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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

fix: Conditionally add ftrack-api-options #217

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 7, 2024
Merged

fix: Conditionally add ftrack-api-options #217

merged 3 commits into from
Mar 7, 2024

Conversation

swetapadmanabhan
Copy link
Contributor

  • I have added automatic tests where applicable
  • The PR title is suitable as a release note
  • The PR contains a description of what has been changed
  • The description contains manual test instructions

Changes

  • Conditionally add api-options.

Test

@swetapadmanabhan swetapadmanabhan requested a review from a team as a code owner March 7, 2024 08:23
@swetapadmanabhan swetapadmanabhan requested review from lucaas and gismya and removed request for a team March 7, 2024 08:24
gismya
gismya previously approved these changes Mar 7, 2024
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@gismya gismya left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If you also have time to add some tests for the headers, that would be golden.

source/session.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@swetapadmanabhan swetapadmanabhan merged commit b9e690d into main Mar 7, 2024
5 checks passed
@swetapadmanabhan swetapadmanabhan deleted the fix/ensureSerializableResponse-api-header branch March 7, 2024 09:45
jimmycallin
jimmycallin reviewed Mar 7, 2024
View reviewed changes
test/session.test.ts
ensureSerializableResponse: false,
},
);
return expect((await headers).get("ftrack-api-options")).toBeFalsy();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

i think this test would have passed with the previous implementation as well. check to see if you can use toHaveProperty instead?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@jimmycallin jimmycallin jimmycallin left review comments

@gismya gismya gismya approved these changes

@lucaas lucaas Awaiting requested review from lucaas

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@swetapadmanabhan @jimmycallin @gismya