Allow passing of content in request with file type body #1326
Conversation
dev-sharma-08
force-pushed
the
feature/allow-passing-content-for-body-type-file
branch
from
6b05594
to
398b771
Compare
dev-sharma-08
force-pushed
the
feature/allow-passing-content-for-body-type-file
branch
from
398b771
to
36258a7
Compare
Codecov Report
❗ Your organization is not using the GitHub App Integration. As a result you may experience degraded service beginning May 15th. Please install the Github App Integration for your organization. Read more. @@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #1326 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 100.00% 100.00%
=========================================
Files 37 37
Lines 2167 2164 -3
Branches 658 658
=========================================
- Hits 2167 2164 -3
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dev-sharma-08 Can we add tests for cases where non-serialisable data is passed?
dev-sharma-08
force-pushed
the
feature/allow-passing-content-for-body-type-file
branch
from
a55ea86
to
41e8f4f
Compare
dev-sharma-08
force-pushed
the
feature/allow-passing-content-for-body-type-file
branch
from
41e8f4f
to
c2befcc
Compare
| }, | ||
| rBody = new RequestBody(definition); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(rBody.toJSON()).to.eql(definition); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What would the result of serialisation of a ReadStream be? Wouldn't it be unusable? Do we want to keep this? @codenirvana
There was a problem hiding this comment.
toJSON() will have no effect on the readStream. It will remain usable, I have checked this.
Regarding wether we want to keep it @codenirvana can share his opinion.
codenirvana
deleted the
feature/allow-passing-content-for-body-type-file
branch
This is being done to accept buffer data in file body.