This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 23, 2023. It is now read-only.
feat: Preserve some non-enumerable properties from request #379
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
kamilogorek
force-pushed
the
preserve-nonenums
branch
from
9913f3b
to
8504064
Compare
kamilogorek
commented
Sep 22, 2017
lib/utils.js
Outdated
| @@ -56,6 +56,22 @@ module.exports.getAuthHeader = function getAuthHeader(timestamp, apiKey, apiSecr | |||
| return header.join(', '); | |||
| }; | |||
|
|
|||
| module.exports.prepareInitialRequest = function prepareInitialRequest() { | |||
| var request = {}; | |||
| var nonEnumberables = ['ip']; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This could be passed as an argument, but I wasn't sure if that's worth it, as it's one-off util.
MaxBittker
previously requested changes
Sep 25, 2017
lib/client.js
Outdated
| @@ -228,14 +228,29 @@ extend(Raven.prototype, { | |||
| so we only parse a `req` property if the `request` property is absent/empty (and hence we won't clobber) | |||
| parseUser returns a partial kwargs object with a `request` property and possibly a `user` property | |||
| */ | |||
| var initialRequest = utils.prepareInitialRequest( | |||
| this._globalContext.request, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would you mind adding some comments here? I'm having trouble understanding why it is needed to use both prepareInitialRequest and extend on these groups of request & req objects, instead of replacing in extend with prepareInitialRequest
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This was just me missing it. Fixed :)
test/raven.utils.js
Outdated
| @@ -98,6 +98,66 @@ describe('raven.utils', function() { | |||
| }); | |||
| }); | |||
|
|
|||
| describe('#prepareInitialRequest', function() { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
these tests on the prepareInitialRequest utility seem good to me, but would you mind writing a slightly broader test that recreates the original problem outlined in #360?
kamilogorek
force-pushed
the
preserve-nonenums
branch
from
8504064
to
6ad56e6
Compare
|
@MaxBittker everything has been addressed |
kamilogorek
requested review from
a team
and removed request for
benvinegar
mitsuhiko
approved these changes
Sep 26, 2017
kamilogorek
force-pushed
the
preserve-nonenums
branch
from
6ad56e6
to
a9f3fb3
Compare
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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.
Fixes #360