starred/WireMock.Net-wiremock
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/wiremock/WireMock.Net.git synced 2026-01-11 14:20:29 +01:00
Code Issues 32 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Interested in callbacks? #49

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 14:21:46 +01:00 by adam · 8 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 14:21:46 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @alastairtree on GitHub (Nov 20, 2017).

Hello again.

Having played with the API a bit I was struggling to implement a stub where I needed a tiny bit more logic in creating the response, for example to do string manipulation on the request in a more granular way than handlebars, or in generating new IDs say.

I have experimented with a callback API like this:

  server.Given(Request.Create()
                .WithPath("/foo")
                .UsingGet())
            .RespondWith(Response.Create()
                .WithCallback(req => new ResponseMessage {Body = req.Path + "Bar"}));

The minimal implementation is in my fork, see the comparison: https://github.com/WireMock-Net/WireMock.Net/compare/master...alastairtree:feat/callbacks?expand=1

Is this something you would be interested in? Happy to do some extra work if needed to get something like it adopted. I noticed it also came up in Mock4net (https://github.com/alexvictoor/mock4net/issues/19)

Thanks for the great library

Alastair

Originally created by @alastairtree on GitHub (Nov 20, 2017). Hello again. Having played with the API a bit I was struggling to implement a stub where I needed a tiny bit more logic in creating the response, for example to do string manipulation on the request in a more granular way than handlebars, or in generating new IDs say. I have experimented with a callback API like this: server.Given(Request.Create() .WithPath("/foo") .UsingGet()) .RespondWith(Response.Create() .WithCallback(req => new ResponseMessage {Body = req.Path + "Bar"})); The minimal implementation is in my fork, see the comparison: https://github.com/WireMock-Net/WireMock.Net/compare/master...alastairtree:feat/callbacks?expand=1 Is this something you would be interested in? Happy to do some extra work if needed to get something like it adopted. I noticed it also came up in Mock4net (https://github.com/alexvictoor/mock4net/issues/19) Thanks for the great library Alastair
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 14:21:46 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 14:21:46 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@StefH commented on GitHub (Nov 20, 2017):

Hi Alastair. This sounds ok.

However maybe the names should be WithResponseFunc and WithResponseFuncAsync. (We would also need the async version if possible.)

Some code is already there in DynamicResponseProvider.cs, however we cannot reuse those classes.

Would this be an idea?

@StefH commented on GitHub (Nov 20, 2017): Hi Alastair. This sounds ok. However maybe the names should be `WithResponseFunc` and `WithResponseFuncAsync`. (We would also need the async version if possible.) Some code is already there in `DynamicResponseProvider.cs`, however we cannot reuse those classes. Would this be an idea?
adam commented 2025-12-29 14:21:46 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@joostvanhassel commented on GitHub (Feb 21, 2018):

Hi, looks like a great way to provide access to the request! What can I do to help?

@joostvanhassel commented on GitHub (Feb 21, 2018): Hi, looks like a great way to provide access to the request! What can I do to help?
adam commented 2025-12-29 14:21:46 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@StefH commented on GitHub (Feb 21, 2018):

@joostvanhassel Thanks for helping out. I think that the code from @alastairtree is a good start, and maybe already enough to get this issue solved?

@StefH commented on GitHub (Feb 21, 2018): @joostvanhassel Thanks for helping out. I think that the code from @alastairtree is a good start, and maybe already enough to get this issue solved?
adam commented 2025-12-29 14:21:46 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@joostvanhassel commented on GitHub (Feb 22, 2018):

@StefH the changes as proposed by @alastairtree do fully cover what I would like to do for now. I think it is good to take these changes in and improve later on if further if needed.

@joostvanhassel commented on GitHub (Feb 22, 2018): @StefH the changes as proposed by @alastairtree do fully cover what I would like to do for now. I think it is good to take these changes in and improve later on if further if needed.
adam commented 2025-12-29 14:21:46 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@StefH commented on GitHub (Feb 22, 2018):

OK.
Currently I'm working on issue https://github.com/WireMock-Net/WireMock.Net/issues/91, this needs to be solved 100% before I continue on this one. So if you have time, you can also review this issue.

@StefH commented on GitHub (Feb 22, 2018): OK. Currently I'm working on issue https://github.com/WireMock-Net/WireMock.Net/issues/91, this needs to be solved 100% before I continue on this one. So if you have time, you can also review this issue.
adam commented 2025-12-29 14:21:47 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@StefH commented on GitHub (Mar 1, 2018):

Added to the source-code.

@StefH commented on GitHub (Mar 1, 2018): Added to the source-code.
adam commented 2025-12-29 14:21:47 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@alastairtree commented on GitHub (Mar 2, 2018):

@StefH thanks - this looks pretty good! Been thinking about syntax a bit, it is worth adding an overload on the WithBody() response builder method in addition that accepts a func<RequestMessage,string> something like the below. Would probably be a nice productivity gain and makes it easy for the majority case where you just want to build the body string dynamically?

server
  .Given(
    Request.Create().WithPath("/some/thing").UsingGet()
  )
  .RespondWith(
    Response.Create()
      .WithStatusCode(200)
      .WithBody(req => $"{{ path : '{req.Path}' }}")
  );
@alastairtree commented on GitHub (Mar 2, 2018): @StefH thanks - this looks pretty good! Been thinking about syntax a bit, it is worth adding an overload on the `WithBody()` response builder method in addition that accepts a func<RequestMessage,string> something like the below. Would probably be a nice productivity gain and makes it easy for the majority case where you just want to build the body string dynamically? ``` server .Given( Request.Create().WithPath("/some/thing").UsingGet() ) .RespondWith( Response.Create() .WithStatusCode(200) .WithBody(req => $"{{ path : '{req.Path}' }}") ); ```
adam commented 2025-12-29 14:21:47 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@alastairtree commented on GitHub (Mar 2, 2018):

I have added a PR and test to show what i mean, see #102

@alastairtree commented on GitHub (Mar 2, 2018): I have added a PR and test to show what i mean, see #102
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
bug
bug
doc
doc
duplicate
feature
feature
invalid
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 question
wontfix
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
adam
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/WireMock.Net-wiremock#49
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?