V4 Pact Specification Metadata format changed

[PogopunkXIII]

Previous Pact Specification versions all follow A.B.C format, even if both B and C were just 0. 4.0 specification breaks this. Now I recognize that a semantic version parser should be able to handle such a thing, but shouldn't the version be 4.0.0 regardless to main consistency with past versions?

Unfortunately the sem ver library I have access to fails to parse this :(

EDIT: upon further investigation, proper semantic version format must include the patch version: https://semver.org/

[mefellows]

It's not actually a server string, or at least it shouldn't be treated as one. I'd suggest just parsing it as a number. What are you trying to do with it?

…

On Thu, May 25, 2023, 22:20 PogopunkXIII ***@***.***> wrote: Previous Pact Specification versions all follows A.B.C format, even if both B and C were just 0. 4.0 specification breaks this. Now I recognize that a semantic version parser should be able to handle such a thing, but shouldn't the version be 4.0.0 regardless to main consistency with past versions? Unfortunately the sem ver library I have access to fails to parse this :( — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#103>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAANFDBJVXADADQPNZQS2XTXH5E7XANCNFSM6AAAAAAYOYIKI4> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[PogopunkXIII]

well it's not me specifically, we have a library we use to pull pact files from elsewhere and read them into memory, and that library tries to read the PactSpecification as a semantic version, which up until 4.0 has been a fine thing to do.

The library is also third party, so it's not something I have direct access to.

[mefellows]

Thanks, I'm keen to know the use case more. Are you preprocessing them? You may also like https://github.com/pactflow/pact-schemas which is linked from the spec now. But the assumption that it was semver is incorrect I believe. It's never stated it is a semver scheme

…

On Thu, May 25, 2023, 22:58 PogopunkXIII ***@***.***> wrote: well it's not me specifically, we have a library we use to pull pact files from elsewhere and read them into memory, and that library tries to read the PactSpecification as a semantic version, which up until 4.0 has been a fine thing to do. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#103 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAANFDDGKCLNJWMNETYTXNDXH5JP7ANCNFSM6AAAAAAYOYIKI4> . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[YOU54F]

this did feel like an odd decision to have 4.0 instead of 4.0.0

for me, it was change, for an unexpected/unknown reason, which added another of confusion over the three possible locations the pact specification metadata has been stored over the versions

appreciate it wasn't part of the spec but still