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
Add test for content-type overriding inside a plugin #1434
Conversation
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
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.
Apologies, the title misguided me
Sure, np :) We'd like to patch our server for the proto poisoning asap, so if you have any advice on how to fix that regression, I'll gladly take it :) |
@Marsup you’ll need to pass along the kDefaultJSONParser property in the buildContentParser function at the end of the file. That should do the trick. |
@mcollina Would my last commit do the trick? |
Yes! |
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
Sorry about that! @mcollina should we apply this change also in |
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
Yes. |
* Add test for content-type overriding inside a plugin * Copy default JSON parser from previous content type parser
This pull request has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
Checklist
npm run test
andnpm run benchmark
Latest minor broke our server, since it now generates new parser functions every time, the hasParser comparison fails. I only included a unit test so far to show the problem, I don't know how you want to address it so I'd happily take guidance on this one and make the changes, or feel free to merge the failing test and fix it if it's faster for you.