Allow specifying encoding for optional parts of multipart data #192
Conversation
This file contains 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
jimcottrell
force-pushed
the
multipart-encoding-required
branch
from
07882d4 to
56b2272
Compare
|
@jimcottrell would you mind to rebase this PR ? Or should I take care of if by myself ? |
|
Oh there is online conflict resolution tool now, nice |
|
Thanks @jimcottrell ! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Currently, any part of multipart data with an
encodingprovided in the spec will throw a validation error if it's not present in the body. As far as I know, providing anencodingvalue is not supposed to implyrequiredfor the part, so I've simply removed the check throwing an exception if a part doesn't exist when checking for a valid encoding.I've expanded the test spec for this case and for good measure, I've added a test showing that the schema validation takes place, though I think other multipart tests probably do cover that.
@lezhnev74 Do you know if I'm missing something on this?