Move common pieces of mock REST servers to a new package #267
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Package restserver implements the building blocks to create similar mock servers that talk REST. Application type holds some global config and the cobra Cmds. ServerBase contains most of what a Server implementation will need. It requires: - a function that provides the net address - a configured ServeMux It offers: - serve - stop - validation boilerplate (the method was previously called `handle`, now `ValidateRequest` :) ) Type-erasing `Settings` (via interface) was necessary, because individual servers will have their own needs. (PS: I'm keen to ideas of how to remove the dependency on GetAddress and SetAddress)
I managed to sneak a little bit of OOP into Go :) contractsmockserver main business now is its own initialization which requires creating a ServeMux and handling the requests that manage to pass through validation. Boilerplate was "inherited" from ServerBase.
Much shorter :)
|
#268 shows how close those servers are :) |
EduardGomezEscandell
suggested changes
Sep 8, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Very, very nice stuff. Really cool how small the server specialization ends up being, both here and in #268.
Maybe we could simplify some things with generics to avoid the factories, but the effort may not be worth the savings.
mocks/contractserver/contractsmockserver/contractsmockserver.go
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
and the receiver becomes "app" instead of simply "a"
That's the only place where that method is useful.
Address can only be set via Serve() Serve() accepts empty string for address, defaulting to "localhost:0" Initialization of Server implementations become cleaner No need to leak the address getters/setters to other levels. All handled within the restserver package.
EduardGomezEscandell
suggested changes
Sep 8, 2023
CarlosNihelton
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 15, 2023
The details of the responses may change soon, but the most important thing about this PR is that it puts in place the code we need to run a REST server that will mock the MS Store API. It reuses the bits extracted from the contracts server mock in #267 and reimplements the relevant parts to create the following endpoints: `/allauthenticatedusers` - returns some representation of the user accounts found locally authenticated on the system. `/generateuserjwt` - returns the user JWT if the query parameters check and the settings allow. `/getproducts` - returns a collection of products - JSON content type. `/purchase` - handles a purchase request, updating the in-memory server state if the transaction is accepted. That should be enough for us to implement the client API and some test cases & fixtures soon.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The store mock server is structurally very close to the contracts mock: YAML configuration, similar CLI, both talk via REST, both may have blocked or disabled endpoints etc.
Thus I though that I could move the guts of the contracts mock into a new package and make both mock servers inherit from this common base.
No semantics or endpoint behaviors should have changed with this.