Skip to content
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

feat(generators): Pass back result from provider state setup URL #53 #85

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

slt
Copy link
Contributor

@slt slt commented Sep 16, 2022

Addressing issue #49

  • Adds support for all generators from v3 spec and the ProviderState generator.
  • ProviderState generator saves the results from the --provider-state-setup-url and templates them into a value using an expression.

Requires pact-foundation/pact-ruby#273 & pact-foundation/pact-support#97

I based this around @hhhonzik's previous pull request here

@slt
Copy link
Contributor Author

slt commented Mar 8, 2023

I ended up moving to the rust standalone provider verifier, it has all of these features implemented already as well as the v3 and v4 pact specifications

https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/rust/pact_verifier_cli

Given its standalone and almost a drop-in replacement, I don't see why it wouldn't be preferred over this one. I would suggest that the docs of this project are updated to point to it instead.

I'm not a ruby developer and I only did these pull requests to unblock myself, I'm happy for them to be merged if they help anyone else but I don't have the capacity to support this work moving forward

@YOU54F
Copy link
Member

YOU54F commented Mar 8, 2023

Hey thanks @slt sorry for the delay in looking at this.

You are correct, the rust is the preferred going forward and this is considered to be legacy

https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/cli#provider-verifier

thanks for your support and work in pact-ruby as well, especially as a non ruby developer (it is how I started with Pact)

Beth hasn't had a-lot of bandwidth for looking at these PR's and as we can utilise the FFI library in Ruby, we may go down that route for v3/v4 support but not decided yet. Great that you found the rust library and that will sort you out!

There is probably value in keeping the PR, however if you want to close it we can always re-open it in the future.

@YOU54F
Copy link
Member

YOU54F commented Aug 14, 2024

closing in favour of #125, thanks Steve

@YOU54F YOU54F closed this Aug 14, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants