inconsistency at filtering pacts: external vs internal verification

[ShahOdin]

In the provider side, the pacts can be verified using two strategies. The external strategy only runs pacts against the ones specified in the pact.sbt file through providerName and consumerNames attributes. However, the internal strategy happily runs all the pact spec files, no matter what provider they might have. This can be misleading.

I think we should either:

• make the pact-filtering consistent across the two strategies so that pact:sbt skips the pact verification spec files with consumers other than the one specified in pact.sbt. Personally, I am not in favor of this, as we already have ignore in spec files which allows us to ignore spec files. Having that ability in two places, can be problematic.

• We could nest providerName consumerNames and pactBrokerAddress information in the pact file, as parameters to a pactVerify field or something like that. It might also be a good idea to make the name more specific as one might get the impression that this information is also used for consumer-side pacts. so maybe something like: pactExternalVerify. We could also consider advocating the convention of naming pact.sbt -> pactVerify.sbt or pactExternalVerify.sbt.