Improved response validation

[eykrehbein]

Improved response validation

[eykrehbein]

@bmcminn good points!
I want to add another option: To use the already existing Syntax pattern Type(...) and Value(...) and just add another pattern to this family. It could be Code(200 | 201) for hard-coded response codes or simply Code(200-299) or Code(2xx) for response code ranges.

[bmcminn]

I dig the concept of scoping response ranges, however you suggested syntax is not valid YAML. Plus, it's a little esoteric for folks not immediately familiar with mathematical range notations, but documentation can help with that.

Stringifying the value like code: "[400-500)" could work better since this is valid YAML and it being of type string informs the config parser it's a range value.

[eykrehbein]

Code validation

[palsivertsen]

syntax is not valid YAML
I forgot to validate the file, of course syntax should be valid YAML. Range could have a more basic form: code: "200-299"

[jgroom33]

resolved with #42