-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 481
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Problem with Interaction Filtering when working with V4 pacts #1673
Comments
I've stumbled upon one more thing. Was the change from:
to
between V3 and V4 pacts done intentionally? As of now, users using |
👋 Hi! The 'smartbear-supported' label has just been added to this issue, which will create an internal tracking ticket in PactFlow's Jira (PACT-808). We will use this to prioritise and assign a team member to this task. All activity will be public on this ticket. For now, sit tight and we'll update this ticket once we have more information on the next steps. |
… not work with V4 interactions #1673
As to the headers, the code to join it into a string was a bug, as the V3 spec changed it to use But they should support both formats of headers. If you are unable to verify Pacts with that format, can you raise an issue with details of the errors? |
Hi,
I think I've stumbled upon subtle issue regarding Interaction Filtering in
pact-jvm
, and I would much appreciate someone taking a look at it and confirming whether it is an issue or just misconfiguration on my side.Once we migrated to pact-jvm
4.5.0
, we started publishing pacts withpactSpecification.version == 4.0
Once the provider switched to the new version, we cannot verify the latest pacts and we are getting an error:
@PactFilter(value = "/interaction/path", filter = InteractionFilter.ByRequestPath.class)
.interaction instanceof RequestResponseInteraction
is true, and it works just fine for V3. Sadly for V4, what we are getting there is a class of typeSynchronousHttp
which extends bothV4Interaction
andSynchronousRequestResponse
, but noRequestResponseInteraction
.interaction.isSynchronousRequestResponse()
we could make it more flexible and resilient to type structure changes. The implementation would look like this:What do you think? Thanks in advance! :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: