-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 79
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Binary Content Matching is odd - cross platform/arch #447
Comments
@YOU54F Running into a similar issue on Mac Arm64:
|
hi this isnt the same issue, you are running an old version of pact-node which has never supported arm64 |
you can run pact-node with rosetta or vote on this issue #489 to bring native arm support to pact-node or migrate to pact-js-core which supports arm64 on macos and linux |
fyi this related issue is where rosetta was supported for pact-node on macos youll need a version bump to 10.x as described in the linked issue to get it working with rosetta |
@YOU54F Thank you sir, let me look into this |
content-type differs for amd64/arm64 macos machines relates to pact-foundation/pact-js-core#447
So it appears installing Debian
Alpine
|
Fixed as part of pact-foundation/pact-reference#429 will be sorted in 0.4.21 release of the pact_ffi which can then be consumed in here |
Amazing work @YOU54F! 👏 |
Smells
Cross CI provider and cross arch has shown a few inconsistencies in content-type matching, which is clearly demonstrable here. Haven't thought of a solution just yet, but this at least highlights and allows us to test more combinations than before
Encountered in #444 (comment)
If you have code that looks like this, there is a definite code-smell
pact-js-core/test/consumer.integration.spec.ts
Lines 23 to 34 in facfef8
The condition is used in these tests
pact-js-core/test/consumer.integration.spec.ts
Lines 77 to 87 in dac0e46
pact-js-core/test/message.integration.spec.ts
Lines 94 to 109 in dac0e46
So based on our compat table of
✅ = supported
❌ = not supported
We have a few different ways we can test to cover different arch combinations
❓ = needs test evidence
❌ = not supported, or untestable on platform
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: