Stuck on an issue?

Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.

And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.

Unable to run canDeploy using latest

See original GitHub issue

Software versions

OS: Mac OSX 10.14.3
Library version: 6.21.3
Node Version: v10.15.1

Expected behaviour

When using latest:[pacticipant] I expected the can-I-deploy check to run for the latest version of the pacticipant.

Actual behaviour

Script ends execution with:

TypeError: Must provide the same number of pacticipant and version

Steps to reproduce

const pact = require("@pact-foundation/pact-node");

const checkProvider = {
  pactBroker: "http://localhost",
  pacticipant: ["service"],
  latest: ["f53101e8"], //tried true, "", "master", "service"
};

pact.canDeploy(checkProvider)

And if I add the pacticipant version to the mix I get Error: A version number and latest flag cannot both be specified for service

Issue Analytics

State:
Created 5 years ago
Comments:7 (6 by maintainers)

Top GitHub Comments

1reaction

mboudreaucommented, Mar 4, 2019

@rafael-anachoreta Hey, I released a new version of pact-node, 7.0.0, which includes fixes for ‘latest’ and ‘to’ parameters. Please go ahead and try it out. It’s a major version because it had to break the existing API of being able to do multiple participants/versions in one go, but I found this to be overly confusing and unnecessary.

Let me know how you go 😃

1reaction

TimothyJonescommented, Feb 27, 2019

I think we could get some milage through changing the options API for canDeploy-

const checkProvider = {
  pactBroker: "http://localhost",
  pacticipant: ["service1","service2"],
  pacticipantVersion: [{ tag: "TAG1", latest: true },{version: "VERSION2"}],
};

This would be more difficult for the node CLI, but if we replaced the node CLI with binstubs as in this issue, then we could sidestep that problem (and have less code to maintain). Thoughts?