Multiple postServe actions

[soitgoes887]

Hello,

How can I request multiple webhooks per mapping ?

-- Thanks, Andrei

[bligny]

I'm also interested to know.

Can we define more than one single callback / webhook ? As the JSON type of "postServeActions" is an object ({...}) and not an array ([...]), I'm afraid not :-(

{
  "request" : {
  ...
  },
  "response" : {
   ...
  },
  "postServeActions" : {
  }
}

But on the other hand, its name is "postServeActions" (plural !)

[bligny]

Huum, there seems to be a way to have multiple post-serve actions...but only one per extension:

[tomakehurst]

I'm not sure why I implemented it that way. I'll have a look at whether it's feasible to change this to accept a list.

[bligny]

I'll have a look at whether it's feasible to change this to accept a list.

Oh yes, that would be very handy !

I'm also very interested in #8 so that we can use for callbacks exactly the same mechanism (eg bodyFileName, transformerParameters) as for responses, eg

"postServeActions" : {
	    "webhook" : {
	      "method" : "POST",	      
	      "url" : "http://...",
	      "bodyFileName" : "templates/dynamic-request.xml",
	        "transformerParameters" : {
	            "my-template-param" : "foo"
	        }	      
	}
}

[tomakehurst]

I'd really like to work on #8 but it's not all that trivial. I've got a big backlog of stuff to do with WireMock core, so I'm going to struggle to get to it in the near future unfortunately.

[babochenko]

I'd really like to work on #8 but it's not all that trivial. I've got a big backlog of stuff to do with WireMock core, so I'm going to struggle to get to it in the near future unfortunately.

How's the work on #8 going? I would like to help implementing that feature

[nhomble]

I'm not sure why I implemented it that way. I'll have a look at whether it's feasible to change this to accept a list.

Also considering backwards compatibility, how about defining a new extension with name "webhooks" (currently it's singular in the getName() and allow that to have aa list of WebhookDefinition. This way there are no changes needed in core with how extensions are loaded.

I appreciate your backlog so I'll propose this change in a pr, but lemme know if I'm totally off!

-- Would appreciate opinions on this