Feature/http methods #380
Merged
Feature/http methods #380
Conversation
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
adnanh
reviewed
Dec 26, 2019
adnanh
reviewed
Dec 26, 2019
adnanh
reviewed
Dec 26, 2019
adnanh
reviewed
Dec 26, 2019
|
Also, rebase required. 😂 |
Allows to globally restrict HTTP methods. Fixes adnanh#248
moorereason
force-pushed
the
feature/http-methods
branch
from
072ff42
to
e1249a9
Compare
adnanh
reviewed
Dec 26, 2019
The CLI HTTP methods option now sets the default allowed methods while allowing an individual hook definition to override the default.
adnanh
reviewed
Dec 28, 2019
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The diff for
hookHandlerlooks massive, but it's mostly whitespace. I moved the "Hook not found" response up to the top of the function and got rid of the massive if-statement. Most of the relevent changes happen before thegot matchedlog message.Returning early ("Hook not found") does prevent the response headers from being added to the response, but I'm assuming we didn't want that anyway if the hook wasn't found. That is a "breaking change" in this PR, but the old behavior feels more like a bug, anyway. What do you think?