Open PogopunkXIII opened 1 year ago
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 https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/issues/103, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAANFDBJVXADADQPNZQS2XTXH5E7XANCNFSM6AAAAAAYOYIKI4 . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>
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.
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 https://github.com/pact-foundation/pact-specification/issues/103#issuecomment-1562864116, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAANFDDGKCLNJWMNETYTXNDXH5JP7ANCNFSM6AAAAAAYOYIKI4 . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>
Previous Pact Specification versions all follow
A.B.C
format, even if bothB
andC
were just0
.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 be4.0.0
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/