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

Location header rewriting for responses with status 201 #1024

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 11, 2016

Conversation

gabrielboucher
Copy link
Contributor

Implement rewriting of the location header for responses with status code 201, according to RFC2616 section 10.2.2, in response to issue #914

Implement rewriting of the location header for responses with status code 201, according to RFC2616 section 10.2.2
@jcrugzz
Copy link
Contributor

jcrugzz commented Aug 11, 2016

@gabrielboucher seems reasonable to me if its in the spec. Thanks for the contribution! Would you mind adding a test for the 201 case just so we are covered? :)

@gabrielboucher
Copy link
Contributor Author

The test is already there

@jcrugzz
Copy link
Contributor

jcrugzz commented Aug 11, 2016

ha, looking too quickly. thanks for keeping me on my toes :)

@jcrugzz jcrugzz merged commit 183b5bb into http-party:master Aug 11, 2016
@gabrielboucher gabrielboucher deleted the fix-host-rewiriting branch August 11, 2016 17:46
smh added a commit to smh/node-http-proxy that referenced this pull request Mar 4, 2017
Updates options documentation for location rewrite to include 201 responses. See http-party#1024
indexzero pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 22, 2019
Updates options documentation for location rewrite to include 201 responses. See #1024
mcheshkov pushed a commit to gemini-testing/node-http-proxy that referenced this pull request Sep 16, 2019
Updates options documentation for location rewrite to include 201 responses. See http-party#1024
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.

2 participants