Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Exclude :stub mode from applying match_requests_on: [:request_body] by default #61

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

nsi88
Copy link
Contributor

@nsi88 nsi88 commented May 26, 2016

Hi @parroty! Looks like it's impossible to disable check for request_body in stub mode.
Maybe just disable it by default?

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented May 26, 2016

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 93.285% when pulling 36970db on nsi88:request_body_and_stub into be14d4e on parroty:master.

@parroty
Copy link
Owner

parroty commented Jun 5, 2016

Thanks for the PR. Some of the tests are failing for this change. If it's about making the request_body parameter optional, the conditions like following match with your expectation?

if (stub_mode?(recorder_options) && keys[:request_body] != nil) || has_match_requests_on(:request_body, recorder_options) do

Also, it would be great to have test new condition too 😃 .

@nsi88
Copy link
Contributor Author

nsi88 commented Jun 6, 2016

Yes. I think the condition will work for me. Will finish the PR when
will find time

05/06/16 21:41, parroty пишет:

Thanks for the PR. Some of the tests are failing for this change. If
it's about making the |request_body| parameter optional, the
conditions like following match with your expectation?

if (stub_mode?(recorder_options)&& keys[:request_body]!= nil)|| has_match_requests_on(:request_body, recorder_options)do

Also, it would be great to have test new condition too 😃 .


You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#61 (comment), or
mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/ADyCOQpTG9P7vL6SV6y_5Kj3lOtqmmFhks5qIuAjgaJpZM4IniuQ.

Best regards
Sergey Novikov

@drapergeek drapergeek mentioned this pull request Jan 19, 2017
@parroty
Copy link
Owner

parroty commented Jan 25, 2017

I assume this item is covered by #89 and closing at the moment.
If you find remaining issue, please reopen or open another one.

@parroty parroty closed this Jan 25, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants