[RFC] Parsing forms #298
Merged
[RFC] Parsing forms #298
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
|
Sorry for slow response. I’m neck deep in a round-the-clock strategy
consulting engagement. Should be able to lift my head up shortly and take a
look
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 3:21 AM Ruud Kamphuis ***@***.***> wrote:
Trying to solve #295 <#295>
This is just a half implementation. Just want to know @bbyars
<https://github.com/bbyars> opinion about it. Would this be something
that could be merged?
Then I can work on completing the implementation.
------------------------------
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
#298
Commit Summary
- [RFC] Parsing forms
File Changes
- *M* package-lock.json
<https://github.com/bbyars/mountebank/pull/298/files#diff-0> (20)
- *M* package.json
<https://github.com/bbyars/mountebank/pull/298/files#diff-1> (1)
- *M* src/models/http/httpRequest.js
<https://github.com/bbyars/mountebank/pull/298/files#diff-2> (14)
- *M* test/models/http/httpRequestTest.js
<https://github.com/bbyars/mountebank/pull/298/files#diff-3> (23)
Patch Links:
- https://github.com/bbyars/mountebank/pull/298.patch
- https://github.com/bbyars/mountebank/pull/298.diff
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#298>, or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAESv3n3gv_5CnMnmuDESQVM7irlkNeqks5sqykQgaJpZM4Pzi2E>
.
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
|
|
Hi there, |
|
@bbyars Thanks for merging. Would be great if it could be tagged as well 🙏 |
|
@ruudk What do you mean by tagged? |
|
Sorry, I mean a tagged release |
|
Got it, working to get that out ASAP.
…On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Ruud Kamphuis ***@***.***> wrote:
Sorry, I mean a tagged release
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#298 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAESv6l2q93row9q8eR_z-6qea6QyGVUks5sweFAgaJpZM4Pzi2E>
.
|
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.
Trying to solve #295
This is just a half implementation. Just want to know @bbyars opinion about it. Would this be something that could be merged?
Then I can work on completing the implementation.
The idea is that it would help you write cleaner predicates by just specifying the form as an object instead of an
firstname=ruud&lastname=kamphuisbody string.