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
Fix case where url is fragmented in httptools protocol #1263
Merged
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
5f1844a
Fix fragmented url
euri10 007fdaf
Fixed subtle bug introduced by setting self.url in the init, it shoul…
euri10 1124296
Merge branch 'master' into 1262_chunked_url
euri10 e6e5510
Blacked
euri10 634697b
Adapted failing tests provided in bug report
euri10 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does it matter that
"path"
,"raw_path"
,"query_string"
are now not populated in the upgrade case?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd be tempted to say no since the
handle_upgrade
does not need them and the ws protocols will build the scope themselves down the road.this said it doesn't hurt I think to put it before, both ways pass the tests, would you prefer it that way ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
let me know if this is ok for you this way @tomchristie
I added latest master changes
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think I'm okay with this, yup. 👍
An alternate approach would be to keep the change footprint absolutely as low as possible. I'm almost always in favour of the lowest possible change footprint in PRs, because they're easier to review and lower risk.
In this case we could alternately approach the PR like this...
Which would result in a really small changeset. Which as I say, I tend to think is a great thing.
Having said that, it's not a super complex PR. It looks good already, and I don't want to give you extra work, so gonna okay this and then leave the final decision to you.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ok will merge that way, I dont have the time !