Add response body assertions and other missing uptime settings - #9
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The spec's
UptimeCheckSettingswas missing four fields the API has accepted and returned for a while:response_body_assertions(with a newResponseBodyAssertionschema),raw_payload,frequency_valueandfrequency_unit.While verifying those against the live request/resource classes, the monitor create and update examples turned out to be stale too: the create example used flat
uptime_check_*keys that are silently dropped, and the update example senttype(rejected on update),label(not an accepted field,friendly_nameis) and a null health-check secret that 422s. Both examples now replay cleanly against the API, 201 and 200.