Hi, I’m using jest-pact to create a consumer pact but unsure how to pass parameters and use the path matcher, if the latter is needed. I have tried using the query property but feel that I shouldn’t need to even specify the query parameter for the generate value. Eg:

describe('Customers', () => {
      it('returns customer data', async () => {
        const interaction = {
          state: 'Server is healthy',
          uponReceiving: 'Request Person',
          willRespondWith: {
            status: 200,
            body: like(responseData),
          },
          withRequest: {
            method: 'GET',
            path: term({
              generate: '/some/path?id=1234567',
              matcher: '/some/path?id=(w{7})',
            }),
          },
        }

        await provider.addInteraction(interaction)

        await client.getPerson('1234567').then((person) => {
          expect(person).toEqual(responseData)
        })
      })
    })

Could anyone advise please?

Have you tried using the

query

property? Query and path are seperate

hello all 🙂 Just wanna know if it possible to test Server Sent Event with Pact ? If it is, how can I proceed ?

Hi Members, I need some assistance in setting up PACT on my machine

can someone please spare few mins to assist me with step by step process

Hiya folks 👋 I hope you are doing well 🙂 I am looking for some help with my PactJs implementation. Context I am trying to assert if Contract Testing can be used to strengthen Developer Confidence. I have setup PactJs between 2 services as a test candidate. Problem Statement While the local Contract Testing is working fine by sharing the Pact locally between to the Provider, I am having some difficulties with the Pact Broker. I am using PactFlow as the broker. Here is a snippet of how I am setting my

VerifierOptions

in my provider test:

baseOptions = {
			providerBaseUrl: appUrl,
			provider: 'SDS',
			log: path.resolve( process.cwd(), 'logs', 'pact.log' ),
			// pactUrls: [ path.resolve( __dirname, '../pacts/SDS-Parker.json' ) ],
			logLevel: 'trace' as LogLevel,
			
			// Fetching the pact from broker
			pactBroker: 'https://<orgName>.<http://pactflow.io|pactflow.io>',
			pactBrokerToken: '<TOKEN>',
			publishVerificationResult: true,
  			providerVersion: 'fd394f4ebd1439ec87c2fb88b648c41219f541e2',
			branch: 'add/contract-test'
	
		};

If I uncomment the

pactUrls

and take the pact locally and not use the broker for publish or pact retrieval, I get the correct results. However, if the pactBroker is used, the test always results in a

Pass

even if it is supposed to fail. Also, when using the pact broker, the test results do not show the “interaction wise” results. Instead they show the following:

PASS  test/contract/parker/blog.contract-spec.ts (34.145 s)ifier: @param handle = 0x400b712400
  pact Verification
    ✓ should validate Parker expectations (1191 ms)

Test Suites: 1 passed, 1 total
Tests:       1 passed, 1 total
Snapshots:   0 total
Time:        34.839 s, estimated 51 s
Ran all test suites.

Furthermore, the results are not published to PactFlow even when

publishVerificationResult

is set to

true

Lastly, even with the

jest

timeout increased to 2 minutes, I see openHandles at the end.

[18:27:01.626] TRACE (117): pact@10.4.1: Verification completed, closing server

Jest has detected the following 1 open handle potentially keeping Jest from exiting:

  ●  WORKER

      70 |
      71 |      it( 'should validate Parker expectations', async () => {
    > 72 |              const verifier = new Verifier( baseOptions );
         |                               ^
      73 |              await verifier.verifyProvider();
      74 |      } );
      75 | } );

Hi All, I am currently working on adding contract testing between two services. One part in particular I have been unsure about. Question: When the Consumer service uses a client library to send requests to the Provider, we must set the baseUrl for that provider client-library to that of the mock server right? Note: the client library is offered by the

Provider

Hi folks! I'm updating our provider verification tests, and have come across some interesting things around the

afterEach

hook. 1. The documentation for the lifecycle seems to be incomplete, as it doesn't mention when the

State Handler Teardown

step runs. After some trial and error, I believe the following is correct:

BeforeEach -> State Handler Setup -> Request Filter (request phase) -> Execute Provider Test -> Request Filter (response phase) -> AfterEach -> State Handler Teardown

Is this right? Happy to get a PR open to update the docs if this is correct. 2. Are there any constraints around the

afterEach

hook, such as maximum execution time? In the

afterEach

hook for our tests, I'm resetting some of the data in our test database, as per one of the use cases described for it in the docs. However, it seems that my

afterEach

hook does not always finish executing. I've littered it with logging debug statements and

try/catch

statements to find out exactly where it gets to, and there are no errors being thrown - the logging statements sometimes just stop. What might I be missing? Any help is appreciated! Thanks in advance 🙂

This message was deleted.

Hey, gang! Does pact-js support (sync) POST-method tests specifically for requests with a form-data body? I've been trying to find an example of how that would work, and came across https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/277#issuecomment-487939601, which communicates the overall approach, but doesn't seem up to date as a solution. For one, matching the 'Content-Type'-header with term() brings me back to https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/issues/950#issuecomment-1256799800, and just plugging the body in as YOU54F did, still results in an error message, where I'm never ahead of the boundary being re-calculated:

1.1 Expected body with content type multipart/form-data;boundary=--------------------------560782525175769486914756 but was multipart/form-data;boundary=--------------------------145131317172642167883350

Any answer or redirection to an example or proper documentation is appreciated. Thanks!

This what you’re after: https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/master/src/v3/pact.ts#L139 ?

Hi here, What's the best way to handle a provider which has no consumers yet, but you still want to implement the pact flow into the ci? It will return saying

Could not load pacts

(which can be turned into a warning) or it will say

No pacts or verifications have been published for version ... of ...

Thread in Slack Conversation

@Gazal Gafoor has left the channel

Hello, please help me with the below issue. I am trying to use eachLike matcher in my consumer test, but am not getting the desired result as the provider test is failing. The consumer code is :-

authors: eachLike(['Harry', 'Garry', 'Reilly']),

and this is the provider's mock data against which its running the tests :-

"authors": ["Frances", "Gibbs"],

And I am getting the below error :-

1.2) body: $.featured.authors.0 Type mismatch: Expected List ["Harry","Federer","Rilos"] but received String 'Frances'

        -[
        -  "Harry",
        -  "Federer",
        -  "Rilos"
        -]
        +"Frances"


    1.3) body: $.featured.authors.1 Type mismatch: Expected List ["Harry","Federer","Rilos"] but received String 'Gibbs'

        -[
        -  "Harry",
        -  "Federer",
        -  "Rilos"
        -]
        +"Gibbs"

Heya folks 👋 I am looking for recommendations on how to efficiently implement “bi-directional testing” via Github webhooks.

Hi, all. I have couple of consumers with contract files generating on them. On my MacOS Ventura on Intel all works fine, but when another person tried to run the same on Ubuntu, he got following errors: For first app:

FAIL  pact/consumer/generateContract.pact.ts (6.46 s)


  ● Test suite failed to run

    Error in native callback

      at mockServerMismatches (node_modules/@pact-foundation/pact-core/src/consumer/internals.ts:10:9)
      at Object.mockServerMismatches (node_modules/@pact-foundation/pact-core/src/consumer/index.ts:123:27)
      at PactV3.<anonymous> (node_modules/@pact-foundation/src/v3/pact.ts:206:39)
      at step (node_modules/@pact-foundation/pact/src/v3/pact.js:33:23)
      at Object.throw (node_modules/@pact-foundation/pact/src/v3/pact.js:14:53)
      at rejected (node_modules/@pact-foundation/pact/src/v3/pact.js:6:65)

Test Suites: 1 failed, 1 total
Tests:       2 passed, 2 total
Snapshots:   0 total
Time:        6.512 s
Ran all test suites.
error Command failed with exit code 1.

For second (it reports passed at finish, but contract files does not appear):

PASS  src/__tests__/pact_tests/consumer/generateContract.pactTest.tsrver_for_pact{pact=PactHandle { pact_ref: 1 } addr_str=0x7ffcde2da260 tls=false}: pact_ffi::mock_server: Failed to start m  Generate contract example
    ✓ some test 1 (2 ms)
    ✓ some test 2
    ✓ some test 3 (1 ms)

Test Suites: 1 passed, 1 total
Tests:       3 passed, 3 total
Snapshots:   0 total
Time:        1.427 s
Ran all test suites.
Done in 2.04s.

Could someone give a clue about this?

have you face this error before?!

Hi. I'm trying to implement this solution proposed in https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68455650/cannot-make-cypress-and-pact-work-together/68492932#68492932 using pact 11.0.0 and cypress 12.7.0. But Cypress throws this error when I try to import the Matchers. Any idea how to solve this? Thanks

Error: Webpack Compilation Error
./node_modules/@pact-foundation/pact-core/src/service.js 132:29
Module parse failed: Unexpected token (132:29)
You may need an appropriate loader to handle this file type, currently no loaders are configured to process this file. See <https://webpack.js.org/concepts#loaders>
|                 if (match && match[1]) {
|                     this.options.port = parseInt(match[1], 10);
>                     if (this?.__instance?.stdout) {
|                         this.__instance.stdout.removeListener('data', catchPort);
|                     }

Apologies if this is an old question, but I can't seem to find a pact (v2/v3) matcher that would check if an object-valued non-array response field (in e.g. REST/JSON) was one of a list of possible expectation shapes. This kind of thing arises quite frequently in e.g. GraphQL schema union types (where a field could be e.g. a Person or a Team), and the possible values are quite different.

Hi, I’ve just updated our repo to pact 11.0.0 and was looking through the migration guide. Since updating, all of our

like()

methods are erroring out due to type mismatches. When I looked into the

AnyTemplate

class, I see that it is deprecated. What are my options here?

it('should return the correct data from POST call', async () => {
      await mockProvider.addInteraction({
        states: '[]',
        uponReceiving: 'a request to create a tenant',
        withRequest: {
          method: 'POST',
          path: '/tenant',
          body: like(reqBody),
          headers: requestHeaders,
        },
        willRespondWith: {
          status: 201,
          headers: responseHeaders,
          body: like(responseBody),
        },
      });

      const tenant = await lastValueFrom(service.createTenant(requestHeaders, reqBody));
      expect(tenant).toStrictEqual(camelCaseObjectKeys(responseBody));
    });

Hi, everyone. How to compare expected body with matchers, like:

const expectedBody: any = {
    field1: integer(3),
    field2: integer(2),
    field3: integer(1),
};

with actual value, which is plain object:

{
    field1: 3,
    field2: 2,
    field3: 1,
}

? Using

expect(JSON.stringify(dataFromAPI)).toEqual(JSON.stringify(expectedBody));

(I am using jest), gives:

Expected: "{\"field1\":{\"pact:matcher:type\":\"integer\",\"value\":3},\"field2\":{\"pact:matcher:type\":\"integer\",\"value\":2},\"field3\":{\"pact:matcher:type\":\"integer\",\"value\":1}}"
Received: "{\"field1\":3,\"field2\":2,\"field3\":1}"

you want to use the

reify

function (in the

Matchers

package), to remove the matchers from it

Does Pactjs supports “Bi-directional GRPC constructs” in contract testing?

Hi all, how can we pass a particular consumer tag in the create-webhook command, so that whenever there is any consumer contract published to the broker with a certain tag, the webhook triggers the provider tests, thus enabling the provider to fetch the contract with that specific tag from the broker? How can we achieve this?

Has anyone figured out the

node-gyp

issues that occur on Node v16? It seems to originate from this script:

"format:fix": "npm run format:base -- --write \"{src,standalone,bin,test}/**/*.{ts,tsx}\"",
    "postinstall": "npm run native",
    "native": "node-gyp rebuild -v"

the

native

command specifically where it does the

node-gyp rebuild -v

error:

gyp ERR! node -v v16.16.0
gyp ERR! node-gyp -v v3.6.3

I’m using

"@pact-foundation/pact": "^11.0.0",

Here’s a similar error: https://github.com/nodejs/node-gyp/issues/2025

@Kripa Kurian has left the channel

Hi there, not sure if this is the right channel to post, but please point me to the correct team if not. We are trying to implement pact across a varied tech stack in the company, one of them being the front end team, so we're using pact-js for them. The problem is that the pact core package, pulled in with pact js, has the standalone pact inside it on ruby version 2.4.0, which is throwing some vulnerability issues with our security checks. Are there options I can use to bump this ruby version, or are there any plans to bump the version by the pact team? Thanks very much in advance.

hi all, question about provider states, in particular javascript: how does one specify a path with provider values where you have 2 variables in the expression? We do things like

path: fromProviderState('/${entityId}', UUID)

However, how does one do something like

path: fromProviderState('/${entityId}/extra/stuff/${anotherId}', UUID, UUID)

? (this is not possible in our current version of the pact libs for java/typescript -- wrong signature). For reference https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/master/docs/matching.md#provider-state-injected-values Though those docs show how to do single values (we know and use this already)

maybe it's a case of doing

fromProviderState('/${anIdHere}/extra/stuff/${anotherId}', '/' + UUID1 + '/extra/stuff/' + UUID2)

?