There seems to be a bug in the latest pactflow UI. It shows on multiple versions the same deployed environment, e.g. production. It seems the UI is showing the env "production" on all previously deployed versions. On the CLI (with -o json) it looks fine.

will be discussed here

Currently, with the bi-directional workflow consumers must upload a contract in Pact format. Wheras the provider uploads an OAS. Is support for consumers uploading an OAS (instead of Pact contract) on your roadmap?

Hi 👋 We're using PactFlow and have created a custom interaction type for Microfrontends, where we generate Pact V4 files ourselves (without using the standard Pact tooling), following the official spec. These interactions are added under the

interactions[]

array in the pact file, using a custom

type

and domain-specific fields in place of `request`/`response`. Our PoC showed promising results, and we'd now like to validate whether this is a supported and future-proof approach before rolling it out more broadly. Our main concern is whether PactFlow will continue to support contracts that contain custom interaction types and properties — or if there's a risk that the broker might reject these files in future versions. Does this sound like a safe path to go down? Thanks!

Hi!, is there a way to check to about pacticipant deletion on pactflow like who deleted it, when it is deleted it ?

Hello. I tried accessing our audit logs via /audit, but all we get are entries from over 1 month ago. Are there special parameters to use? I don't see anything in the docs about it.

Hey folks 👋 possibly daft question - since I’ve moved to the new UI I can’t see where to find a system account token? If I click on the account options the only option I get is

Copy Sys. Account UUID

Where can I get it? 😅

Hi folks, appreciate any help. Already have BDCT setup using Pactflow. Now I'm currently setting up MBCT but it looks like its trying to send http requests like for a normal provider verification.

2025-06-20T09:55:08.050264Z  INFO ThreadId(16) pact_verifier: Running setup provider state change handler with empty state for 'a setCurrentPage event with empty pageId'
2025-06-20T09:55:08.050280Z  INFO ThreadId(16) pact_verifier: Running provider verification for 'a setCurrentPage event with empty pageId'
2025-06-20T09:55:08.050295Z  INFO ThreadId(16) pact_verifier::provider_client: Sending request to provider at <http://localhost:56254/>
2025-06-20T09:55:08.050300Z  INFO ThreadId(16) pact_verifier::provider_client: Sending request HTTP Request ( method: POST, path: /, query: None, headers: Some({"Content-Type": ["application/json"]}), body: Present(58 bytes, application/json) )
[10:55:08.052] ERROR (8141): pact@15.0.1: no handler found for message a setCurrentPage event with empty pageId

Pactfile - https://pastebin.com/zqtfunst Consumer - https://pastebin.com/8MqM3Sre Provider - https://pastebin.com/fNTH9cSc My consumer tests will pass, generate the pactfile, it looks correct But on running the provider tests using jest it seems to use default http verifier

Hi Pactflow team. I just want to tell you about a little glitch in the webhook creation page: when you add a new header, it deletes the header key of all the headers that were previously configured.

hi, we're seeing this error intermittently, seemingly when the publish is called, the hash that gets created for the contract is invalid, though I believe we're not the ones hashing the json? Any thoughts on how to guard against this? Was advised it's intermittent and it is on the OAS file upload

status=400 {"title":"Validation errors","type":"<https://problems-registry.smartbear.com/validation-error>","status":400,"instance":"/","errors":[{"detail":"content could not be parsed as application/json","pointer":"#/contract/content"},{"detail":"content when Base64 decoded and parsed must be a hash","pointer":"#/contract/content"}]}

@Zachary Lysobey has left the channel

We're having trouble signing in to our pactflow instance. This is what I get even when I do a private mode window:

Hi people, we seem to have lost our PactFlow user (at least the details we have don’t work any more): https://sdx.pactflow.io/ un: connect.engineering@sedex.com Any ideas?

Hi folks! I've been following the ci-cd workshop, and for the life of me cannot get the damned webhook to work. Would anyone be able to provide some assistance? Keen to get past this step in prep for a team demo to showcase contract testing in action. Notes: • Attached is the webhook setup in APIHub • Link to my forked provider and forked consumer • The github personal access token is still listing as 'unused' and the "triggered webhooks" tab in ApiHub is empty - suggesting it's not getting that far in the process Huge thanks in advance!

@Matt (pactflow.io / pact-js / pact-go) different problem this time, I’ve got a 404 trying to record a pact to the following endpoint:

/pacticipants/saq-summary-etl/versions/4b4c8962c8f7243a28cdeda7cbcbf7b7d90ae41a/deployed-versions/environment/6433116c-b3cd-48ce-bd0d-ed2a12b844ee

- any ideas? The response is:

404 . {"error":"The requested document was not found on this server."}

Hi, I am setting up bidirectional contract testing with an external provider, and they ask me if there are any possibilities for them to receive a notification with the comparison results after they've uploaded their new OAS file. Naturally I thought it would be possible with a webhook. But I've just tried a simple example where I have set up a webhook, and upload a modified OAS file with breaking changes, and the webhook does not seem to trigger. Am I missing anything here?

Hello everyone! I'm just wondering if the webhook "Contract published that requires verification" should be triggered should cover initial contract publishing? I expected it should, but when I started testing, it was triggered only in case the existing contract was updated. When I choose "Contract published" option for webhook is is triggered successfully, but with option "Contract published that requires verification" - not.

Hi team!, I am trying to use Pactflow-ai to generate the consumer contract test from our openapi spec file but every time the getting the

ERROR: Server error: 500 Internal Server Error

, maybe can you help ? it is generating for happy path but failing 400, 404 etc

I'm getting an error in our pipelines this morning that is new. I can't see how it is caused by changes our end. Any changes made recently to pactflow? Our pactflow /matrix endpoint is returning 404 😞

FAILED integration_tests/pact/v3/test_can_i_merge.py::test_can_i_merge - RuntimeError: can-i-merge failed: Error retrieving matrix. PactBroker::Client::Hal::ErrorResponseReturned - Error making request to <https://xxx-xxx.pactflow.io/matrix> status=404 Not Found. The requested document was not found on this server.

Using pact-cli to run can-i-merge (unchanged):

docker run --rm pactfoundation/pact-cli:latest pact-broker can-i-merge --broker-base-url={pact_broker_base_url} --broker-token={pact_broker_token} --pacticipant a --pacticipant b

Hi we have implemented consumer driven contract testing in our company but in some cases we need to implement bi-directional testing And while implementing it we have run into a problem. When using the pactflow publish-provider-contract it expects the provider to self verify the open api specification, is there a way to skip it?, Our providers are .Net based and we generate the specification from the provider code, so we dont need to self verify anything, and our verification should be ok automattically. We have tried with --skip-verification-success option but it stil expects to upload the verification info, and it says that contract is not compatible with provider codebase. Thanks

Hi, we are implementing a bi-directional contract testing system and we use

can-i-deploy

in our CI/CD system to check the compatibility of our Provider with our Consumer contracts. We would like detailed information about the contract validation failure (i.e. what specific request properties don't match etc), but unfortunately it seems like the default response from

can-i-deploy

lacks that information and links to the

/contracts/bi-directional/provider/<provider>/version/<version>/consumer/<consumer>/version/<version>/cross-contract-verification-results

page in the pactflow ui. There is documentation that implies that this information can be retrieved programmatically via the pactflow API https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/bi-directional-contract-testing/compatibility-checks/#api-resources

crossContractVerificationResults

contains the information we want We have tried various ways to make requests to that url, but couldn't get it to work. We always receive

{"title":"404 Not Found","type":"<https://problems-registry.smartbear.com/not-found>","detail":"The requested document was not found on this server.","status":404}

How can we retrieve the contract verification results programmatically?

Hello, me again. I'm implementing webhooks now, and when testing some variables are not being populated.

{
  "target": {
    "ref_type": "branch",
    "type": "pipeline_ref_target",
    "ref_name": "${pactbroker.providerVersionBranch}",
    "selector": {
      "type": "custom",
      "pattern": "pi-verify-pacts"
    }
  },
  "variables": [
    {
      "key": "PACT_URL",
      "value": "${pactbroker.pactUrl}"
    },
    {
      "key": "PACT_PROVIDER_VERSION",
      "value": "${pactbroker.providerVersionNumber}"
    },
    {
      "key": "PACT_PROVIDER_BRANCH",
      "value": "${pactbroker.providerVersionBranch}"
    },
    {
      "key": "PACT_PROVIDER_NAME",
      "value": "${pactbroker.providerName}"
    },
    {
      "key": "PACT_CONSUMER_VERSION",
      "value": "${pactbroker.consumerVersionNumber}"
    },
    {
      "key": "PACT_CONSUMER_BRANCH",
      "value": "${pactbroker.consumerVersionBranch}"
    },
    {
      "key": "PACT_CONSUMER_NAME",
      "value": "${pactbroker.consumerName}"
    }
  ]
}

${pactbroker.providerVersionBranch}

and

${pactbroker.providerVersionNumber}

are resolving to an empty string, which causes the webhook to fail. For now I'll hope that this is just the "test webhook" functionality that's broken at the moment. I'll let you know if the problem persists.

Hey, When a webhook runs (specifically, the

Contract published that requires verification

webhook), what are the rules for determining the

pactbroker.pactUrl

that we use in the payload? If the webhook runs for two different provider versions (as shown in the screenshot), should that

pactbroker.pactUrl

be the same or different for the two invocations?

I think I posted in the wrong channel, So reposting here. Hi team! 👋 I'm working on a provider verification setup and have a question about stateHandlers. Current Setup: In my pact.setup.js, I'm using stateHandlers to set up test data as in the sample project.

const stateHandlers = {
  "products exists": () => {
    controller.repository.products = new Map([
      ["10", new Product("10", "CREDIT_CARD", "28 Degrees", "5678")],
    ]);
  },
  "products exist": () => {
    controller.repository.products = new Map([
      ["10", new Product("10", "CREDIT_CARD", "28 Degrees", "5678")],
    ]);
  },
  "a product with ID 10 exists": () => {
    controller.repository.products = new Map([
      ["10", new Product("10", "CREDIT_CARD", "28 Degrees", "5678")],
    ]);
  },
  "a product with ID 11 does not exist": () => {
    controller.repository.products = new Map();
  },
};

My Question: 1. Can I use a real database instead? Instead of manually setting up test data in stateHandlers, can I point my provider verification to use a real database environment (like staging/test DB) to fetch actual data? 2. Can I completely avoid stateHandlers? Is it possible to connect directly to my working environment (staging/test database) and eliminate the need for stateHandlers altogether? Use Case: • I want to avoid maintaining test data in code • Prefer using real data from my test/staging environment • This would be especially useful for webhook-triggered verifications when consumer contracts are updated Is this possible/recommended? If so, how would I configure the provider verification to use an actual database connection instead of in-memory test data? Any guidance or examples would be greatly appreciated! 🙏 Thanks!

Hi Team! I'm having trouble getting my OpenAPI specification to be parsed by Pactflow using discriminators. I have followed the guidelines outlined here: Keyword Support | PactFlow Documentation The error I am seeing is:

"message": "discriminator: oneOf subschemas (or referenced schemas) must have \"properties/transactionType\""

What I cannot understand is why it's complaining about the transactionType not being declared within subschemas, when all of them explicityly define it alongside a fixed enum value. Here is a sample of what my schema definitions look like:

Transaction:
      required:
        - transactionDetails
        - transactionType
      type: object
      properties:
        transactionType:
          type: string
          description: 'Type of transaction. Used as a discriminator for polymorphic deserialization.'
          example: transaction_a
        transactionDetails:
          $ref: '#/components/schemas/TransactionDetails'
      description: Transaction Details
      discriminator:
        propertyName: transactionType
      oneOf:
        - $ref: '#/components/schemas/TransactionA'
        - $ref: '#/components/schemas/TransactionB'
TransactionA:
      required:
        - transactionDetails
        - transactionType
      type: object
      description: Transaction A Details
      allOf:
        - $ref: '#/components/schemas/Transaction'
        - type: object
          properties:
            transactionDetails:
              $ref: '#/components/schemas/TransactionADetails'
            transactionType:
              type: string
              description: Constant discriminator identifying this transaction subtype
              readOnly: true
              example: transaction_a
              enum:
                - transaction_a        
TransactionB:
      required:
        - transactionDetails
        - transactionType
      type: object
      description: Transaction B Details
      allOf:
        - $ref: '#/components/schemas/Transaction'
        - type: object
          properties:
            transactionDetails:
              $ref: '#/components/schemas/TransactionBDetails'
            transactionType:
              type: string
              description: Constant discriminator identifying this transaction subtype
              readOnly: true
              example: transaction_b
              enum:
                - transaction_b

Hello there, I've been continuing on with my Pactflow proof of concept. However I started running into an issue yesterday where the

AVJ

processing has been throwing the error:

"message": "discriminator: mapping is not supported"

. It seems to me like something has changed on the Pactflow side? For example if I reupload the latest working version of my OAS spec, Pactflow processes it correctly. It looks like it's loading the comparison from cache as it shows:

Comparison details
Compared at
2025-08-18 11:57:19 GMT+1
Verifier
pactflow-openapi-pact-comparator
Version
1.5.1

Then, if I simply change the version attribute in the OAS and no changes whatsoever to the rest of the OAS, I get the error

info:
   version: {bump this}

I can also see that the comparison details show a brand new comparison:

Comparison details
Compared at
9 minutes ago
Verifier
pactflow-openapi-pact-comparator
Version
1.6.0

The key difference seems to be that version 1.6.0 throws the error on identical yaml contents

hey team, in a bidirectional validation, marking a delete as deprecated caused the validation to break entirely, as if it had been removed from the spec. The idea was to use the deprecation flag for a while to redirect consumers to another API. Is this the expected behavior? Thanks

Hi Where in current new UI there is an option we can turn on "allow dangerous contract modification" We found that during reruning of PRs the publish consumer contract task step is constantly failing is it is showing that contracts were not change and have race conditation. Is there any better way to handle that ? maybe there is an option to detect contract which were not changed and delete them or just overwrite ? https://docs.pactflow.io/docs/troubleshooting/disabling-dangerous-contract-modification

I forget how I got in this channel. How can I invite more members of my companies slack workspace here?

Hi, Regarding x-chase-api-store-servers which is added in API Marketplace and old server values are removed from swagger (I mean servers.url property).This causes pactflow contract tests (go/pactflow) fail to determine basepath. And when we check with API Marketplace team , they mentioned API Marketplace doesn't allow servers.url in the spec by default due to policy. So can you assist with the alternate option to this to pactflow to work, because when we try to run the pactflow , it is failing with basepath is empty