Experiment to try and make it clearer where the "contract" is defined #2
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
tobyweston
commented
Jun 6, 2019
| .body(expectedAccountsBody()) | ||
| .toPact(); | ||
| } | ||
| @Pact(provider = "account_provider", consumer = "mobile_consumer") |
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The Pact annotations are BS. Is there a way to do this programmatically within the test.
Annotations = bad news (generally) 🔥
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I see the test as having two elements 1) the stubbed behaviour that mimics the server (the "contract") and 2) assertions against that.
Experiment to try and formalise that by splitting the former into a
Contracttype. This is really a place to collect factory style methods to setup the stubs. So you might have different methods there to document what you'd expect from different endpoints in different scenarios.In most of my apps when local / unit testings, we tent to have a bunch a stub creation methods, some parameterised to be configurable.
Something to reflect on (not expecting anyone to merge the PR) and discuss.