[CodeClimate] Added missing try-catch block #1613
Merged
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
|
Would it be worth adding a test with some incorrectly structured JSON? |
|
@paulmelnikow I have added two tests, one for incorrectly structured JSON in the outer query and one for the inner query. I had some struggle with the icedfrisby-nock, and opened an issue there. |
PyvesB
added
the
service-badge
espadrine
approved these changes
Apr 1, 2018
| sendBadge(format, badgeData); | ||
| } catch(e) { | ||
| badgeData.text[1] = 'invalid'; | ||
| sendBadge(format, badgeData); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the inner request call throws after its callback parameter returns, it leads to us writing the response twice, but I can't think of a neat solution apart from counting throws.
I guess it is pretty edge-case, huh? ☺
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This pull request should resolve #1607. I believe we were missing a try/catch block for the inner API request. It seems that were are kind of duplicating the same try/catch block twice for this service, but I'm unsure how to handle that in a better way. 😉