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

Issue 1853 empty content-encoding #1855

Merged
merged 18 commits into from
Jun 22, 2023
Merged

Issue 1853 empty content-encoding #1855

merged 18 commits into from
Jun 22, 2023

Conversation

flsh86
Copy link

@flsh86 flsh86 commented Jun 14, 2023

Before submitting pull request:

  • Check if the project compiles by running sbt compile
  • Verify docs compilation by running sbt compileDocs
  • Check if tests pass by running sbt test
  • Format code by running sbt scalafmt

@flsh86 flsh86 self-assigned this Jun 14, 2023
@flsh86 flsh86 requested review from adamw and kciesielski June 21, 2023 08:51
@flsh86 flsh86 marked this pull request as ready for review June 21, 2023 08:52
Copy link
Member

@kciesielski kciesielski left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Question Shouldn't this be a general filtering of all empty headers, with content-encoding being just an example? Looks like empty values are generally valid from the point of view of RFC, but pointless anyway. https://stackoverflow.com/a/12131993

@adamw
Copy link
Member

adamw commented Jun 21, 2023

@wydra98 ^ see the comment about empty header values

@kciesielski I think on the low-level, we should retain whatever is returned from the server; and the response.headers is a low-level representation (a multi map string -> string, basically). I agree that when we do any parsing (like when decoding the body), we should filter out empty values

@flsh86 flsh86 requested review from adamw and kciesielski June 21, 2023 12:19
@flsh86 flsh86 requested a review from adamw June 21, 2023 12:53
@flsh86 flsh86 merged commit fc4e610 into v3 Jun 22, 2023
@mergify mergify bot deleted the issue-1853-v3 branch June 22, 2023 07:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants