-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.4k
repository_ctx: avoid duplicate Accept headers when user specifies one #28455
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
Open
ijuren8
wants to merge
2
commits into
bazelbuild:master
Choose a base branch
from
ijuren8:feat/allow-custom-accept-headers
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+32
−2
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
The new
addAcceptHeadersmethod changes the behavior from unconditionally setting theAcceptheader (usingset) to conditionally adding it only if it's not already present. While this doesn't alter functionality for the current call sites, it introduces a subtle semantic change for aprotectedmethod. To maintain the original, simpler semantics and avoid potential confusion for future developers using this method, it's recommended to usesetunconditionally. This makes the method's behavior more explicit: it ensures theAcceptheader is set to*/*.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.
Regarding set vs add: in this context both behave the same due to the surrounding if check, so the choice is largely stylistic. The method conditionally adds a default header, and using add matches the existing add* methods in the request-building chain.
Using set here could also be read as enforcing a value, even though the guard already prevents overwriting. A conditional setAccept(...) would feel a bit odd, whereas an add* method that conditionally calls .add() aligns better with the intent and naming.
That said, I’m happy to switch to set if that’s preferred for consistency or readability.