This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 10, 2024. It is now read-only.
Pull out common code from both get and post of the recovery handler
#2886
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
Deploying matrix-authentication-service-docs with
|
| Latest commit: |
bf4f517
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://cc09d19f.matrix-authentication-service-docs.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://rei-recovery-common-code.matrix-authentication-service-docs.pages.dev |
sandhose
reviewed
Jul 8, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm really not sure about this pattern. I wonder if instead, we should have a common handler, and extract the http::Method and make the form Optional, and diverge depending on those? And then in the router get(views::recovery::finish::handler).post(views::recovery::finish::handler)?
|
didn't consider that, that could work |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
From #2866 (comment)
It was bugging me to find out why we couldn't do this ... I wanted to witness the errors for myself and think about why it isn't Send+Sync etc.
Then it turned out it's fine.
It's a bit verbose (it's actually more code) but it does mean that we won't accidentally forget to update both checks at the same time, so I am mildly in favour, but happy to hear what you think