fix requester bug

[jchris]

the ability to wrap the callback wasn't available for verbs aside from GET and DELETE, so I made it work for all verbs

[jhs]

Just wanted to say, requests's .defaults() is (1) awesome, but (2) a bit unevenly supported. It was my inspiration to write defaultable.

https://github.com/nodejitsu/defaultable

[benatkin]

I read the update and the relevant parts of the code, and it looks good. I'm confident that it doesn't break anything. requester is however undocumented in the README. It would be nice for it to hint when it's useful, and I'm not sure. Any examples of use (real or hypothetical)? A failing test would also be nice.

[jchris]

Here is a gist with the way I was using it when I noticed the bug:

https://gist.github.com/jchris/7801297

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Ben Atkin (I accept patches by email.) <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

I read the update and the relevant parts of the code, and it looks good.
I'm confident that it doesn't break anything. requester is however
undocumented in the README. It would be nice for it to hint when it's
useful, and I'm not sure. Any examples of use (real or hypothetical)? A
failing test would also be nice.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/727#issuecomment-29876880
.

Chris Anderson
http://jchrisa.net
http://www.couchbase.com

[mikeal]

was _requester already supported? if it's _ then it's private, and if we're opening it up for public use we should remove the _.

[jchris]

It is supported as a the second argument to the defaults function, with the
_requester thing just some internal state that I think @polotek added
8cf019c

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Mikeal Rogers notifications@github.comwrote:

was _requester already supported? if it's _ then it's private, and if
we're opening it up for public use we should remove the _.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/727#issuecomment-29911449
.

Chris Anderson
http://jchrisa.net
http://www.couchbase.com

[mikeal]

we'll want to revisit this use case for 3.0, i think there's a better way to enable this. until then, let's hold off on documenting it.