Add params to DELETE

[amalagaura]

I am trying to use this REST API which takes query params on DELETE

https://docs.camunda.org/manual/7.5/reference/rest/deployment/delete-deployment/

Made these changes and ran tests locally. But to run tests locally I had to rename MiniTest to Minitest. I am not familiar with Minitest to know about this.

[amalagaura]

@balvig I rebased to main. Please let me know any feedback.

[balvig]

Hello @amalagaura!
Thank you for this, looks great, and sorry for the slow reply.
I guess I'd just never encountered an API needing query params on DELETE, but this looks a good way to handle those! 👍

[keithxm23]

This change makes code that used to send a json payload param to a DELETE endpoint into url-params instead. It does not seem possible to send a json-payload with a DELETE request after this change. Am I mistaken?

[amalagaura]

@keithxm23 You are right that the HTTP spec shows the DELETE may have a body. Has this changed the behavior to remove the ability to send a payload in the body. From what I remember there was no body and no params before.

[keithxm23]

The params sent with .where which were not identified as params inside the uri could be sent via a request body.

The Atlassian Bitbucket delete-branch api expects a request body with the HTTP-DELETE request to delete a branch.

My ruby client which was successfully sending request bodies with DELETE looks like this:

class DeleteBranch < Spyke::Base
  self.connection = GIT_BRANCH_UTILS_API
  def self.delete_branch project:, repo:, branch:
     self.with(:branches).where(project: project, repo: repo, name: branch).delete
  end
end

After upgrading beyond 7.1.1 the name: branch param gets added as a url-param.

I think it would be best if the change was reverted because we're losing functionality here. If we want URL-params with a DELETE request, this is possible prior to this change using a custom request like so:

DeleteBranch.request(:delete, 'projects/projectname/repos/reponame/branches?name=asd')

[amalagaura]

I am ok to revert. I think it will need some more work. You should just create another PR.

[balvig]

Good spot @keithxm23!
Did not consider that scenario 🙇