How to combine with_multipart_file with additional body fields?

[jakubpawlik-identt]

Hello guys!
Maybe an observation from my side: it is not clear for my side if multipart/form-data is supported in v3--> can we prepare an interaction using with_multipart_file and something else ?
I don't know how to attach a body as part in my multipart.
See this test for instance using only with_multipart_file

Any clue ?

Thanks!!

Olivier

Originally posted by @opicaud in #307

Hi! I encountered the same issue that Olivier mentioned. It's unclear to me how to use with_multipart_file while also including additional fields in the body. I have a case where my endpoint expects both a file and a text field in the request body, for example:

{
   "text": "text_value",
   "file": "video.mp4"
}

I tried doing it like this:

        .with_request(method="POST", path="/api/v1/check/")
        .with_body(
            body={
                "text": "text_value",
            },
            content_type="multipart/form-data",
            part="Request"
        )
        .with_multipart_file(
            part_name="file",
            path="fixtures/video.mp4",
            content_type="video/mp4",
            part="Request"
        )
        .will_respond_with(status=200)

I can't find an example of using it this way. Is it even possible to do that? In the example given above, when the test is triggered on the provider side, my service responds that the "text": "text_value" field is missing in the request.

Thanks in advance,
Jakub

[opicaud]

Hey, @jakubpawlik-identt

I tried what you are proposing but in my case, even this test is failing, as the json body is an unknown part of the multipart..
I tried also to just post a base64 encoded multipart payload, and here it is the boundary that can't match.

I am suspecting that we can't - for now - use multipart having json + files as a with_multipart_body feature is missing

[jakubpawlik-identt]

Hi, @opicaud!

I have tried the same approaches and unfortunately haven’t had any luck either. I remain hopeful that the team working on this tool either has a workaround I am not aware of or plans to add support in the near future.

[YOU54F]

Hey all,

First off thanks for the question

I would ask for @rholshausen / @mefellows thoughts on this.

It may be worth us transferring this to the pact-reference repo, as that contains the core engine that client langauges use, if the core doesn't support it, then pact-python v3 will be unable to.

I am not aware of or plans to add support in the near future.

If it is a feature request, I would possibly advise going down the RFC route, in order to track it

https://github.com/pact-foundation/roadmap/blob/master/rfc/0000-rfc-process.md

Would this be something either of you would be interesting in contributing towards.

[github-actions]

🤖 Great news! We've labeled this issue as smartbear-supported and created a tracking ticket in PactFlow's Jira (PACT-4352). We'll keep work public and post updates here. Meanwhile, feel free to check out our docs. Thanks for your patience!