starred/WireMock.Net-wiremock
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/wiremock/WireMock.Net.git synced 2026-01-11 22:30:41 +01:00
Code Issues 32 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

Support returning 404 when file referenced by BodyAsFile isn't found #538

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 15:26:19 +01:00 by adam · 5 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:26:19 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @goldsam on GitHub (Aug 1, 2023).

Originally assigned to: @StefH on GitHub.

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

Currently, a 500 error status is returned for a stub which uses BodyAsFile to reference a non-existent file.
it would be useful to specify a 404 status could be returned instead when this occurs.

Describe the solution you'd like

The easiest solution would be to add a flag to prevent the mock from faulting and return a 500 and instead let additional mocks be evaluated. Then, a 404 fallback stub could be specified which a priority that evaluates after the stub using BodyAsFile.

Describe alternatives you've considered

Additional additional fields to support an "error" case seems unnecessary and complicated and breaks the existing paradigm.

Is your feature request supported by WireMock (java version)? Please provide details.

Don't know.

Additional context

n/a

Originally created by @goldsam on GitHub (Aug 1, 2023). Originally assigned to: @StefH on GitHub. **Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.** Currently, a 500 error status is returned for a stub which uses `BodyAsFile` to reference a non-existent file. it would be useful to specify a 404 status could be returned instead when this occurs. **Describe the solution you'd like** The easiest solution would be to add a flag to prevent the mock from faulting and return a 500 and instead let additional mocks be evaluated. Then, a 404 fallback stub could be specified which a priority that evaluates after the stub using `BodyAsFile`. **Describe alternatives you've considered** Additional additional fields to support an "error" case seems unnecessary and complicated and breaks the existing paradigm. **Is your feature request supported by [WireMock (java version)](https://www.wiremock.org)? Please provide details.** Don't know. **Additional context** n/a
adam added the question label 2025-12-29 15:26:19 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 15:26:19 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:26:20 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@StefH commented on GitHub (Aug 3, 2023):

@goldsam
I'll investigate the error.

About 404: in several places in the matchers or other code, I catch exceptions, and depending on https://github.com/WireMock-Net/WireMock.Net/blob/master/src/WireMock.Net/Matchers/IMatcher.cs#L21 I do throw an exception.
However I think I need to change this behavior, and just return the exception-message in the 404 message so that in case of an exception, the caller can figure out what could be wrong.

@StefH commented on GitHub (Aug 3, 2023): @goldsam I'll investigate the error. About `404`: in several places in the matchers or other code, I catch exceptions, and depending on https://github.com/WireMock-Net/WireMock.Net/blob/master/src/WireMock.Net/Matchers/IMatcher.cs#L21 I do throw an exception. However I think I need to change this behavior, and just return the exception-message in the 404 message so that in case of an exception, the caller can figure out what could be wrong.
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:26:20 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@goldsam commented on GitHub (Aug 4, 2023):

It might nice to allow evaluation to continue to the next stub, so that the user could then stub a 404 or any other behavior they might desire. Perhaps a flag in the stub to control this?

@goldsam commented on GitHub (Aug 4, 2023): It might nice to allow evaluation to continue to the next stub, so that the user could then stub a 404 or any other behavior they might desire. Perhaps a flag in the stub to control this?
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:26:21 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@StefH commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2023):

Currently the response is indeed like this:
http status 500

{
    "Status": "Could not find file 'c:\\error.xml'."
}

The easiest solution would be to add a flag to prevent the mock from faulting and return a 500 and instead let additional mocks be evaluated. Then, a 404 fallback stub could be specified which a priority that evaluates after the stub using BodyAsFile.

In that case a proposal could be like:

{
    "Guid": "fd8ca21b-db82-48bc-ae5a-fc2153c2b0db",
    "Request": {
        "Path": {
            "Matchers": [
                {
                    "Name": "WildcardMatcher",
                    "Pattern": "/bodyasfile_transform123"
                }
            ]
        },
        "Methods": [
            "get"
        ]
    },
    "Response": {
        "StatusCode": 200,
        "Headers": { "Content-Type": "application/xml" },
        "BodyAsFile": "c:\\error.xml",
        "BodyAsFileIsCached": true,
    	"UseTransformer": true,
    	"UseTransformerForBodyAsFile": true
    },
    "ResponseWhenException": {
     "StatusCode": 404
    }
}

What are your thoughts?

@StefH commented on GitHub (Aug 5, 2023): Currently the response is indeed like this: **http status 500** ``` JSON { "Status": "Could not find file 'c:\\error.xml'." } ``` --- > The easiest solution would be to add a flag to prevent the mock from faulting and return a 500 and instead let additional mocks be evaluated. Then, a 404 fallback stub could be specified which a priority that evaluates after the stub using BodyAsFile. In that case a proposal could be like: ``` json { "Guid": "fd8ca21b-db82-48bc-ae5a-fc2153c2b0db", "Request": { "Path": { "Matchers": [ { "Name": "WildcardMatcher", "Pattern": "/bodyasfile_transform123" } ] }, "Methods": [ "get" ] }, "Response": { "StatusCode": 200, "Headers": { "Content-Type": "application/xml" }, "BodyAsFile": "c:\\error.xml", "BodyAsFileIsCached": true, "UseTransformer": true, "UseTransformerForBodyAsFile": true }, "ResponseWhenException": { "StatusCode": 404 } } ``` What are your thoughts?
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:26:22 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@goldsam commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2023):

That works for me, but I do think it might be adding more complexity than is necessary. You could also just add a SkipOnException flag instead and continue to the next stub when an exception occurs when set.

Either way, I appreciate you giving this your attention.

@goldsam commented on GitHub (Aug 6, 2023): That works for me, but I do think it might be adding more complexity than is necessary. You could also just add a `SkipOnException` flag instead and continue to the next stub when an exception occurs when set. Either way, I appreciate you giving this your attention.
adam commented 2025-12-29 15:26:22 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@StefH commented on GitHub (Aug 9, 2023):

In this case:

The mapping is invalid (e.g. due to invalid referenced file), which results that the output mapping cannot be constructed. In that case 500 is returned.

Also for example in XPathMatcher, I've change the code so that:

  • in case the input cannot be matched, the mapping is skipped (this is same as before)
  • in case the pattern (defined in the mapping) is invalid, the exception is logged, and the mapping gets a score = 0, which means that it's skipped.
@StefH commented on GitHub (Aug 9, 2023): In this case: The mapping is invalid (e.g. due to invalid referenced file), which results that the output mapping cannot be constructed. In that case 500 is returned. Also for example in XPathMatcher, I've change the code so that: - in case the input cannot be matched, the mapping is skipped (this is same as before) - in case the pattern (defined in the mapping) is invalid, the exception is logged, and the mapping gets a score = 0, which means that it's skipped.
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 question
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#538
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?