Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

poor documentation #37

Open
juliabiro opened this issue May 18, 2015 · 6 comments
Open

poor documentation #37

juliabiro opened this issue May 18, 2015 · 6 comments

Comments

@juliabiro
Copy link

please elaborate on how to capture complex urls with urlmatch. the query, scheme etc parameters are not mentioned anywhere in the documentation, neither is the fact that you cannot match for exacts complex urls with the url parameter. Otherwise great tool, but it took several hours to figure out how to use it.

@dylanwilder
Copy link

+1 also some trace logging about what is being mocked would be great

@oryband
Copy link

oryband commented Feb 3, 2016

👍 i can't find any docs at all besides the short README

@iwasrobbed
Copy link

Good example is here https://www.appneta.com/blog/python-unit-test-mock/ and the source files to go with it showing a nice way of doing domain / url based matching https://github.com/danriti/python-mocked-service

@RichardForshaw
Copy link

+1 for some more documentation. I have just gotcha'd by the having to match the remote address and path separately.

It would also be great if there was a way of implementing a 'catchall' to catch all requests that do not match the given paths, so that you can use the mock to trap bugs due to incorrect paths & spellings. Let me know if this should be logged as a separate issue.

@patrys
Copy link
Owner

patrys commented Jun 29, 2016

While the documentation would be great to have, you can have multiple handlers active at the same time, each with its own matching rules. If you make the outer-most match all requests, it should give you the catch-all you described.

@pmg007
Copy link

pmg007 commented Nov 27, 2019

yes, more documentation would be great!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants