-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
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
Document how to handle action failures #157
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #157 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 98.18% 98.07% -0.12%
==========================================
Files 11 12 +1
Lines 828 985 +157
==========================================
+ Hits 813 966 +153
- Misses 15 19 +4
|
|
||
====================== | ||
Handling action errors | ||
====================== |
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.
There is a lot of code in this section; I wonder if we should make it a part of the library itself instead.
It seems like a general theme: if action failed, should the response be considered a success or a failure? The current default is success, but it seems that making it a failure is better (with an option to get back), as it allows to detect more issues.
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.
deedfff does this for the middleware. Do we want to do something about the cache policy, or is it OK to keep that documentation-only?
Resolves #118, resolves #119, resolves #120.
To do: