You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is an example from the docs. In contrast to the client/send! function this won't automatically reject the promise if the request failed. Edit, it seems that even when using client/send! and passing the node client a 400 HTTP code does not cause the promise to be rejected. I'm wondering if this should be considered a bug or if using client specific send! functions should be discouraged / removed from the docs?
I find this behavior is probably worth fixing as the documentation describes multiple ways of making requests with different error handling semantics.
From the docs
send! is a function that, given a request map and optionally a map of options, performs the request and returns a promise that will be resolved if there is a response and rejected on timeout, exceptions, HTTP errors or aborts.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Bump :) Is this something you'd consider a PR for? I guess it's somewhat problematic to fix as it would break a lot of clients but maybe we could introduce a node-next namespace with a more strict behavior?
This is an example from the docs.
In contrast to theEdit, it seems that even when usingclient/send!
function this won't automatically reject the promise if the request failed.client/send!
and passing the node client a 400 HTTP code does not cause the promise to be rejected. I'm wondering if this should be considered a bug or if using client specificsend!
functions should be discouraged / removed from the docs?I find this behavior is probably worth fixing as the documentation describes multiple ways of making requests with different error handling semantics.
From the docs
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: