Define extension command URI parts as templates #962
Merged
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
Interpret the URI parts specified by extension commands as templates,
thereby allowing for extension commands such as `/session/{session
id}/permissions/grant`. Include a non-normative note to call attention
to the implicit "session retrieval" behavior of the command processing
model.
|
Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r1. Comments from Reviewable |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Interpret the URI parts specified by extension commands as templates,
thereby allowing for extension commands such as
/session/{session id}/permissions/grant. Include a non-normative note to call attentionto the implicit "session retrieval" behavior of the command processing
model.
This is an initial pass at resolving gh-961. There, I pointed out that the command processing model's "session retrieval" behavior may not be apparent to those reading this section. I believe this justifies a non-normative note to call attention to that behavior.
@shs96c RFC6570 defines distinct "levels" for templates. So far, it seems as though WebDriver and its extensions may only need the capabilities of so-called "Level 1 templates". Do you see any value in restricting extension command templates to Level 1?
This change is