johnrix
11 years agoOccasional Contributor
SSL Support for REST MockServices in 5.0.0
I'm trying to mock a REST callback in SoapUI 5.0 beta to support an asynchronous callback from my system under test. The callback URL is required to be a secure address. I have configured my SSL settings and enabled SSL for Mock Services.
However, it seems the SSL support for mock services is still very much geared to SOAP services using fixed endpoint paths. I can get a valid response from the REST MockService on the SSL port ONLY if the request path I send to the SSL port matches exactly the Path configured in the MockService Options page AND the same path is used as the Resource Path in the MockAction editor (which by itself seems somewhat counter-intuitive). If I append anything further to the path, I get the bog standard HTML response about current number of running SoapUI MockServices.
This effectively means that:
* I would have to create separate REST MockServices for each REST resource I wanted to address
* I can't use parameterised paths at all (unless I limit myself to a specific set of parameter values and create individual MockServices for each!)
Am I missing something obvious?
However, it seems the SSL support for mock services is still very much geared to SOAP services using fixed endpoint paths. I can get a valid response from the REST MockService on the SSL port ONLY if the request path I send to the SSL port matches exactly the Path configured in the MockService Options page AND the same path is used as the Resource Path in the MockAction editor (which by itself seems somewhat counter-intuitive). If I append anything further to the path, I get the bog standard HTML response about current number of running SoapUI MockServices.
This effectively means that:
* I would have to create separate REST MockServices for each REST resource I wanted to address
* I can't use parameterised paths at all (unless I limit myself to a specific set of parameter values and create individual MockServices for each!)
Am I missing something obvious?