant in the debug logs either
The last logs near the error was:
```12-12T19:03:44.337255Z INFO ThreadId(01) pact_verifier::pact_broker: Fetching path '/pacts/provider/web-front/consumer/web-front-consumer/pact-version/222221279197eda18248e7c888cb2440ce0a9482/metadata/c1tdW2xdPXRydWUmc1tdW2N2XT0xMw' from pact broker
2023-12-12T19:03:44.337302Z DEBUG ThreadId(01) hyper::client::pool: reuse idle connection for ("https", http://broker.pactflow.io)
2023-12-12T19:03:44.337358Z DEBUG tokio-runtime-worker Connection{peer=Client}: h2::codec::framed_write: send frame=Headers { stream_id: StreamId(7), flags: (0x5: END_HEADERS | END_STREAM) }
2023-12-12T19:03:44.774798Z DEBUG tokio-runtime-worker Connection{peer=Client}: h2::codec::framed_read: received frame=Headers { stream_id: StreamId(7), flags: (0x4: END_HEADERS) }
2023-12-12T19:03:44.774926Z DEBUG tokio-runtime-worker Connection{peer=Client}: h2::codec::framed_read: received frame=Data { stream_id: StreamId(7) }
2023-12-12T19:03:44.774952Z DEBUG tokio-runtime-worker Connection{peer=Client}: h2::codec::framed_read: received frame=Data { stream_id: StreamId(7) }
2023-12-12T19:03:44.774961Z DEBUG tokio-runtime-worker Connection{peer=Client}: h2::codec::framed_read: received frame=Data { stream_id: StreamId(7), flags: (0x1: END_STREAM) }
2023-12-12T19:03:44.778494Z DEBUG tokio-runtime-worker Connection{peer=Client}: h2::codec::framed_write: send frame=GoAway { error_code: NO_ERROR, last_stream_id: StreamId(0) }
2023-12-12T19:03:44.778536Z DEBUG tokio-runtime-worker Connection{peer=Client}: h2::proto::connection: Connection::poll; connection error error=GoAway(b"", NO_ERROR, Library)
2023-12-12T19:03:44.778609Z ERROR ThreadId(01) pact_verifier: Failed to load pact - Failed to load pact from 'https://broker.pactflow.io'
2023-12-12T19:03:44.778703Z WARN ThreadId(01) pact_matching::metrics: ```
vinicius.gabriel
2023-12-12 21:59
idk exactly what happens but now it's working
the problem was related only to fetch pact from Pactflow, I run one time by getting the Pact file from a local base and publish the results on Pactflow and then the next executions start to work
matt.fellows
2023-12-12 23:12
Let?s see how you go moving forward. Just note, ideally you should be using consumer version selectors to discover the pacts
srinivas.nali
2023-12-28 17:47
Hi All, for message pacts, can we have a failure when new key-pairs added by the provider to the JSON? since consumer expectation json got matcher $.type, existing test is passing when new key-pairs added to the struct model by provider.
vittorio.gue
2023-12-28 18:55
Hi @srinivas.nali ! I dont remember all the specs and if what you are asking is possible but I am curious about what is the reason you would like the verification to fail when new fields are added to the body. One of the advantages of Pact is that you only specify contracts for the things you care in your consumer, not for all the permutations of the message(s).
srinivas.nali
2023-12-29 13:32
right, thanks guys. It is like models are not in sync by both parties, since provider got new key-pairs. Since Contract test failure would highlight any mismatches thought this new model update could be covered as well.
vittorio.gue
2023-12-29 14:20
@srinivas.nali what is the impact of the mismatch in your system? What would give a failure? Do you think that something would break if the provider starts sending extra parameters or you have other reasons to need a failure?
srinivas.nali
2023-12-29 14:55
hi @vittorio.gue at the moment consumers not impacted due to existing expectations being met. All ok.
varnit.garg2424
2024-01-07 15:16
While running pact go tests, I?m getting this error, any idea how to fix it?
```/opt/homebrew/Cellar/go/1.20.5/libexec/pkg/tool/darwin_arm64/link: running cc failed: exit status 1
ld: library not found for -lpact_ffi
clang: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation)```
x1destory
2024-01-07 19:23
Hello, i see in pact-java it looks like have multiple providers on a single test case, is that possible on pact-go?
x1destory
2024-01-07 22:46
i know to your community, it is kind of against the behaviour, but i do see that in the java code here:https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-jvm/commit/67a66702496daa52ba060e3c68abe68deaff524a
matt.fellows
2024-01-07 23:58
The DSL is not currently setup to do it. It might be possible to do so in the core
matt.fellows
2024-01-08 00:00
It would need to make it?s way into this test suite, which has the official features the core supports (which can then be used in client languages): https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-compatibility-suite/tree/main/features
Java is a bit of a different beast, and occasionally has additional features not in other languages
x1destory
2024-01-08 10:04
One approach i am considering is in Provider state explicit call this is belong to service provider x, and then use a script to filter interactions based on that then upload the contracts, is that possible?
varnit.garg2424
2024-01-14 15:13
I?m getting this error while installing pact-go libs in the CI pipeline
```Your Pact library installation is out of date and we were unable to download a newer one for you: open /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.so: permission denied```
Using this command in makefile: `pact-go -l DEBUG install`
Even tried `PACT_FFI_INSTALL_DIR=/tmp/pact-lib pact-go -l DEBUG` install but didn?t help.
Any pointers on how to fix it?
matt.fellows
2024-01-14 21:18
The debug should print out any problems and it should exit with nonzero status of it couldn't install it
yousafn
2024-01-15 19:56
Yeah, I think if we get a perm denied error, we can advise the user use sudo or to write in a user writable location
br.holanda15
2024-01-16 22:43
I got the same error executing the pact-go -l DEBUG install, I'll try with sudo...
```2024/01/16 19:39:38 [INFO] package libpact_ffi not found
2024/01/16 19:39:38 [INFO] downloading library from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases/download/libpact_ffi-v0.4.5/libpact_ffi-linux-x86_64.so.gz to /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.so
2024/01/16 19:39:41 [ERROR] Your Pact library installation is out of date and we were unable to download a newer one for you: open /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.so: permission denied```
matt.fellows
2024-01-17 00:19
you can also override the install location. The pact go build itself does this: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/.github/workflows/test.yml#L11
br.holanda15
2024-01-17 23:14
Hey guys, I don't understand some behavior from my pact provider, I set up my host as localhost:8081, but when I ran my tests I got a log from a request to a random port like localhost:36471, Is that ok? Am I missing some config? By the way I am writing the Provider part for the basic example at https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/examples/basic_test.go.
_*My code:*_
```func TestProductAPIProvider(t *testing.T) {
go startServer()
verifier := provider.NewVerifier()
f := func(next http.Handler) http.Handler {
return http.HandlerFunc(func(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
log.Println("Alterando Response")
requestFilterCalled = true
next.ServeHTTP(w, r)
})
}
err := verifier.VerifyProvider(t, provider.VerifyRequest{
ProviderBaseURL: "http://127.0.0.1:8001",
Provider: "PactGoProductAPI",
ProviderVersion: "v1",
PactFiles: []string{
filepath.ToSlash(fmt.Sprintf("%s/PactGoProductAPIConsumer-PactGoProductAPI.json", pactDir)),
},
RequestFilter: f,
PublishVerificationResults: false,
})
assert.NoError(t, err)
assert.True(t, requestFilterCalled)
}
func startServer() {
mux := http.NewServeMux()
mux.HandleFunc("/products/{id}", func(w http.ResponseWriter, req *http.Request) {
w.Header().Add("Content-Type", "application/json")
fmt.Fprintf(w, `
{
"id":10,
"type":"CREDIT_CARD",
"name":"PS5",
"version":"v2"
}`)
})
log.Fatal(http.ListenAndServe("127.0.0.1:8001", mux))
}```
matt.fellows
2024-01-17 23:30
yep, the verifier spins up a proxy locally which all requests are sent to. This allows some features like provider states to be mapped to go functions, logging etc.
br.holanda15
2024-01-18 11:03
But what about the error that I got, Is this return expected?
How can I redirect the proxy to my starterServer() which I am mocking my response?
I simply followed the example like TestV3HTTPProvider test, and when I tried to run this test I got no tests to run in `TestConsumerV3` and `TestV3HTTPProvider` .
matt.fellows
2024-01-18 11:05
Note these build tags at the top: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/examples/consumer_v3_test.go#L1
If you don?t specify them in the test command, they?ll be ignored
matt.fellows
2024-01-18 11:05
so `go test -tags consumer TestConsumerV3` for the consumer and `-tags provider` for the provider
br.holanda15
2024-01-18 11:07
It is the _consumer_v3_test.go_ and _provider_test.go_ in the examples folder. I'm going to try this way :v:
br.holanda15
2024-01-18 11:10
But in my example writing the `TestProductAPIProvider` to validate the `TestProductAPIClient` from basic_test.go in the examples folder, Do I need to setup the build like the other examples? Or is it something that I am missing?
https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C9UTHTFFB/p1705533277803099
ebernardino
2024-01-19 04:32
Hi Pact team! I wanted to ask what is the ideal setup in installing `pact-go` package in docker when running in a CI pipeline (in this case, buildkite)?
I've encountered issues saying that `pact-go: command not found` but installed in in my Dockerfile and part of the `Makefile` command which runs the container and installs the package within it. I'm still learning the ways of docker so there are some terms new to me
```2024/01/19 00:57:52 [WARN] Usage of musl library is known to cause problems, prefer using glibc instead.
2024/01/19 00:57:52 [INFO] downloading library from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases/download/libpact_ffi-v0.4.5/libpact_ffi-linux-x86_64.so.gz to /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.so
&{}
2024/01/19 00:57:54 [INFO] package libpact_ffi found
2024/01/19 00:57:54 [INFO] checking version 0.4.5 of libpact_ffi against semver constraint >= 0.4.0, < 1.0.0
2024/01/19 00:57:54 [INFO] package libpact_ffi is correctly installed
/bin/sh: line 2: pact-go: command not found```
Here's the `Dockerfile`
```FROM public.ecr.aws/docker/library/alpine:latest
RUN apk add --no-cache git make musl-dev go
RUN go version
# Configure Go
ENV GOROOT /usr/lib/go
ENV GOPATH /go
ENV PATH /go/bin:$PATH
RUN mkdir -p ${GOPATH}/src ${GOPATH}/bin
# Install pact-go
RUN go install http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2@v2.0.2
ENV GOPATH /go
ENV PATH /go/bin:$PATH```
and the command to run the test
```docker compose run go-builder-pact \
pact-go install -f && pact-go -l DEBUG install && go test -v -timeout 120s -count=1 ./tests/contract/... --tags=pact```
Thank you!
matt.fellows
2024-01-19 06:03
First up, I?d highly recommend _not_ using Alpine. We don?t officially support it (see the `WARN`). It might work, it might fail spectacularly (i.e. segfault). A debian based distribution is usually a safer bet
matt.fellows
2024-01-19 06:05
Secondly, the `ENV` command only sets the environment for the build stage. It won?t set it in the OS itself. For that, you?d need to add it to the user?s profile or another system location
matt.fellows
2024-01-19 06:05
Is there a reason you don?t just add `RUN pact-go install -f && pact-go -l DEBUG install` to the end of your docker file?
Then the `go test?` should just work, assuming the go environment is correct
yousafn
2024-01-19 17:11
:blobwave: Took a look at the pact-go workshop today and updated it to utilise pact-go v2.
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-workshop-go/pull/9
Will propagate to each of the step branches and update the README shortly
varnit.garg2424
2024-01-21 13:20
Hey guys,
I?m currently installing pact-go like this:
```install-pact:
go install http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2@v2.0.2
pact-go -l DEBUG install -d /tmp
ls -la /tmp/```
Is it advisable to installing to /tmp on the developer machines? Or should I use docker instead? I understand that it will be slower if we use docker to run install/run pact tests..
Do you have any strong opinion on this?
ebernardino
2024-01-21 23:53
Thanks Matt! It was mostly a noob decision but got it all working now :smile:
yousafn
2024-01-22 11:19
not too bad, i just went via the example tests in master of pact-go and applied the changes that way. not a huge amount needed changing in the tests, I imagine it would have been easier if I was following a migration guide and sound it in steps.
overall structure is nice of v2 interface
two things that I think could probably be improved.
the checkVersion function only checks the default path and wont consider it pact ffi being installed in the non default location.
default write location for pact ffi isnt user writeable on macos or gh. we should probably put guidance on there to say check your location or use sudo. Can we not link to users home location so ~./pact or do we need a full file path for cgo?
using pact cli is easy as go users have come from setting it on their path anyway.
oh and not worked out how to get stdout logs from the ffi core over regular go logging
yousafn
2024-01-22 11:24
oh i was also hard to update/add pact go v2 to the go mod file, it kept complaining or pulling down 1.8.0. i think it might have been because i was a half way house with consumer test updated to v2 but provider still on v1
matt.fellows
2024-01-22 11:28
> not too bad, i just went via the example tests in master of pact-go and applied the changes that way. not a huge amount needed changing in the tests, I imagine it would have been easier if I was following a migration guide and sound it in steps.
I assume you saw https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/MIGRATION.md but chose to wing it, because you?re Saf?
> the checkVersion function only checks the default path and wont consider it pact ffi being installed in the non default location.
good pick up, probably easily fixed
> default write location for pact ffi isnt user writeable on macos or gh. we should probably put guidance on there to say check your location or use sudo. Can we not link to users home location so ~./pact or do we need a full file path for cgo?
unfortunately the only locations we can provide need to be fixed in this file: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/master/internal/native/lib.go, and you can?t use any dynamic things like `~` or `$HOME` etc. I think you _can_ override the `LD_LIBRARY_PATH`, but that?s a bit scheizen too. It?s one of the downsides of Go packaging, you can?t make it install anything that?s not in the Go github tarball. I could possibly check the files in, but that would result in a huge github distribution - it?s worth considering given that it improves the experienc.
> oh and not worked out how to get stdout logs from the ffi core over regular go logging (edited)
ah yes, I was ahead of some of the recent logging functions added. We could look to overhaul that, and possibly make it a lot nicer/configurable
yousafn
2024-01-22 11:39
we?ve seen quite a few get stuck on the install recently so might be worth a consideration, having them checked in. i get the feeling that for go users that is generally okay as they seem to be comfortable vendoring deps and checking them in.
thinking aloud q - does the pact go yml hold the location of where the user asked to install the ffi lib. if so we can use that in checkVersion func.
no :relaxed: didnt read miggy guide. i knew you would have one, as for pact-js due to the reorganised docs across pact-js, go and net.
I think i would prefer to see x code in v1 to y code in v2, so i tend to use upgrade pr?s to help me work out what to change and how.
matt.fellows
2024-01-22 11:41
> thinking aloud q - does the pact go yml hold the location of where the user asked to install the ffi lib. if so we can use that in checkVersion func.
I can?t remember, but we could consider it. The loading logic isn?t ideal, because it?s somewhat configured in those ?headers? which aren?t introspectable via runtime code (at least not easily).
Basically, when Go loads Pact Go, the loading has already happened in a compilation phase outside of Pact Go. That actually makes it impossible for the main Go program to check itself - the code that tries to check itself literally can?t load (put another way - any package that requires the FFI can?t run, if the FFI isn?t found. Hence why there is a CLI for checking things that doesn?t use that pathway)
ryoshida
2024-02-07 01:56
Hi all! I'm working along with @stan196 and we're running into an error with `pact-go` when response body is empty. I suspect it's a bug and was wondering if you could help.
I see in the past that people have raised issue about allowing empty body: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/177.
? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/pull/178/files to allow empty for *both response and request*
? https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-jvm/commit/aece98db3a414c01771bea1abab10ef7e5f5306f as well for *both*
However, for `pact-go`, it seemed like the fix was *only for allowing empty request but not for empty response:* https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/commit/69125108ff7559355f088e8e16783bd3b09794f0
Curious if this is intentional or it's a potential bug?
stan196
2024-02-07 03:29
Is this happening in the consumer or the provider test?
Is that function handling just the response body or both body and metadata?
I don't mind sending a PR, unless Rinka you want to handle this.
ryoshida
2024-02-07 18:20
It's happening on the provider test. And I believe it handles just the response body because when I tested with some non-empty response metadata, it still gave me the same error.
Awesome, could I trouble you to open the PR to fix the 2 returns @stan196 :dizzy:
stan196
2024-02-08 01:36
This is a draft with some open questions I'm looking into:
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/pull/383
hazem
2024-02-08 16:25
:wave::skin-tone-4: - we're experiencing issues within the last day for our provider verifications.
tbh, i'm not sure what the issue is but noticed a change in the libpact_ffi. additional notes in thread...
hazem
2024-02-08 16:31
last :white_check_mark: build
```[Container] 2024/02/08 03:02:28.886147 Running command go install github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2@latest
go: downloading github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2 v2.0.2
..truncated
[Container] 2024/02/08 03:02:53.496129 Running command pact-go -l DEBUG install
2024/02/08 03:02:53 [INFO] package libpact_ffi not found
2024/02/08 03:02:53 [INFO] downloading library from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases/download/libpact_ffi-v0.4.5/libpact_ffi-linux-x86_64.so.gz to /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.so
&{}
2024/02/08 03:02:54 [DEBUG] obtaining hash for file /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.so
2024/02/08 03:02:54 [DEBUG] error reading file /root/.pact/pact-go.yml error: open /root/.pact/pact-go.yml: no such file or directory
2024/02/08 03:02:54 [DEBUG] writing config {map[libpact_ffi:{libpact_ffi 0.4.5 30ad4b93844bb4512ae7f0dd0266a33a}]}
2024/02/08 03:02:54 [DEBUG] writing yaml config to file libraries:
libpact_ffi:
libname: libpact_ffi
version: 0.4.5
hash: 30ad4b93844bb4512ae7f0dd0266a33a
2024/02/08 03:02:54 [INFO] package libpact_ffi found
2024/02/08 03:02:54 [INFO] checking version 0.4.5 of libpact_ffi against semver constraint >= 0.4.0, < 1.0.0
2024/02/08 03:02:54 [DEBUG] 0.4.5 satisfies constraints 0.4.5 >= 0.4.0, < 1.0.0
2024/02/08 03:02:54 [INFO] package libpact_ffi is correctly installed
2024/02/08 03:02:54 [DEBUG] skip checking ffi version() call because FFI not loaded. This is expected when running the 'pact-go' command.```
hazem
2024-02-08 16:33
first failed :x: build
```[Container] 2024/02/08 14:00:23.228131 Running command go install http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2@latest
go: downloading http://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/v2 v2.0.3
...truncate
[Container] 2024/02/08 14:00:47.625763 Running command pact-go -l DEBUG install
2024/02/08 14:00:47 [INFO] package libpact_ffi not found
2024/02/08 14:00:47 [INFO] downloading library from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases/download/libpact_ffi-v0.4.15/libpact_ffi-linux-x86_64.so.gz to /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.so&{}
2024/02/08 14:00:48 [DEBUG] obtaining hash for file /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.so
2024/02/08 14:00:48 [DEBUG] error reading file /root/.pact/pact-go.yml error: open /root/.pact/pact-go.yml: no such file or directory
2024/02/08 14:00:48 [DEBUG] writing config {map[libpact_ffi:{libpact_ffi 0.4.15 f6f4064cad0423a21423122287344c0c}]}
2024/02/08 14:00:48 [DEBUG] writing yaml config to file libraries:
libpact_ffi:
libname: libpact_ffi
version: 0.4.15
hash: f6f4064cad0423a21423122287344c0c
2024/02/08 14:00:48 [INFO] package libpact_ffi found
2024/02/08 14:00:48 [INFO] checking version 0.4.15 of libpact_ffi against semver constraint >= 0.4.0, < 1.0.0
2024/02/08 14:00:48 [DEBUG] 0.4.15 satisfies constraints 0.4.15 >= 0.4.0, < 1.0.0
2024/02/08 14:00:48 [INFO] package libpact_ffi is correctly installed
2024/02/08 14:00:48 [DEBUG] skip checking ffi version() call because FFI not loaded. This is expected when running the 'pact-go' command.```
hazem
2024-02-08 16:42
the error from the logs for consumer pacts:
```
2024-02-08T16:08:33.563649Z ERROR ThreadId(04) pact_ffi::mock_server::handles: Failed to parse the value: expected value at line 1 column 1
2024-02-08T16:08:33.563710Z ERROR ThreadId(04) pact_ffi::mock_server::handles: Failed to parse the value: expected value at line 1 column 1```
hazem
2024-02-08 17:23
additional logs after increasing log level:
```{"providerApplicationVersion":"REDACTED","success":false,"testResults":[{"exceptions":[{"message":"Invalid header name: 'Failed to parse header value: REDACTED'"}],"interactionId":"REDACTED","success":false}],"verifiedBy":{"implementation":"Pact-Rust","version":"1.1.19"}}```
joshua.ellis
2024-02-08 21:49
It looks like you also upgraded from Pact Go 2.0.2 to 2.0.3, though I agree with your assessment that it seems like the issue has originated from the FFI library.
Any chance you're able to create a MWE of the error? The FFI error message isn't super helpful (which should itself be fixed).
Alternatively, can you enable debug logging and share the logs to help narrow down the source of the issue?
Feel free to create an issue over on GitHub if you want :)
joshua.ellis
2024-02-08 21:52
MWE stands for "minimal working example". That is, a minimal example that would reproduce the same error so that we can replicate it on our end :slightly_smiling_face:
hazem
2024-02-08 21:52
i added `PACT_LOG_LEVEL=TRACE` which gave me a bit more logs as i post above... what other logging to you suggest?
joshua.ellis
2024-02-08 21:53
For the examples, you could start with one of https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/tree/master/examples and see what needs to be modified to reproduce the error.
joshua.ellis
2024-02-08 22:04
In addition to `PACT_LOG_LEVEL=TRACE`, can you also set `LOG_LEVEL=TRACE`?
hazem
2024-02-08 22:13
It doesnt look like any extra info was displayed in the logs... still same message
```{"providerApplicationVersion":"REDACTED","success":false,"testResults":[{"exceptions":[{"message":"Invalid header name: 'Failed to parse header value: REDACTED'"}],"interactionId":"REDACTED","success":false}],"verifiedBy":{"implementation":"Pact-Rust","version":"1.1.19"}}```
matt.fellows
2024-02-08 22:18
hmm sounds like there is a regression somewhere in the compatibility of the new FFI lib and Pact Go. We jumped several minor versions (of the FFI) in the 2.0.3 release .
Given that it seems to be upset with your headers, would you mind creating a basic consumer test that fails with that error when verified? i.e. strip back to a basic Go HTTP client and test with similarly structured headers (it?s hard to see if it?s a request or response header that it?s having trouble with).
If you can share the code (I?m assuming not, otherwise you wouldn?t have REDACTED things) that would also help.
hazem
2024-02-08 22:20
i'm not able to dedicate time to this at the moment, but i should be able to follow-up tomorrow afternoon.
matt.fellows
2024-02-08 22:52
thanks Haz. For now, I?d suggest pinning to 2.0.2 and I?ll see if I can work out what?s happening today. I know there are some newer header functions in the FFI that might be easy enough to switch to
stan196
2024-02-10 00:26
I've noticed that when we use synchronous message, it's contents will only contain the body, not metadata.
What I mean is this:
``` ExecuteTest(t, func(transport message.TransportConfig, m message.SynchronousMessage) error {
conn, err := grpc.Dial(fmt.Sprintf("127.0.0.1:%d", transport.Port), grpc.WithTransportCredentials(insecure.NewCredentials()))
require.NoError(t, err)
defer conn.Close()
c := routeguide.NewRouteGuideClient(conn)```
here if we use protobuf plugin, we ignore the contents of the `m` param, so it's not an issue.
however if we did want to use the `m` instead (idk maybe with different plugins?), it would only contain the body of the message, not metadata. I wonder if this is intentional?
`pact-go` calls `pactffi_sync_message_get_response_contents_bin` to grab the bytes and populate `message.SynchronousMessage`. And in `ffi` part only grabs the `contents` field:
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/blob/master/rust/pact_ffi/src/models/sync_message.rs#L358
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/blob/master/rust/pact_models/src/v4/message_parts.rs#L27
is metadata not supposed to be passed to the consumer, is it intended to only configure the provider?
stan196
2024-02-10 01:02
other than that, the PR is ready for review, I've added unit tests and cleaned up a bit
matt.fellows
2024-02-11 10:52
I also just want to shout out how helpful you?ve been in the community at large recently @stan196, it hasn?t gone unnoticed - thank you! :taco: :taco: :taco:
2024-02-13 07:18
:white_check_mark: Subscribed to https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go. This channel will receive notifications for `issues`, `pulls`, `commits`, `releases`, `deployments`
2024-02-13 07:19
This channel will receive notifications from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go for: `pulls`, `commits`, `releases`, `deployments`
2024-02-13 07:19
This channel will receive notifications from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go for: `pulls`, `releases`, `deployments`
2024-02-13 07:19
This channel will receive notifications from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go for: `releases`, `deployments`
2024-02-13 07:19
This channel will receive notifications from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go for: `releases`
christopher.tonog
2024-02-14 21:29
Hi :wave: I'm running into an issue with installing the extra libraries for pact-go (on a m2 mac):
```% pact-go install -f -d /usr/local/lib
2024/02/14 16:16:29 [INFO] set lib dir target to /usr/local/lib
2024/02/14 16:16:29 [INFO] downloading library from https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/releases/download/libpact_ffi-v0.4.16/libpact_ffi-osx-aarch64-apple-darwin.dylib.gz to /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.dylib
2024/02/14 16:16:30 [ERROR] Your Pact library installation is out of date and we were unable to download a newer one for you: open /usr/local/lib/libpact_ffi.dylib: permission denied```
A google search led me to this github issue: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/issues/239
Is it necessary to use sudo for this if I want to use the default dir? I ended up using `/tmp` to get myself unblocked but read earlier that that is not advisable. Thanks for all the help thus far!
yousafn
2024-02-14 21:36
Hey Chris,
it is, as we use set lookup paths for linking the dynamic libraries
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-go/blob/901aea82975ef17de71866bef6d017f6c4d55d09/internal/native/lib.go#L6
i dont think you can set to alternate paths not listed here unless you have sip disabled and therefore able to affect dynamic library load paths with `DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH`
/tmp is okay is you are aware that it may be periodically cleared, but probably not during the execution of a test shortly after installing it
i believe it will also look the library in the root of your project as well as the dynamic lib search paths, which might be an option.
christopher.tonog
2024-02-14 21:57
Thanks for the reply. Curious, which other library would you link with `libpact_ffi.dylib`?
I downloaded the library to the root of my current project and added it to my path (`PATH=./:$PATH`) but I don't think that worked:
```running cc failed: exit status 1
ld: library 'pact_ffi' not found```
christopher.tonog
2024-02-14 21:58
I'll work with `/tmp` for now, it may be a moot point because we may bundle all this tooling inside a docker container or abstract it with another cli
yousafn
2024-02-14 22:00
it isn?t a binary executable, it is a shared library. therefore it needs a link path for cgo or be available on the LD_LIBRARY_PATH or DYLD_*** on macos.
It?ll be different on a docker container as you say. You?ll still need the library even if you _abstract it away with another cli_ - it contains pacts core functions and each of the client libraries (such as pact-go / pact-js utilise it at runtime)
yousafn
2024-02-14 22:01
anyway /tmp is fine, if your tests complain about it being missing, you can reinstall it to /tmp :+1:
christopher.tonog
2024-02-14 22:01
yep yep, sounds good and good point on the other cli comment, that might just rule that implementation out
yousafn
2024-02-14 22:04
> Curious, which other library would you link with `libpact_ffi.dylib`
not quite sure on the question. this is the library containing code from the pact-reference project (written in rust, compiled into a c shared library). it is linked to pact-go via the cgo which means pact-go isn?t a pure go implementation.
our other CLI tools that used to be required for v1 of pact-go, still provide functionality for interacting with a pact broker and are available standalone, via ruby, or pre installed in docker container. those are binaries, and if you download the standalone versions, they can be added to your PATH
yousafn
2024-02-14 22:05
https://docs.pact.io/diagrams/ecosystem#rust-ffi-consumers-goldberg-machine
diagram of the rust ecosystem, and a link to the core library that we link to, from pact-go
https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-reference/tree/master/rust/pact_ffi
hope that helps a little bit :slightly_smiling_face:
christopher.tonog
2024-02-14 22:11
ah ok, yes that makes more sense to me now. That functionality, written in rust, is compiled to a c shared lib, then linked via cgo so that code can be reused essentially? Sorry if I am regurgitating what you just said, helps me understand things better :sweat_smile:
yousafn
2024-02-14 22:30
that it totally okay! It was all new to me, when I started digging in.
Correct, it can be reused by any language that provides the ability to call C code, which effectively allows those languages to leverage from what was abundant, well written C code. Nowadays we can write our code in Rust and compile it down to C.
Utilising it via a shared library makes process management alot easier compared to our previous state which was utilising a shared core written in Ruby, via subprocesses.
There is syntactic sugar in each client language to provide idiomatic dsl?s for developers, and some languages as some extra features (such as request filters for modifying requests prior to execution)
matt.fellows
2024-02-14 23:58
I think I originally had `/opt` in it too, but that causes CGO warnings. I?d be open to other paths/suggestions.
matt.fellows
2024-02-14 23:58
I wish Go didn?t require this additional step to install the FFI, unlike other language dependency managers that can bundle it in
hristian.iliev
2024-02-16 10:45
Hello Team :wave:, I'm currently navigating through setting up pact contract testing for a scenario involving two services communicating through DynamoDB. The first service persists data in a DynamoDB table, and the second service reads data asynchronously from that table, performing some business logic. Now from what I can understand this is a form of a contract, because the first service (Produces) needs to write the data in a specific way in order for it to be valid for the second service (Consumer) and this is what I aim to test.
My understanding is that this scenario aligns with Asynchronous Contract Testing, but I'm not entirely certain if the same paradigms apply. Can anyone provide guidance on the approach I should take for writing contract tests in this context? Your insights would be greatly appreciated!
