Skip to content
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

[16.0][IMP] webservice: allow to return response object on http calls #48

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Nov 25, 2024

Conversation

JordiMForgeFlow
Copy link
Contributor

you may need to use information on the headers of the response

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @etobella,
some modules you are maintaining are being modified, check this out!

Copy link
Member

@HviorForgeFlow HviorForgeFlow left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code review 👍

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This PR has the approved label and has been created more than 5 days ago. It should therefore be ready to merge by a maintainer (or a PSC member if the concerned addon has no declared maintainer). 🤖

Copy link
Contributor

@simahawk simahawk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we really need a field for this?
Can't we have a param to achieve the same?
Maybe you can explain a bit more about your use case?

@JordiMForgeFlow
Copy link
Contributor Author

@simahawk you mean to pass it as a parameter in the kwargs of the _request method?

The use case is basically that I need to extract some information of the headers of the response, so I need the result of the _request to not be only the content

@simahawk
Copy link
Contributor

@simahawk you mean to pass it as a parameter in the kwargs of the _request method?

Yes, eg: content_only=True or full_response=False.

The use case is basically that I need to extract some information of the headers of the response, so I need the result of the _request to not be only the content

But it means that you don't do this programmatically and you are calling backend.call directly which means you have full control over the call, right?

@JordiMForgeFlow
Copy link
Contributor Author

@simahawk yes, I am calling backend.call directly, so I should be able to pass it as a parameter. I will propose the change.

Copy link
Member

@HviorForgeFlow HviorForgeFlow left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Some reference about content_only kwarg in the README would be nice :)

@JordiMForgeFlow JordiMForgeFlow force-pushed the 16.0-imp-webservice-http_response branch from 553dcf5 to 85cf5c0 Compare July 4, 2024 11:35
@JordiMForgeFlow
Copy link
Contributor Author

@simahawk could we get this one merged? :)

Copy link

There hasn't been any activity on this pull request in the past 4 months, so it has been marked as stale and it will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs in the next 30 days.
If you want this PR to never become stale, please ask a PSC member to apply the "no stale" label.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically. label Nov 24, 2024
@JordiMForgeFlow
Copy link
Contributor Author

@simahawk could we get this one merged?

@etobella
Copy link
Member

/ocabot merge minor

@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

This PR looks fantastic, let's merge it!
Prepared branch 16.0-ocabot-merge-pr-48-by-etobella-bump-minor, awaiting test results.

@OCA-git-bot OCA-git-bot merged commit a71ddcb into OCA:16.0 Nov 25, 2024
4 of 7 checks passed
@OCA-git-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Congratulations, your PR was merged at 9bb851b. Thanks a lot for contributing to OCA. ❤️

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved merged 🎉 ready to merge stale PR/Issue without recent activity, it'll be soon closed automatically.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants