Hey there, I have two pact tests - one is a simple GET request for all games and the other is a GET request to retrieve a game by ID(query param). For some reason, the pact test with the query param is throwing a

No matching interaction found

Any idea why the pact test for the GET request w/ a query param would be failing when it's seemingly identical to the other working pact test?

Pretty sure there is a query param you can set in the withRequest https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js/blob/51d2ae2e41c8c40e373f264ac7ba633d258604c2/examples/jest/__tests__/index.spec.js#L72 Can't seem to find it in the readme, on mobile and just about to hit the sack

Thanks Yousaf! Looks like that's what I needed. Have a goodnight🙂

I wonder if we can detect this situation and complain, letting users know the query string should be in the

query

property? 🤔

absolutely.

?

is not allowed in paths, so it's a trivial check

that would be lovely, but if we could detect that, we could probably just stick in it the query prop itself, so idk. first start is get it documented on the readme, as it isn't at the mo.

I don't think we should rewrite the path for them - the property is for the path, not the query

yeah thats gnarly I agree, it depends on how helpful you want be, but that is too opaque. The fact it isn't in the pact-js docs means people don't know that query prop exist unless they look at code or other pact docs, which is why they are putting query in the string in the first place

It's hard to be too helpful with query strings because they're not clearly defined. The W3C recommends using

application/x-www-form-urlencoded

, but that recommendation is not required by any standard. An important difference is how spaces work - spaces in

application/x-www-form-urlencoded

are encoded as

+

, but in general URLs, they're URL encoded to

%20

. Also, there's no standard at all for repeat parameters - some implementations will do

key=val1&key=val2

, some will do

key[]=val1&key[]=val2

, and some will do

key[1]=val1&key[2]=val2

. I think

key[]

is what pact does (and the most common interpretation), but I don't actually know. The W3C recommendation is just to treat it as a list of pairs, and doesn't say that the keys need to be unique.

Really good information there Tim! thank you for that. That is indeed going to be awkward, in trying to be proactively helpful. I might use some of that, and w3c's recs, and test out a few combos so we can offer at some guidance on what Pact supports and doesn't support. As unclear as it might be, we can at least provide guidance on what we are able to cover, by ways of tests, my favourite kind of documentation.