Invalid path value for HTTP header matcher.

[skaggmannen]

Hi,

Apparently pact-ruby-standalone does not use the standard header path format of $.header.<header name> when parsing pact files. Instead the non-standard format $.headers.<header name> is used (notice the extra s). This leads to incompatibility with pact-jvm (as mentioned in e.g. pact-foundation/pact-net#184 (comment)) which generates the paths according to the pact specification.

Here's the relevant part of the pact specification:

Matcher Path expressions

Pact does not support the full JSON path expressions, only ones that match the following rules:

1. All paths start with a dollar ($), representing the root.
2. All path elements are either separated by periods (.) or use the JSON path bracket notation (square brackets and single quotes around the values: e.g. ['x.y']), except array indices which use square brackets ([]). For elements where the value contains white space or non-alphanumeric characters, the JSON path bracket notation (['']) should be used.
3. The second element of the path is the http type that the matcher is applied to (e.g., $.body or $.header).
4. Path elements represent keys.
5. A star (*) can be used to match all keys of a map or all items of an array (one level only).

[bethesque]

According to this example in the specification, it's "headers" not "header"

https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/blob/version-2/testcases/response/headers/matches%20with%20regex.json

@uglyog?

[uglyog]

Version 2 is headers, version 3 is header. See comment on pact-foundation/pact-jvm#882

[bethesque]

What was the reason for changing it @uglyog?

Pact Ruby doesn't fully support v3, but I'll see if I can get that rule in.

[skaggmannen]

@uglyog if that's the case, shouldn't pact-jvm use headers when generating V2 pacts? From the issue you linked to that I created (and closed) you can see that it uses header even for V2.

[uglyog]

You may have a valid point there.

[bethesque]

Oh, are you using v2 @skaggmannen? Looks like we both have to write some dirty code @uglyog :P

[bethesque]

I've opened an issue in pact-support to support the v3 "header", and I'm closing this. @skaggmannen can you raise in issue in pact-jvm for the v2 "headers"?

pact-foundation/pact-support#67

[skaggmannen]

Sorry, I did not mean to ghost you, I've just been very busy. I can see that @uglyog has already re-opened the issue I raised on pact-jvm (pact-foundation/pact-jvm#882) so I think that's taken care of.