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

Add support for the OPTIONS verb #470

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 4, 2017
Merged

Conversation

edtjones
Copy link
Collaborator

@edtjones edtjones commented Nov 3, 2017

Add support for the OPTIONS verb, which requires us to use Faraday's run_request() method instead of the dynamically-generated method associated with the verb name (Faraday.options is a different thing - see lostisland/faraday#305)

@zacharywelch are you ok for me to merge into master and push a 0.9.1 gem (need it for a project we're working on)?

…run_request() method instead of the dynamically-generated method associated with the verb name (Faraday.options is a different thing - see lostisland/faraday#305)
Copy link
Collaborator

@zacharywelch zacharywelch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

left one question but this looks good to me 🎩 👍

lib/her/api.rb Outdated
@@ -89,19 +89,26 @@ def request(opts={})
path = opts.delete(:_path)
headers = opts.delete(:_headers)
opts.delete_if { |key, value| key.to_s =~ /^_/ } # Remove all internal parameters
response = @connection.send method do |request|
# Faraday doesn't support the OPTIONS verb because of a name collision with an internal options method
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

do we want to put these comments underneath if method == :options like we do for if method == :get?

@edtjones edtjones merged commit ffe31ec into remi:master Nov 4, 2017
@edtjones
Copy link
Collaborator Author

edtjones commented Nov 4, 2017

@zacharywelch I decided to bump to version 0.10.0 rather than 0.9.1 because this release includes your refactor of attributes which is a relatively big chunk of stuff. Hope ok.

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

2 participants