How are you verifying it? With Node or another language?

With python, I use pact-python there. I installed it with:

pip install pact-python

Yep that's the problem. The logs should specify it's verying a pact with a different spec and/or warn about matchers it doesn't understand

Now I see that the pact file has pactSpecification v2 but I still have the same problem on the provider’s side. Also, I can see that matching rules were updated in the pact. It’s my pact right now:

{
  "consumer": {
    "name": "consumer"
  },
  "interactions": [
    {
      "description": "a request to get all events",
      "providerState": "I can get all events",
      "request": {
        "method": "GET",
        "path": "/events",
        "query": "limit=10&name=&offset=0"
      },
      "response": {
        "body": {
          "items": [
            {
              "id": "1cb9eb9e",
              "name": "test event 1",
              "teamId": "dummy_tid"
            }
          ],
          "totalCount": 1
        },
        "headers": {
          "Content-Type": "application/json"
        },
        "matchingRules": {
          "$.body.items": {
            "match": "type"
          },
          "$.body.totalCount": {
            "match": "type"
          }
        },
        "status": 200
      }
    }
  ],
  "metadata": {
    "pact-js": {
      "version": "10.1.4"
    },
    "pactRust": {
      "ffi": "0.3.11",
      "models": "0.4.5"
    },
    "pactSpecification": {
      "version": "2.0.0"
    }
  },
  "provider": {
    "name": "provider"
  }
}

You can't do that, the format of the JSON file and matchers are different. You need to generate it from code

There is my full log with failures:

Verifying a pact between consumer and provider
  Given I can get all events
    a request to get all events
      with GET /events?limit=10&name=&offset=0
        returns a response which
WARN: Skipping set up for provider state 'I can get all events' for consumer 'consumer' as there is no --provider-states-setup-url specified.
          has status code 200
          has a matching body (FAILED - 1)
          includes headers
            "Content-Type" which equals "application/json"


Failures:

  1) Verifying a pact between consumer and provider Given I can get all events a request to get all events with GET /events?limit=10&name=&offset=0 returns a response which has a matching body
     Failure/Error: expect(response_body).to match_term expected_response_body, diff_options, example

       Actual: {"items":[{"name":"test event da","start":"2021-02-21T11:42:21.954913+00:00","end":"2022-11-25T11:42:21.954913+00:00","ventureDuration":120,"location":"online","focus":[],"technology":[],"prerequisites":[],"challenges":[],"landingPage":null,"privacy":"private","branding":{"themeImage":"<https://www.arabnews.com/sites/default/files/main-image/2019/02/11/1456561-87422913.jpg>"},"testId":null,"id":"d5ac5cd4","teamId":"dummy_tid","createdAt":"2022-09-29T17:45:07.613494+00:00","updatedAt":"2022-09-29T17:45:07.613502+00:00","publishedAt":null,"status":"UNPUBLISHED","lifecycle":"STARTED","reportUrl":null},{"name":"test event dd","start":"2021-01-21T11:42:21.954913+00:00","end":"2022-10-25T11:42:21.954913+00:00","ventureDuration":120,"location":"online","focus":[],"technology":[],"prerequisites":[],"challenges":[],"landingPage":null,"privacy":"private","branding":{"themeImage":"<https://www.arabnews.com/sites/default/files/main-image/2019/02/11/1456561-87422913.jpg>"},"testId":null,"id":"1cb9eb9e","teamId":"dummy_tid","createdAt":"2022-09-21T15:44:43.831196+00:00","updatedAt":"2022-09-21T15:44:43.831203+00:00","publishedAt":null,"status":"UNPUBLISHED","lifecycle":"STARTED","reportUrl":null}],"totalCount":2}

       Diff
       --------------------------------------
       Key: - is expected 
            + is actual 
       Matching keys and values are not shown

        {
          "items": [
            ... ,
       -    Pact::UnexpectedIndex,
       +    Hash,
          ]
        }

       Description of differences
       --------------------------------------
       * Actual array is too long and should not contain a Hash at $.items[1]

1 interaction, 1 failure

Failed interactions:

PACT_DESCRIPTION='a request to get all events' PACT_PROVIDER_STATE='I can get all events' /Users/tatiana/projects/events/.venv/bin/pact-verifier --provider-base-url=<http://localhost:8000> --pact-url=./pacts/consumer-provider.json # A request to get all events given I can get all events

The consumer tests looks like:

Can you share the

import

statements from your tests?

Sure, I use the following imports for my consumer test

import React from 'react';
import { Provider } from 'react-redux';
import { renderHook } from '@testing-library/react-hooks'
import path from "path";
import { PactV3, SpecificationVersion } from '@pact-foundation/pact';
import { like, eachLike } from '@pact-foundation/pact/src/v3/matchers';
import { useGetEventQuery, useGetEventsQuery } from "../../../src/services/events";
import { makeStore } from "../../../src/redux";

Just in case, I am running the provider-verifier as:

pact-verifier --provider-base-url=<http://localhost:8000> --pact-url=./pacts/consumer-provider.json

I don’t know, sorry. The pact test looks right to me. I’m not sure what Hash means in the context of this error message- one for @uglyog, maybe

Hi Tatiana. We’re probably at diminishing returns it terms of asking questions/responses. To be able to help now I think we’ll need an example repository that demonstrates the issue

Ah, right. Either way, the error message is not as helpful as it could be

Unfortunately, I cannot share a repository, it’s a private one :( And yes, provider uses Python and FastApi. Generally, do you know why such error might happen? Might be the problem with nested matchers? Also, I saw this answer in the Internet, that it might happen that the received array is longer than was expected. But I’m not sure that’s my case. Maybe I can send you the whole response from my Api, maybe it can help somehow?

Just to confirm, this is a pact file that is generated by Pact-JS, without modification?

Just to confirm, this is a pact file that is generated by Pact-JS, without modification?

Yes, it was generated with pact-js after test run. I didn’t change anything there manually. I generated the pact and shared it with my provider. Provider uses Python and fast api.

@Matt (pactflow.io / pact-js / pact-go) I put the example above in a repo here: https://github.com/TimothyJones/jest-pact/commit/2a6ab176f353011e882050ad077de1cf9d2db274

yes, I am using spec, my setup looks like:

const provider = new PactV3({
  dir: path.resolve(process.cwd(), 'contract-tests/pacts'),
  consumer: 'mousedeer-events-consumer',
  provider: 'eventhub-provider',
  port: 8001,
  spec: SpecificationVersion.SPECIFICATION_VERSION_V2
});

@Matt (pactflow.io / pact-js / pact-go) - I’m not sure what the best fix is here. We have

PactV3

which takes the V3 matchers, but it takes an option called

spec

where you can tell it to use V2, but when you do that you need to use the V2 matchers. But they’re not called V2 matchers, they’re called

Matchers

. And, it’s not obvious that the V3 matchers might not be appropriate to pass to PactV3.

It works as I expected. Thank you very much! you helped me to understand pact and how it works, you helped me a lot!

Anyway, there’s the reproducible example 🙂

Really this should be a concern of the core. The core should just figure it out for you, and users don’t have to know.

+1, totally agree 👍

> Really this should be a concern of the core. The core should just figure it out for you, and users don’t have to know.

+1 also

It’s different according to the spec, I think

Sure, maybe. But the passing of a matcher to the core should be spec agnostic is my point (i.e. it’s a bug in the rust core, or at least confusing)

Yes.

or put another way - the way matchers are passed to the rust core as it stands is deliberately agnostic to the spec version. The serialisation to the pact file of the matcher is based on the spec version

'pact:matcher:type': 'type',

^ This means “shaped like this”

I thought Ron actually created that matcher 🤔 But any case, will look tomorow ✅

Good luck!