-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.2k
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
[4.x] Add test for 103 handling #8055
Conversation
@@ -347,6 +349,10 @@ class MockResponse : Cloneable { | |||
|
|||
override fun toString() = status | |||
|
|||
fun addInformationalResponseInternal(informationalResponse: MockResponse): MockResponse = apply { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is not great, but seems better to have some limited support without the bigger change of backporting.
cc @swankjesse
.post(RequestBody.create("abc", MediaType.get("text/plain"))) | ||
.build(); | ||
executeSynchronously(request) | ||
.assertFailure(SocketTimeoutException.class); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Showing we don't handle this well.
cc @swankjesse
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍🏻
@@ -1026,6 +1026,13 @@ class MockWebServer : ExternalResource(), Closeable { | |||
readBody = true | |||
} | |||
|
|||
peek.informationalResponses.forEach { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
FWIW, I dislike forEach
as an alternative to for(...)
. It’s needlessly complex to step-debug!
No description provided.