use wp_die() instead of header and exit for AJAX requests #160
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Use WP builtin wp_die() logic with overwritten response code 204 for AJAX jump-out after the tracking action. This allows other logic to clean up as designed while calling exit directly does not. It also makes unit testing easier.
bueltge
approved these changes
Jun 7, 2020
|
So much simpler and better. Need the die a message? If now, please merge them. |
|
With status 204 the given message is ignored anyway (just checked, with default 200 it is given in body). So I don't see any reason to pass one. |
patrickrobrecht
approved these changes
Jun 7, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Use WP builtin wp_die() logic with overwritten response code 204 for AJAX jump-out after the tracking action.
This allows other logic to clean up as designed while calling exit directly does not. It also makes integration testing easier (currently working on that).
I cannot remember why the Content-Type: application/javascript was necessary, but I guess it's just a residual artifact from previous logic.The Content-Type: application/javascript header is not required since the pseudo
<script>-tag has been replaced by an explicit XHR call in 1.6.3 (#92), so we can omit it without consequences here. (content type for "no content" does not really make sense anyway)