Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Http Assertions does not allow the creation of a body #925

Open
ihulsbus opened this issue Apr 16, 2020 · 23 comments
Open

Http Assertions does not allow the creation of a body #925

ihulsbus opened this issue Apr 16, 2020 · 23 comments

Comments

@ihulsbus
Copy link

Hi,

It seems like the HTTP Assert package does not allow me to specify a body to pass in a POST request for example. Looking at the HTTPBody() function, the body argument is set to nil:
req, err := http.NewRequest(method, url+"?"+values.Encode(), nil)

Is this by design, or am I looking at a missing feature?

Cheers,

@mvdkleijn
Copy link
Contributor

We feel that it's reasonable to want to be able to set the body in certain cases. If you'd like to help out, feel free to open a PR.

@gohargasparyan
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @mvdkleijn , I just made changes for the issue, tried to push to a new branch and got 403, do I need some permissions to make PR?

@mvdkleijn
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @mvdkleijn , I just made changes for the issue, tried to push to a new branch and got 403, do I need some permissions to make PR?

This sounds like you're new or perhaps I'm misunderstanding? 😄

The way you create a PR is by forking the repository to your own copy, create a branch with your changes pushed to it and then use the Github UI to create the PR. Basically that will be a request for us to merge changes from your fork into our original copy.

It sounds like you were trying to push to a branch in the main Testify repository which is indeed off limits to all but the maintainers.

Hope that helps!

@gohargasparyan
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah first time trying to contribute to open source, thanks, it helps :)

@mvdkleijn
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah first time trying to contribute to open source, thanks, it helps :)

No worries, feel free to ask more if desired. The Github docs also provide a lot of information on how to do things.

Once you have the PR in place, I'll take a look and see if anything needs adjustment and once satisfied all looks good, we can merge it. 👍

@gohargasparyan
Copy link
Contributor

No worries, it was straight forward. #938

@fazypng
Copy link

fazypng commented Jan 22, 2021

@mvdkleijn hi i need help. very much help. i just joined the Github community yesterday and i don't understand a single thing I've been reading here 😩

@mvdkleijn
Copy link
Contributor

@mvdkleijn hi i need help. very much help. i just joined the Github community yesterday and i don't understand a single thing I've been reading here 😩

I'm not sure what exactly your question is that I could help with...?

@lwlach
Copy link

lwlach commented May 6, 2023

should this issue be closed?

@mvdkleijn
Copy link
Contributor

Not really, since the merged PR was reverted by @boyan-soubachov and aa such the issue is still valid.

@ossan-dev
Copy link

Hello @boyan-soubachov,
if you could share the details, I'm gonna file a PR to integrate this functionality.
Let me know, thanks.

@dolmen
Copy link
Collaborator

dolmen commented Jul 29, 2023

@ossan-dev See #938.

@ossan-dev
Copy link

Hey @dolmen
do you mean this issue could be closed as soon as #938 will be merged?
I apologize for the silly question but I'm a beginner of open-source contributions.

@hendrywiranto
Copy link
Contributor

Hey @dolmen do you mean this issue could be closed as soon as #938 will be merged? I apologize for the silly question but I'm a beginner of open-source contributions.

see the details in #938 (comment)

@myusko
Copy link

myusko commented Feb 22, 2024

Is an issue still relevant? cc @arjunmahishi

@arjunmahishi
Copy link
Collaborator

@myusko Looks like the linked PR's comments are still not addressed.

Is an issue still relevant?

Yes. The request raised in this issue is still not satisfied.


Based on my understanding of reading the comments on this issue and the PR, it looks like the PR was raised with v2 in mind. But that might not be happening. So, the next logical step for this would be to follow either suggestion 'b' or 'c' in this comment. 'c' being the best case scenario.

@st3penta
Copy link

Any ideas on how this could be done without introducing breaking changes?

I can't seem to find a solution that doesn't involve an extension of the surface of the library (the b scenario, in this comment)

@brackendawson brackendawson added this to the v2.0.0 milestone Feb 24, 2024
@brackendawson
Copy link
Collaborator

#1491 is related. What do the HTTP handler assertions offer over calling the handler with a httptest.ResponseRecorder?

@st3penta
Copy link

The only http assertions available right now are on the response status codes (HTTPSuccess, HTTPRedirect, HTTPStatusCode, etc) and body (HTTPBodyContains, HTTPBodyNotContains)
(I hope this is what you asked, i'm not sure i understood your question!)

@brackendawson
Copy link
Collaborator

I mean, why are the HTTP assertions better than this:

r := httptest.NewRequest(http.MethodGet, "http://example.com/biscuit", nil)
w := httptest.NewRecorder()
myHandler(w, r)
assert.Equal(t, http.StatusOK, w.Code)
assert.Equal(t, "custard cream", w.Body.String())

This only calls the handler once, so is a better test as it doesn't allow a stateful handler to sneak incorrect behaviour past the test. Like returning status code 500 with a correct body for every request after the first, for example.

@st3penta
Copy link

I agree that your example is much more effective.
However those methods are part of the promise too, so what we're supposed to do with them?

@brackendawson
Copy link
Collaborator

brackendawson commented Feb 24, 2024

I agree that your example is much more effective. However those methods are part of the promise too, so what we're supposed to do with them?

Maintain the existing ones. 🙂

@KianYang-Lee
Copy link

I mean, why are the HTTP assertions better than this:

r := httptest.NewRequest(http.MethodGet, "http://example.com/biscuit", nil)
w := httptest.NewRecorder()
myHandler(w, r)
assert.Equal(t, http.StatusOK, w.Code)
assert.Equal(t, "custard cream", w.Body.String())

This only calls the handler once, so is a better test as it doesn't allow a stateful handler to sneak incorrect behaviour past the test. Like returning status code 500 with a correct body for every request after the first, for example.

Suggest to include this example in documentation and close this issue

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests