Brainstorming on what to add to the docs

[bethesque]

Please put one point per comment, so we can use upvote counts to get an indication of what people are most interested in.

[TimothyJones]

• Repository structure/ecosystem (can be hard to know which repository to report bugs against)

[bethesque]

• explain the pact specification at a conceptual level and update this with a link: "If you are writing tests on the Consumer side to a different language on the Provider side, you must ensure you use a common Pact Specification between them or you will be unable to validate."

[bethesque]

• add info on how to use matchers to their best effect (eg. as lax as possible in the response, stricter in the request)

[bethesque]

• Where pact fits into the API lifecycle (diagram that @mefellows has)

[bethesque]

• Clearer explanation upfront of the process in a language independent way

[bethesque]

• Remove unnecessary references to Ruby (though it's a good language for doing code examples in if we do need one, because it is quite readable)

[bethesque]

• Value proposition of Pact Broker, the Matrix, can-i-deploy

[mboudreau]

@bethesque Could I suggest that the examples are done in Javascript? My reasoning being that Javascript is the most well known language and currently our most popular across all our languages. Since this is a consumer driven contract framework, I'd imagine Javascript would make more sense from the consumer standpoint. We could potentially keep ruby for the provider side if needed.

[bethesque]

Using JS for the examples is a very reasonable suggestion.

[bethesque]

• Explain better how the pact is generated

[TimothyJones]

• Improve the general introduction to contract testing? I think we already have this, but from the StackOverflow questions there seem to be some common misconceptions

(this is the same as my earlier comment, but I had two points in one comment)

[mboudreau]

Yeah, definitely agree. Currently working on that, but it's slow going since we have a lot of things to work on and improve. I need to really make this a priority over any functional issues since it is problematic.

…

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 11:48 AM Timothy Jones ***@***.***> wrote: - Improve the general introduction to contract testing? I think we already have this, but from the StackOverflow questions there seem to be some common misconceptions (this is the same as my earlier comment, but I had two points in one comment) — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#36 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAjA5EfXt4cbAvMRQRrTrx_zFgHp7dcOks5tcdFvgaJpZM4Rbnis> .