-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32
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
Fix regex substitution for warden and empty?
errors for Rack
#88
Fix regex substitution for warden and empty?
errors for Rack
#88
Conversation
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ | |||
# frozen_string_literal: true | |||
|
|||
module Honeycomb | |||
# Methods for extracing common warden/devise fields from a rack env hash | |||
# Methods for extracting common warden/devise fields from a rack env hash |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nice. Thank you :-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks these look like excellent finds! It would be great to have this as two PRs one for the rack fix and one for the warden fix
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ def last_name | |||
end | |||
|
|||
def created_at | |||
Time.now | |||
Time.new 2002, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
what was this fixing?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No specific issue, just a general aversion to having variable dates in tests; I've fixed too many tests that flaked out due to time quirks. I can back it out if you want.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM but would like @martin308 to review before deciding whether to merge.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@irvingreid looks good. I pulled the code down and had a play and everything makes sense now!
Do you still want two separate PRs or is this one OK? |
@irvingreid I think we could pull one or two small things out but they are much smaller than I initially thought so let's just use this one. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for bearing with us |
Three things I found in testing the Rails beeline with our application:
empty?()
; Ruby only implements that method on collection types.false
value. If this is intentional, fine, though I prefer to include it; there's a meaningful difference between "I don't have a value for that field" and "I have the valuefalse
for that field".