This assertion is a convenient way to only check whether an endpoint is in the spec or not.
Concrete use case in one of my projects:
Iteration over all endpoints in API and check for every one of them whether they are present in the specification.
When adding these tests in the CI pipeline I can make sure that new endpoints also find their way into the specification.
Why can't I just use assertInvalidRequest?
Because when automatically iterating over endpoints I don't have request bodies to append and so the assertion complains about this first. I just want to know about the InvalidPathException.
Hope this finds the way into the codebase, otherwise I would have to find a way to extend the package.
This assertion is a convenient way to only check whether an endpoint is in the spec or not.
Concrete use case in one of my projects: Iteration over all endpoints in API and check for every one of them whether they are present in the specification. When adding these tests in the CI pipeline I can make sure that new endpoints also find their way into the specification.
Why can't I just use
assertInvalidRequest? Because when automatically iterating over endpoints I don't have request bodies to append and so the assertion complains about this first. I just want to know about theInvalidPathException.Hope this finds the way into the codebase, otherwise I would have to find a way to extend the package.