Hello folks,
I was wondering if/how it's possible ...
# generalg
Gaël Jourdan-Weil
08/07/2023, 2:46 PMHello folks,
I was wondering if/how it's possible to define a contract in the consumer side but explicitly states that a given query parameter has to be ignored for the matching?
Gaël Jourdan-Weil
08/07/2023, 2:46 PMThe typical use case is when the production code adds some query parameter like an api key but this api key is a "infrastructure requirement", it's not really part of the contract with the provider.
b
Boris
08/08/2023, 1:00 AMOne approach is to bundle that into the state description, rather than the interaction content. E.g. "user is logged in" or "user with active session" for auth tokens, is similar to "request has valid API key".
It's a very implementation-dependent question, though . . . if your responsibilities are split between actors (like, the API never gets invalid requests, because they're intercepted by a gateway), then it's not quite a 1:1 contract.
Boris
08/08/2023, 1:02 AMHow you do the provider verification should be env-independent, though. I'd cover the extra API key header in functional/smoke tests, not unit/contract tests.
g
Gaël Jourdan-Weil
08/08/2023, 6:37 AMMy issue is more on the consumer side where I don't have control over the mock server being created from the contract.
Gaël Jourdan-Weil
08/08/2023, 6:38 AMIf I don't put the query parameter in the contract, the mock server is not able to find the appropriate answer.
Gaël Jourdan-Weil
08/08/2023, 6:38 AMj
Jo Laing
08/09/2023, 4:17 PM@Gaël Jourdan-Weil Hello!!! Cucumber Jo here dancing pickle
g
Gaël Jourdan-Weil
08/10/2023, 6:10 AMHey, nice to see you here @Jo Laing 👋