modify non-handler methods to not write a response #122
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
ewollesen
force-pushed
the
eric/only-handlers-write
branch
2 times, most recently
from
03f6a85
to
f36d90d
Compare
ewollesen
changed the title
tjotala
previously approved these changes
Sep 1, 2023
api/invite.go
Outdated
| a.logger.Infof("invited [%s] user is already a member of the care team of %v", ib.Email, invitorID) | ||
| log.Println(statusExistingMemberMessage) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just curious: any reason to bring this log.Println to the top-level code instead of leaving in checkAccountAlready...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nope, overzealous cut & paste. I'll fix really quick.
ewollesen
force-pushed
the
eric/only-handlers-write
branch
from
f36d90d
to
a1de665
Compare
In prepping the send invitation endpoint for care partner alerting, it has become necessary to have a new endpoint that won't error immediately when an invitee already has an accepted invitation from the invitor. Since checking for duplicate invitations is firmly in the realm of business logic, this separation also makes sense, as keeping transport logic (HTTP-related things) separate from business logic makes for easier understanding and simpler tests too. Part of BACK-2500
In prepping the send invitation endpoint for care partner alerting, it has become necessary to have a new endpoint that won't error immediately when an invitee already has an accepted invitation from the invitor. Since checking for Care Team membership is firmly in the realm of business logic, this separation also makes sense, as keeping transport logic (HTTP-related things) separate from business logic makes for easier understanding and simpler tests too. Part of BACK-2500
ewollesen
force-pushed
the
eric/only-handlers-write
branch
from
232da37
to
18d6bc3
Compare
|
Heh, had to force push to prevent that ugly merge commit. :D |
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.
In prepping the send invitation endpoint for care partner alerting, it has become necessary to have a new endpoint that won't error immediately when an invitee already has an accepted invitation from the invitor.
Since checking for duplicate invitations is firmly in the realm of business logic, this separation also makes sense, as keeping transport logic (HTTP-related things) separate from business logic makes for easier understanding and simpler tests too.
Part of BACK-2500