docs: add note on removeInterceptor usage #2035
Conversation
Alexsey
changed the title
|
Thanks for this @Alexsey, this question/confusion has come up several times on Github and Stackoverflow. The verbiage doesn't seem quite right, however. Unfortunately, I'm no wordsmith so I won't even bother with a "suggestion" comment. In the past, I've relied on @paulmelnikow to help me out on these things. Maybe he can throw in his two cents. |
|
There are two other solutions:
I don't feel myself a wordsmith either + I'm not even an English native speaker. So if you have any suggestions I would be glad to consider adding them to the PR |
|
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. We try to do our best, but nock is maintained by volunteers and there is only so much we can do at a time. Thank you for your contributions. |
The fact that `removeInterceptor` works on some chains and doesn't work on other chains is very confusing because it means that existing code may break while the behavior is getting only extended (opposite to modified). Also, because documentation is not giving a clear difference on what chain methods returns what type of values. There are a bunch of issues on it: nock#1822 nock#1117 nock#600
|
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. We try to do our best, but nock is maintained by volunteers and there is only so much we can do at a time. Thank you for your contributions. |
|
@mastermatt I have made some improvements to the wording in October. If you still think it has some issues, maybe someone would make a PR for this in the future? |
|
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. We try to do our best, but nock is maintained by volunteers and there is only so much we can do at a time. Thank you for your contributions. |
|
The issue is still relevant, don't close |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this change is better than what we have :) Sorry to make you wait for so long @Alexsey. I'll be working on nock a bit over the coming weeks and hope to catch up with open issues and PRs, and share a plan / priorities for nock's future
|
🎉 This PR is included in version 13.2.0 🎉 The release is available on: Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀 |
The fact that
removeInterceptorworks on some chains and doesn't work on other chains is very confusing because it means that existing code may break while the behavior is getting only extended (opposit to modified). Also, because documentation is not giving a clear difference on what chain methods returns what type of values. There are a bunch of issues on it:#1822
#1117
#600