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

Do not strip body before JSON decoding + do not return None on empty … #3486

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 5, 2019

Conversation

socketpair
Copy link
Contributor

@socketpair socketpair commented Jan 4, 2019

…body (#3482)

This commit actually reverts 6a19364

What do these changes do?

Are there changes in behavior for the user?

Related issue number

Checklist

  • I think the code is well written
  • Unit tests for the changes exist
  • Documentation reflects the changes
  • If you provide code modification, please add yourself to CONTRIBUTORS.txt
    • The format is <Name> <Surname>.
    • Please keep alphabetical order, the file is sorted by names.
  • Add a new news fragment into the CHANGES folder
    • name it <issue_id>.<type> for example (588.bugfix)
    • if you don't have an issue_id change it to the pr id after creating the pr
    • ensure type is one of the following:
      • .feature: Signifying a new feature.
      • .bugfix: Signifying a bug fix.
      • .doc: Signifying a documentation improvement.
      • .removal: Signifying a deprecation or removal of public API.
      • .misc: A ticket has been closed, but it is not of interest to users.
    • Make sure to use full sentences with correct case and punctuation, for example: "Fix issue with non-ascii contents in doctest text files."

@socketpair socketpair force-pushed the empty_json branch 2 times, most recently from abe6fa7 to 03737bf Compare January 4, 2019 20:50
@socketpair socketpair merged commit 10a9295 into master Jan 5, 2019
@socketpair socketpair deleted the empty_json branch January 5, 2019 09:26
@lock
Copy link

lock bot commented Jan 5, 2020

This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been
any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for
related bugs.

If you feel like there's important points made in this discussion,
please include those exceprts into that new issue.

@lock lock bot added the outdated label Jan 5, 2020
@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 5, 2020
@psf-chronographer psf-chronographer bot added the bot:chronographer:provided There is a change note present in this PR label Jan 5, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
bot:chronographer:provided There is a change note present in this PR outdated
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants