YOU54F
commented
1 year ago If size isn't an issue, I'm happy adding all the things.
However, we may want a rust core backed image (with mock server/verifier), ruby core backed image (with mock server/verifier)
and then an image that is for non rust/ruby things, like the pact broker client (its in ruby, but is just for communicating with the broker)
being clear about the mock consumer and mock provider, that there are essentially two other these, one set in rust/one set in ruby
separating those tools out and presenting them in a clear way.
if the rust backed verifier is backwards compliant with 2.0 specs, is there any need for the ruby verifier to hang around as a recommend option?
So technically this is the Ruby project, but this creates our official CLI image. This creates a confusing experience for users "which version are you using, the Ruby one or the new Rust one" to which we are met with understandable confusion.
I wonder if we should consider adding the rust verifier and stub service to our CLI packaging (perhaps also the standalone project?) and improving how we make CLIs available to our audience.
Slack thread that triggered the discussion: https://pact-foundation.slack.com/archives/C5F4KFKR8/p1679427692760169
The user actually needed (and thought they were using the verifier that supports v4) https://docs.pact.io/implementation_guides/cli#native-binary-new but actually was using the Ruby one.