rfc: configuration and shared files #98

JP-Ellis · 2024-08-30T05:15:51Z

RFC proposal to try and standardise the way we configure and share files across the Pact ecosystem.

Rendered view can be found here.

Excerpt from the RFC:

Summary

This RFC proposes to establish a standard way to configure and share common files across the Pact ecosystem, including the Pact Broker, PactFlow, and the various Pact implementations.

Motivation

The Pact ecosystem is quite diverse and we would like to ensure that transitioning between different tools is as seamless as possible. Several de-facto standards have emerged, but these have not been formalised. Furthermore, there is no clear way to extend these de-facto standards to new tools or use cases.

This RFC aims to formalise some existing de-facto standards. Furthermore, this RFC proposes new standards with the hope of ensuring a more consistent experience across the Pact ecosystem and into the future.

This RFC is split into three main categories:

Environment Variables: Define a standard way to configure Pact implementations using environment variables.

Configuration: Define a standard way to store runtime configuration for Pact implementations.

Shared Files: Define a standard way to store shared files across the Pact ecosystem.

Signed-off-by: JP-Ellis <[email protected]>

YOU54F · 2024-09-03T14:30:18Z

Looks good to me. I assume for most implementors of client languages, this will be handled by the FFI, and other consumers would be the rust and ruby suite of CLI tools?

rfc/0000-configuration-and-shared-files.md

Signed-off-by: JP-Ellis <[email protected]>

JP-Ellis · 2024-09-04T00:50:59Z

Updated the RFC with a few changes:

Clarifications around the following points:
- Precedence of CLI arguments
- Precedence of explicitly set Pact configuration files
- When warning should not be raised if the fallback location is used

When updating these, I also identified a gap in the way the TOML configuration ought to handle paths. So I have added a subsection to the configuration section to make this clear.

Paths can be a source of confusion/annoyances especially when sharing across operating systems. Therefore, explicit requirements are set. Signed-off-by: JP-Ellis <[email protected]>

tienvx · 2024-09-05T15:40:02Z

rfc/0000-configuration-and-shared-files.md

+- **Configuration**: Define a standard way to store runtime configuration for Pact implementations.
+- **Shared Files**: Define a standard way to store shared files across the Pact ecosystem.
+
+## Environment Variables


Language level:

Pact-PHP allow using PACT_LOGLEVEL to configure log level for FFI library.

I'm not sure if other implementations has this ability, and if they have, should we use this variable name across implementations?

Logging is, in my experience, one of these things which can vary significantly based on the language's convention. So I don't know if that is something we want to fix in an RFC.

If we did implement this, my suggestion would be:

Have PACT_LOG as the environment variable name, or have it stored at:

[pact] log = "..."

in the config TOML.

Have the values be either of the following (case insensitive):

DEBUG

INFO

WARN or WARNING

ERROR

But like I said, I am hesitant. Logging can be complex, and I do think it is best to fit in with the conventions of the language.

I'm fine with leaving this for future RFC. We can resolve this one.

tienvx · 2024-09-05T16:10:49Z

rfc/0000-configuration-and-shared-files.md

+ [pact]
+ plugin_dir = "~/.local/share/pact/plugins"
+ data_home = "~/.local/share/pact"
+ do_not_track = true


I feel like:

log_level = debug or

loglevel = debug

is important and can be included in this file.

But like PACT_LOGLEVEL env, I'm not sure how this config/env behave in different pact's implementations.

rfc/0000-configuration-and-shared-files.md

tienvx · 2024-09-05T16:18:25Z

rfc/0000-configuration-and-shared-files.md

+
+ - `plugin_dir`: The directory where shared plugins are stored. Equivalent to `PACT_PLUGIN_DIR`.
+ - `data_home`: The directory where shared files are stored. Equivalent to `PACT_DATA_HOME`.
+ - `do_not_track`: If set to `true`, the Pact implementation _must not_ report any usage analytics data back to the Pact Foundation.


Should we mention the default value is false (opt-out) ?

tienvx · 2024-09-05T16:20:51Z

rfc/0000-configuration-and-shared-files.md

+
+ - `plugin_dir`: The directory where shared plugins are stored. Equivalent to `PACT_PLUGIN_DIR`.
+ - `data_home`: The directory where shared files are stored. Equivalent to `PACT_DATA_HOME`.
+ - `do_not_track`: If set to `true`, the Pact implementation _must not_ report any usage analytics data back to the Pact Foundation.


Miss the equivalent part: Equivalent to PACT_DO_NOT_TRACK

Will update!

tienvx · 2024-09-05T16:23:15Z

rfc/0000-configuration-and-shared-files.md

+ - `base_url`: The base URL of the Pact Broker. Equivalent to `PACT_BROKER_BASE_URL`.
+ - `username`: The username to use when authenticating with the Pact Broker. Equivalent to `PACT_BROKER_USERNAME`.
+ - `password`: The password to use when authenticating with the Pact Broker. Equivalent to `PACT_BROKER_PASSWORD`.
+ - `token`: The token to use when authenticating with the Pact Broker. Equivalent to `PACT_BROKER_TOKEN`.


I'm not sure, that if username/password is set then token is ignored and vice versa?

Should we mention that if it's true?

When talking about the environment variables, I do state that having a mix of username/password with token is undefined behaviour.

Having said that, this does bring a good question as to how best to handle a local override to a user config; as this could quite easily result in all three being defined.

To resolve this, I actually think it might be best to change the TOML config to:

[broker] auth = { token = "..." } # or auth = { username = "...", password = "..." }

rfc/0000-configuration-and-shared-files.md

tienvx · 2024-09-05T16:42:36Z

rfc/0000-configuration-and-shared-files.md

+At present, there are only a few files which are shared across the Pact ecosystem. These are:
+
+- Plugins, currently stored in `~/.pact/plugins`
+- The Pact core library (i.e., the Pact FFI), though only in some implementations.


what are proposed paths? e.g.

~/.local/share/pact/ffi/pact.h

~/.local/share/pact/ffi/pact.so

~/.local/share/pact/ffi/pact-stub-server

fallback

~/.pact/ffi/pact.h

~/.pact/ffi/pact.so

~/.pact/ffi/pact-stub-server

I don't actually specify how the FFI binaries/headers should be stored, mostly because I don't know what practices are used across the ecosystem.

Having $PACT_DATA_HOME/ffi/pact.h and $PACT_DATA_HOME/ffi/(lib)pact.(ext) seems quite reasonable to me though.

This assumes it is dynamically linked though, which isn't the case for all implementations.

We might need to think about versioning here. For instance, a user might be using Pact JS and Pact Go. It might be OK to have a latter version of the FFI for one and not the other (e.g. they have just started using Pact Go, and are on the latest version, but Pact JS has an existing suite and they are on an older version). In theory, this should only be a problem for major versions of the FFI, but in practice this isn't always the case.

Or perhaps a way to address it is by convention.

e.g.

[base path]/ffi/pact.h

[base path]/ffi/pact.so

[base path]/ffi/pact-js/pact.h

[base path]/ffi/pact-js/pact.so

[base path]/ffi/pact-go/pact.h

[base path]/ffi/pact-go/pact.so

Pact JS and Pact Go would have separate versions, and all other libraries use the fallback

I was actually thinking more about this, and I was wondering whether we should recommend the standard Unix way of organising these files:

$PACT_DATA_HOME/include/pact.h $PACT_DATA_HOME/lib/libpact.so

and then libraries can opt in to library-specific version of the FFI with

$PACT_DATA_HOME/include/pact.js.h $PACT_DATA_HOME/lib/libpact.js.so $PACT_DATA_HOME/include/pact.go.h $PACT_DATA_HOME/lib/libpact.go.so ...

This follows the same pattern of having multiple version of libraries presented as:

lib/libfoo.so -> libfoo.2.so lib/libfoo.2.so -> libfoo.2.1.so lib/libfoo.2.1.so lib/libfoo.1.so -> libfoo.1.8.so lib/libfoo.1.8.so

(the arrows are symlinks, but we need not use symlinks here)

Signed-off-by: JP-Ellis <[email protected]>

JP-Ellis self-assigned this Aug 30, 2024

rfc: configuration and shared files

37b9d3f

Signed-off-by: JP-Ellis <[email protected]>

JP-Ellis force-pushed the rfc/configuration-and-shared-files branch from 48c1097 to 37b9d3f Compare September 3, 2024 04:37

YOU54F reviewed Sep 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

rfc/0000-configuration-and-shared-files.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

YOU54F reviewed Sep 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

rfc/0000-configuration-and-shared-files.md Show resolved Hide resolved

YOU54F reviewed Sep 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

rfc/0000-configuration-and-shared-files.md Show resolved Hide resolved

JP-Ellis added 3 commits September 4, 2024 10:45

chore: clarify precendence of cli args

324e2a8

Signed-off-by: JP-Ellis <[email protected]>

chore: clarify precedence of explicit pact config file

f0b02cc

Signed-off-by: JP-Ellis <[email protected]>

chore: clarify when warnings should not be raised

847928f

Signed-off-by: JP-Ellis <[email protected]>

feat: add path handling requirement

e6d181e

Paths can be a source of confusion/annoyances especially when sharing across operating systems. Therefore, explicit requirements are set. Signed-off-by: JP-Ellis <[email protected]>

JP-Ellis force-pushed the rfc/configuration-and-shared-files branch from 6a3cc05 to e6d181e Compare September 4, 2024 00:52

tienvx reviewed Sep 5, 2024

View reviewed changes

rfc/0000-configuration-and-shared-files.md Show resolved Hide resolved

tienvx reviewed Sep 5, 2024

View reviewed changes

feat: use kebab case for toml

b4b1a58

Signed-off-by: JP-Ellis <[email protected]>

YOU54F approved these changes Sep 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

tienvx approved these changes Oct 1, 2024

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

rfc: configuration and shared files #98

rfc: configuration and shared files #98

JP-Ellis commented Aug 30, 2024

YOU54F commented Sep 3, 2024

JP-Ellis commented Sep 4, 2024

tienvx Sep 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading

JP-Ellis Sep 6, 2024

tienvx Sep 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

tienvx Sep 5, 2024

tienvx Sep 5, 2024

tienvx Sep 5, 2024

JP-Ellis Sep 6, 2024

tienvx Sep 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading

JP-Ellis Sep 6, 2024

tienvx Sep 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading

JP-Ellis Sep 6, 2024

mefellows Sep 12, 2024

mefellows Sep 12, 2024

JP-Ellis Sep 12, 2024

rfc: configuration and shared files #98

Are you sure you want to change the base?

rfc: configuration and shared files #98

Conversation

JP-Ellis commented Aug 30, 2024

Summary

Motivation

YOU54F commented Sep 3, 2024

JP-Ellis commented Sep 4, 2024

tienvx Sep 5, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tienvx Sep 19, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tienvx Sep 5, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tienvx Sep 5, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tienvx Sep 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading

tienvx Sep 19, 2024 •

edited

Loading

tienvx Sep 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading

tienvx Sep 5, 2024 •

edited

Loading