Rename "pending pacts" feature name

[bethesque]

People have a lot of problems understanding how pending pacts works, and part of that is due to the terminology. They get confused between a pact having a pending property, and the name of the feature. One of the problems is the name of the feature does not explain to the user what the feature does without reading an entire page of docs.

I am considering renaming the feature from "pending pacts" to "smart failures" (open to other suggestions).

The impact would be:

• every client would need to make a backwards compatible change to allow either "enablePending" or "enableSmartFailures" to be set
• update the docs for every client
• update the docs for the feature at docs.pact.io

This might also be a better time to make the default change from false to true.

Other name suggestions welcome.

[dimkin-eu]

Maybe naming could be non-approved/aproved or not-verified/verified

Replacing pending with smart failures there will confuse people even more, imho
This pact is in pending state for this version of Bar because a successful verification result for Bar has not yet been published. If this verification fails, it will not cause the overall build to fail

[TimothyJones]

What about naming the option after the behaviour it causes - something like dontFailUnverifiedContracts ? onlyFailRegressions, onlyFailIfPreviouslyVerified, ignoreFailuresOnNewContracts?

This might also be a better time to make the default change from false to true.

As you know, I'm not in favour of this. However, it does raise a good point that we need a good way to release breaking changes across the whole ecosystem - I'm not really sure what that looks like :/

I'd really like the ability to specify pending (or whatever we call it) on a per selector basis. Without this, I think we'd need to use can-i-deploy as can-i-merge, which (while probably a good idea) is extra complexity that I think most projects won't need.

[yanncourtel]

I'm not an expert on this feature but I can see where it's going. FYI we've had theses issues a lot where teams publishes something from a branch locally and literally block another provider team altogether to merge. Even though we recommend to always have the PACTs working... It can be hard.

How about "loose-verification" vs "strict-verification" since for me the term "verification" always refer to the provider side of the PACT?