profile
viewpoint
If you are wondering where the data of this site comes from, please visit https://api.github.com/users/yugvohra/events. GitMemory does not store any data, but only uses NGINX to cache data for a period of time. The idea behind GitMemory is simply to give users a better reading experience.
yugvohra Sydney,Australia "I am not doing it for money. I am doing it for me , I like it, I feel alive"

searchgadchiroli/search-config 0

SEARCH Gadchiroli specific configuration and data

searchgadchiroli/search-reports 0

SEARCH hospital specific Jasper reports

shireeshaBongarala/gitRepo 0

test git commits

srajattw/index-automation-tool 0

repository for index automation tool prototype

yugvohra/cms 0

catalogue management service

yugvohra/config-server 0

Spring cloud config server that manages configs of microservices

push eventpact-foundation/pact-jvm

Ronald Holshausen

commit sha 4abd4ff4f0f7c2cf7a97f0f3297dc4583c0a4933

fix: mark Gradle PactVerificationTask fields as @Internal for Gradle 7 #1374

view details

push time in a day

push eventpact-foundation/pact-jvm

Ronald Holshausen

commit sha 781d346eec4af2458b2bd3178385c1b86a10af2e

chore: upgrade Maven jars and plugin to latest

view details

push time in a day

issue commentpact-foundation/pact-jvm

WARNING: Pact file has no interactions with pact-verify in Leiningen plugin

I'm trying to enable this for you, but I need to enable debug logs with Leiningen. I can't work out how to do this.

You will have to use the full URL to the Pact in the broker.

jarmy

comment created time in a day

issue commentpact-foundation/pact-jvm

validating contract with pact-jvm-spring

Can you please expand on your question? If you're want to test the response shape but not fail on specific values, you should use the matchers e.g. https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/jvm/consumer/junit#dsl-matching-methods

naushadamin

comment created time in a day

push eventpact-foundation/pact-jvm

Ronald Holshausen

commit sha 829ebdefbbfca11bd6023fcba3247fa10945f9b6

fix: using :pact-file source with Leiningen was broken #1372

view details

push time in a day

issue commentpact-foundation/pact-jvm

WARNING: Pact file has no interactions with pact-verify in Leiningen plugin

Oh, I see the issue. You're pointing to the root of the broker. Let me add support for that.

jarmy

comment created time in a day

issue commentpact-foundation/pact-jvm

WARNING: Pact file has no interactions with pact-verify in Leiningen plugin

I'm not able to replicate this. See my test project here: https://github.com/uglyog/pact-lein-test

In that project, I started the broker using docker-compose, published your pact to it, and the ran the verify and it worked as expected.

$ lein with-profile pact pact-verify

Verifying a pact between :consumer1 and :provider1
  [from URL http://localhost:9292/pacts/provider/sod/consumer/graphql/version/1.0.3]
  POST request for search on demand results
      Request Failed - Connect to localhost:5050 [localhost/127.0.0.1] failed: Connection refused (Connection refused)

NOTE: Skipping publishing of verification results as it has been disabled (pact.verifier.publishResults is not 'true')


Failures:

1) Verifying a pact between :consumer1 and :provider1 - POST request for search on demand results

    1.1)       Connect to localhost:5050 [localhost/127.0.0.1] failed: Connection refused (Connection refused)

Note that I've given the full URL to the Pact file in the broker.

jarmy

comment created time in a day

issue openedpact-foundation/pact-jvm

validating contract with pact-jvm-spring

In looking at the example provided in your workshop, I see the provider side of the validation is checking response shape(contract in my opinion) but also attribute values. I don't see a way to validate just the shape of the response. Is that possible with pact-jvm-spring?

created time in 2 days

create barnchBahmni/bahmni-package

branch : BAH-1217

created branch time in 2 days

issue openedpact-foundation/pact-jvm

Regenerate ANTLR code using version 4.8 or later

I am running pact tests in the context of a Quarkus service and about 1 year ago Quarkus upgraded from ANTLR 4.7.2 to ANTLR 4.8 (meanwhile ANTLR 4.9.2 is available). Now when running my tests I see a warning like this logged:

ANTLR Tool version 4.7.2 used for code generation does not match the current runtime version 4.8ANTLR Runtime version 4.7.2 used for parser compilation does not match the current runtime version 4.8ANTLR Tool version 4.7.2 used for code generation does not match the current runtime version 4.8ANTLR Runtime version 4.7.2 used for parser compilation does not match the current runtime version 4.8

Since ANTLR 4.7.2 is already more than two years old I think it would be nice to upgrade to a newer version.

created time in 2 days

push eventBahmni/utilities

Angshuman Sarkar

commit sha 87884cf553bd7e96d27af626ec2861a3337cc52b

Adding utility class to generate sample dicom for a patient. Introduced dcmsnd path as system paramter. Added readme

view details

push time in 2 days

issue commentpact-foundation/pact-jvm

New verification type: FUNCTION

It's probably best to support Future as well, if it's not too difficult. Function<String, Future<Any>> 🤔

solarmosaic-kflorence

comment created time in 2 days

PR opened DiUS/java-faker

Add es-PY.yml, based on es-MX.yml

Add es-PY locale (for Paraguay), based on es-MX

+104 -0

0 comment

1 changed file

pr created time in 3 days

issue commentDiUS/java-faker

commons-validator pulls in vulnerable dependency

Here is a pr bumping the version https://github.com/DiUS/java-faker/pull/649

chriswininger

comment created time in 3 days

issue commentpact-foundation/pact-jvm

New verification type: FUNCTION

Pact-JS uses handlers https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-js#provider-state-callbacks

solarmosaic-kflorence

comment created time in 3 days

issue commentpact-foundation/pact-jvm

New verification type: FUNCTION

Maybe a better name is FACTORY_FUNCTION since it is essentially a factory for String -> response

solarmosaic-kflorence

comment created time in 3 days

issue commentpact-foundation/pact-jvm

New verification type: FUNCTION

I am hoping we can apply this change first to the underlying Provider library before we need to implement it in all the other places, if that's possible.

solarmosaic-kflorence

comment created time in 3 days

PR opened DiUS/java-faker

Issue #648: Rev commons-validator version

This addresses a potential security concern as the previous version commons-validator included a vulnerable version of commons-beanutils

https://ossindex.sonatype.org/component/pkg:maven/commons-beanutils/commons-beanutils@1.9.2?utm_source=ossindex-client&utm_

Given that most folks use this library for testing it's probably not hugely concerning but seems worth a minor version bump :-)

+1 -1

0 comment

1 changed file

pr created time in 3 days

issue openedDiUS/java-faker

commons-validator pulls in vulnerable dependency

The dependency

        <dependency>
            <groupId></groupId>
            <artifactId>commons-validator</artifactId>
            <version>1.6</version>
            <scope>test</scope>
        </dependency>

pulls in what seems to be a vulnerable version of commons-beanutils as referenced here

Given that most folks use this library in tests only the risk probably low, but figured I'd submit an official bug report. Also I'll submit a pr request patch it :-)

A minor version rev appears to be all that's in order. I hope this is helpful. Thx much for all your hardwork!

To Reproduce Tack in a scanner such as this and you'll see the report.

<plugin>
<groupId>org.sonatype.ossindex.maven</groupId>
<artifactId>ossindex-maven-plugin</artifactId>
<version>3.1.0</version>
<executions>
	<execution>
		<id>audit-dependencies</id>
		<phase>validate</phase>
		<goals>
			<goal>audit</goal>
		</goals>
	</execution>
</executions>
</plugin>

This certainly could be a false positive. I didn't go so far as to verify the exploit, that's above my pay grade, but if not fixed it might show up in the build systems of other tools that consume this :-)

Expected behavior Their could be an attack vector hear, but again I'm more just concerned with keeping peoples build systems clear than verifying that.

Versions:

  • OS: Linux (or any)
  • JDK: openjdk 11.0.11 (in my case though should apply to all)
  • Faker Version: current master (1a6aa61a95fc19e8bb8ddbca1ed97cac48696ccb)

Additional context

I noticed a different vuln get flagged by my build system; so pulled down master to patch it. I discovered someone had kindly already patched the issue I was aiming to fix which was with the version of snakeyaml, but found this in the process and figured I'd get out ahead of it :-)

created time in 3 days

issue commentpact-foundation/pact-jvm

New verification type: FUNCTION

@uglyog it would need to be supplied to the ProviderVerifier I guess, similar to things like the method instance: new ProviderVerifier().setVerificationFunction(...) -- maybe there is a better way?

solarmosaic-kflorence

comment created time in 3 days

issue commentpact-foundation/pact-jvm

New verification type: FUNCTION

I was more referring to the user's test class. Will it need to be a public instance? The verifier class is not directly exposed to user code. We will need to support it across the implementations: Groovy, JUnit 4, JUnit 5, etc.

solarmosaic-kflorence

comment created time in 3 days

issue commentpact-foundation/pact-jvm

New verification type: FUNCTION

@uglyog open to suggestions, but maybe something like:

interface IProviderVerifier {
  var verificationFunction: Function<String, Any>
}
solarmosaic-kflorence

comment created time in 3 days

issue commentpact-foundation/pact-jvm

New verification type: FUNCTION

How are the functions going to be specified in the test class?

solarmosaic-kflorence

comment created time in 3 days

issue openedpact-foundation/pact-jvm

New verification type: FUNCTION

Currently there exist two verification types:

  • PactVerification.REQUEST_RESPONSE -- verifies an HTTP response from a request
  • PactVerification.ANNOTATED_METHOD -- can be used to verify either an HTTP response, or a message and metadata

I would like to propose a third verification type, PactVerification.FUNCTION, which would be similar to PactVerification.ANNOTATED_METHOD except that:

  • the functions would be provided explicitly instead of via scanning the classpath for annotations
  • the functions would not be invoked with an instance, they would instead just be given a String description and would be expected to return an appropriate type.

This could be used for both messages and request/response, although the return types would need to vary depending on the interaction type. Probably the return value can be the same support return values that are currently supported by the PactVerification.ANNOTATED_METHOD type.

My guess is the easiest way to implement this is to have another bifurcation in ProviderVerifier.verifyInteraction which would call a different method if the verification type is FUNCTION, for example verifyResponseByFunction. There can probably be some refactoring around verifyResponseByInvokingProviderMethods and verifyMessage to split common functionality into common methods, since mostly the only change is how to call the method and get the return value.

created time in 4 days

push eventBahmni/bahmni-core

angshuman sarkar

commit sha 5dbff9d4c0163489758ce754075312a24f2d9758

BSL01 | removing version support. this will replace older search implementation completely. code is marked deprecated. should be removed in next ver (#99)

view details

push time in 5 days

delete branch Bahmni/bahmni-core

delete branch : BSL01.1

delete time in 5 days

push eventBahmni/bahmni-core

angshuman sarkar

commit sha 85aebd01f47b33db45ac5067cd3a2e54cfe61bdb

BSL01 | removing version support. this will replace older search implementation completely. code is marked deprecated. should be removed in next ver (#99)

view details

push time in 5 days

PR merged Bahmni/bahmni-core

BSL01 | removing version support.

this will replace older search implementation completely. code is marked deprecated. should be removed in next ver

+3 -38

0 comment

2 changed files

angshu

pr closed time in 5 days