Help find GitHub action

[smjoshiatglobus]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
I followed instructions from https://github.com/SpectoLabs/hoverfly-github-action but got this error:
"Unable to resolve action. Repository not found: agilepathway/hoverfly-github-action"

Describe the solution you'd like
Help figure out how to run GitHub actions using hoverfly

Describe alternatives you've considered
Local execution of go test worked fine.

Additional context
NA

[tommysitu]

@johnboyes any chance you can help with this?

[smjoshiatglobus]

I should have seen the potential solution in issue #64. I tried it, and could successfully start hoverctl! However, I got this error message:
Invalid simulation: schema version v5.3 is not supported by this version of Hoverfly, you may need to update Hoverfly

[johnboyes]

Hi, I’ll look into this and get back to you soon, @smjoshiatglobus - tomorrow latest

[johnboyes]

Hi @smjoshiatglobus and @tommysitu , this GitHub Action hasn't had much love for a few years now. The main reason for that is that is that it still works successfully for my use case (I contributed the action to SpectoLabs as an individual open source contribution), and there haven't been any issues by any other users flagged until now. So thanks for raising this!
The good news is that the action still works and that the problem you're experiencing @smjoshiatglobus can be resolved without any code change needed to the action itself.
The action is currently pinned by default to the very old Hoverfly v1.3.6 version, but you can override that by specifying any version you like when invoking the action, e.g.

with:
  version: 'v1.10.12'
  runner_github_workspace_path: ${{ github.workspace }}

Let me know if that fixes the problem for you, @smjoshiatglobus 🤞🏻

@tommysitu I'd be happy to spend some time working on the action to bring it more up to date and tidy up the documentation, if you like. Ideally in about a month's time if that's ok, as the next month is very busy for me 🙏🏻

[tommysitu]

Thank you for taking a look @johnboyes! There have been some schema changes since v1.3.6 from simulation v5 -> v5.3. The new version supports some exciting new features like response body file, post-serve action, new matchers for JWT, array and more. It's still backwards-compatible, and you would find it easy to upgrade. Feel free to ping me if you need any help!

[smjoshiatglobus]

Thank you @johnboyes and @tommysitu . Please see PR #80

[johnboyes]

Thank you @johnboyes and @tommysitu . Please see PR #80

@tommysitu I no longer have maintainer permissions on this repo for some reason?

[tommysitu]

@johnboyes I've added you back as an external collaborator.

[johnboyes]

@tommysitu thanks for adding me back to the org. Some of the checks are failing on @smjoshiatglobus 's PR #80, which is not a surprise as this repo has been dormant for a few years. I don't have permission to tweak the PR settings. I'm wondering if it may be best to transfer this repo back to my agilepathway org, so that I can maintain it more easily, what do you think?

[tommysitu]

What do you think @marcoioco @stuioco ? or we can add @johnboyes as an admin for this project? Just a bit of background this github action was created by John and he offered it to spectolabs a few years ago.

[marcoioco]

@johnboyes thanks. I have given you maintainer access. Let me know if you need any admin only setting changed.

[johnboyes]

Thanks @marcoioco. One thing that needs an admin is accepting the GitHub Marketplace Developer Agreement, so that I can then publish each new release of this Hoverfly GitHub Action to the GitHub Marketplace. I think you should be able to accept the agreement on the release page.

[johnboyes]

@marcoioco one more thing please. In order for me to merge #80 I'd be very grateful if you could make the following status checks no longer marked as required for this repo please:

• hadolint
• LanguageTool
• misspell
• shellcheck
• yamllint

Once they have been removed from the required list of status checks, hopefully you will then be able to add the very simiilar status checks below as required - the ones below are pull request status checks, whereas the ones above were push status checks..

The background to why these tweaks to the status checks are needed is in #93. Hope it all makes sense, any questions please let me know.

[marcoioco]

@johnboyes done, let me know if ok, I havent added the new ones as required yet.

[johnboyes]

Thanks @marcoioco, that worked - I was able to go ahead and merge @smjoshiatglobus 's PR #80 👍🏻

Feel free to go ahead and add the new pull request status checks whenever's convenient, no rush.