Concatenate parameters on Request/WebSocket discovery in requires()#1337
Conversation
Contributor
|
Ah I do like that solution better, but I don't think the order of kwargs is guaranteed. That shouldn't really matter when def print_args(*args, **kwargs):
print(list(kwargs.values()))
print_args(a=2,b=3)
print_args(b=3,a=2)results in [2,3]
[3,2] |
Contributor
|
I have been thinking about it a little more. I think I like my solution more because it runs in O(1) instead of O(n) (constructing and concatenating the tuple) and my solution is more correct because the order of kwarg is not used. My solution checks whether the args tuple contains request by checking whether the index of the request parameter falls within the tuple length.
In both cases the correct argument is used to find request. |
Owner
Author
|
You're right. |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This is an study about the differences between
StarletteandFastAPIusing theAuthenticationMiddleware. The problem is on howFastAPImanipulates the function signature, as we can see below:Starlette Application
Args:
(<main_starlette.Main object at 0x7f0f9e6da400>, <starlette.requests.Request object at 0x7f0f9e6d4370>)Kwargs:
{}FastAPI Application Working
Args:
()Kwargs:
{'request': <starlette.requests.Request object at 0x7fbc12d376d0>}FastAPI Application not working
Args:
(<main_fastapi.Main object at 0x7f03b57ef580>,)Kwargs:
{'request': <starlette.requests.Request object at 0x7f03b57fdac0>}To be fair, this will solve the issue on FastAPI, but it doesn't seem right for Starlette to consider this case.
For the above reason, I'm not very keen on having this merged. I'll let this PR live to see if anyone else has a different opinion.