Fixing an instance where http handlers could change the header state of a stored request. #75
Conversation
|
It would be incredible if we could integrate this into the 1.2-SNAPSHOT in the near future. I would much prefer to use managed dependencies in my projects. Thanks! |
|
I will definitely merge this in. I'm in the middle of a fairly large refactor, though – hence the delay. |
|
@robfletcher This project is of pretty large interest to me. I am interested in becoming a contributor to help jump this project into a more recently updated status. Would you care to enlist my free labor? |
|
Sure. I've just started working on a couple of large issues that will be the core of the next release – #66 and #85. I have just merged the feature branch I've been working on into master. It looks like that means some changes would need to be made to this pull request – probably just because the project has been split into multiple modules. It would be great to get some kind of a test to prove this change works as well. It's not immediately obvious from the change itself why this works where the previous implementation didn't. I'd definitely like to have more regular contributors to the project – if there are other features you'd be interested in working on let me know. |
|
@robfletcher If there is a way to send you a private message on GitHub, I am not aware. Do you want to continue to discuss here? |
|
I don't mind to carry on here but if you'd rather discuss privately you can email me rob@Betamax's maven group |
|
@robfletcher Email sent. Let me know if you didn't get it. |
|
Ah, so this is probably the issue I've been running into. 👍 for the merge! |
|
@pledbrook The repository is currently in a state of flux, but let me know if you need a short-term solution for this. |
|
I'm creating a 1.1.x branch to try to merge in this & @pledbrook's changes for a 1.1.3 release. |
|
@robfletcher Awesome :) |
|
Hmm actually it could be tricky. It looks like this change was made against a later version of code than 1.1.2 |
|
@robfletcher Yeah I don't doubt it. When I wrote this change, I did it against master thinking it could make it into 1.1.3. |
|
@robfletcher Do you want me to apply this to a 1.1.2 branch? |
|
Ah I think I just need to baseline from a layer revision On Friday, August 9, 2013, Sean Freitag wrote:
|
Prior to this fix, a request could be stored, and if it were replayed in the same tape session, it would add an X-Betamax header to the stored request. In this case, the tape would be written with these X-Betamax headers in them, and in my particular use case, would result in the occasional parse error.
The YAML should never contain any of the X-Betamax headers when persisted.