Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

move udBeforeRequest before beforeRequest again & preReqHooks instead… #409

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

yflau
Copy link

@yflau yflau commented Feb 2, 2021

As #408 reported, many RequestMiddlewares will be invalid when move udBeforeRequest after beforeRequest introduced in v2.4.0, thus all RequestMiddlewares have to change to modify RawReqest directly while not the Request. In the mean time, I noticed that for RequestMiddleware in v2.3.0, there is no way to access or manipulate the RawRequest, but there is another hook: PreRequestHook can meet the requirement, but I think it's better to support a list of PeRequestHook, so I modify the preRequestHook to preRequestHooks.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 2, 2021

Codecov Report

Merging #409 (008d09a) into master (61f4307) will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 87.50%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #409      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   95.97%   95.98%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          10       10              
  Lines        1019     1022       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits          978      981       +3     
  Misses         23       23              
  Partials       18       18              
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
client.go 96.81% <87.50%> (+0.03%) ⬆️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 61f4307...008d09a. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Member

@jeevatkm jeevatkm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@yflau Do you mind reverting the changes of this PR #414? keeping other changes.

@yflau
Copy link
Author

yflau commented Feb 12, 2021

I think it's OK for PR #414 since the main purpose is reverting the breaking changes.

@yflau yflau closed this Feb 20, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants