Add eof? method to NullIO? #1169
Merged
Conversation
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
olleolleolle
approved these changes
Dec 12, 2016
Contributor
olleolleolle
left a comment
olleolleolle
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is a good addition to this class.
It was helpful that you added a contextual Github link to the code that relies on this method.
Contributor
|
@nateberkopec This Rack commit began using |
Member
|
@olleolleolle I just added it to the commit message 👍 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Rack appears to be counting on eof? being defined on objects passed into its multipart parser, e.g. https://github.com/rack/rack/blob/master/lib/rack/multipart/parser.rb#L68 , but this method is not defined on Puma::NullIO. This created a problem for rack-2.0.1 and puma-3.6.0.
Perhaps, I am missing the full context, but it seems that it should simply return true.