Skip to content

Conversation

@faragoa
Copy link

@faragoa faragoa commented Mar 13, 2019

blueprint:

POST ...
{
"transaction":"1",
"big-chunk-input:":{ "small-chunk":"123",big-chunk:{"a":"1",....} }
..
}
<200
..
{
"some-big-chunk":{{>BigChunk1}}
..
}

POST ...
{
"transaction":"2",
"big-chunk-input":{{<BigChunk1}},
..
}

Also works if you save BigChunk1 to Erlang between two katt runs from the returned proplist of the results tuple (third param).

@faragoa faragoa changed the base branch from transaction-params to master March 13, 2019 09:42
@andreineculau
Copy link
Member

Thanks for your idea.

I missed replying to you because

  1. the PR in its current form cannot be merged. I can understand how it solves your case, but it is not clear how to_list is fine taking a struct and leaving it as is (potentially with atoms or binaries. What you want is to get around a "limitation" on this line
    ScenarioParams1 = [ {katt_util:to_list(K), V} || {K, V} <- ScenarioParams0],
  2. currently we support "primitives" which also keeps things aligned with the CLI tool. Adding the possibility to handle complex structures in Erlang, means we either document the shortcoming for the CLI tool or find a way to support that.

I'm leaving this PR as is until we figure out how to handle better the case of params with complex values.

Welcome to bring up other ideas!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants