feat: Allow webhooks match pacticipants by label #501
Conversation
Add documentation and some failing specs for a feature of providing pacticipants labels to webhooks so it can match subset of pacticipants when triggered.
barthez
force-pushed
the
make-webhooks-match-pacticipants-by-label
branch
from
68b0196 to
ffaaf56
Compare
|
Looking good! |
|
Hey @bethesque , td.delete_integration(consumer: "Foo", provider: "Bar")
.delete_integration(consumer: "foo-consumer", provider: "bar-provider")
.create_pacticipant("Foo")
.create_pacticipant("Bar")
.create_pacticipant("Baz")
.create_label("Foo", "the_label")
.create_label("Baz", "the_label")
.create_webhook_for_event(
uuid: "cf51d68a-78b1-4164-912a-986096b2c3b3",
event_name: ["contract_published", "provider_verification_published"],
consumer: {label: "the_label"},
url: "http://localhost:5011/status/200"
)
.publish_pact(consumer: "Foo", consumer_version: "1", provider: "Bar", content_id: "111", tag: "main")
.publish_pact(consumer: "Baz", consumer_version: "1", provider: "Bar", content_id: "122", tag: "main")
.get_pacts_for_verification(
enable_pending: true,
provider_version_tag: "main",
include_wip_pacts_since: "2020-01-01",
consumer_version_selectors: [{ tag: "main", latest: true }])
.verify_pact(
index: 0,
provider_version_tag: "main",
provider_version: "1",
success: true
)And it triggers 3 webhooks, for both pacts publication and one verification publication. I have one question though, should we show the webhook from preceding script on |
Good question. I think not. Those endpoints are not exactly deprecated, but there's no real reason to use them for anything now. It's an endpoint designed to take a POST, assuming that the consumer will be the one in the path, and that is not the case for the label webhooks. |
| add_column(:consumer_label, String) | ||
| add_column(:provider_label, String) | ||
|
|
||
| add_constraint(:consumer_label_exclusion, "consumer_id IS NULL OR (consumer_id IS NOT NULL AND consumer_label IS NULL)") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Question - does this kind of constraint work on Sqlite and MySQL? I'm not too fussed if they don't, just curious.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Base on https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/alter-table.html and https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/create-table-check-constraints.html check constraints are inefficient in mysql 5.x (syntax is accepted by engines ignore it). In 8.x adding named check constraints works in 8.0.16+, it is ignored prior that version.
Regarding SQLite, there seems to be an issue in Sequel adapter. I had to split alter_table block into 2 to handle adding both constraints at once. In other case it ended up adding last one only.
| .maybe(:str?) | ||
| .when(:none?) { value(:name).filled? } | ||
|
|
||
| rule(label: [:name, :label]) do |name, label| |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well done, I've never managed to get the rules working for dry validation 😆 I find the gem very frustrating, and I'm locked on an old version because of a dependency from the roar gem.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You cannot commit tears and blood to git repo, lot of these were used to pay for this to work 😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You'll find many strongly worded comments from me scattered across the schema code, where I've just given up and done the validation manually 😆 I admire your persistence!
|
Many thanks! I'll put out a release asap. |
|
Out in 2.86.0.0 |
|
Thank you very much! We will work on pact_broker-client upgrade next week. |
The idea behind this feature is to reduce repetetive webhooks for group of pacticipants that are groupped with the same label. If event and webhook url/body are the same it make hard to maintain multiple webhooks for set of pacticipants.