fix(assets/service_broker): Use RewindableInput middleware #1037
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
Makes rack.input rewindable, which this application expects since that was the default in Rack 2. Resolves the following error message when curling the `/config` endpoint: ``` undefined method `rewind' ```
ctlong
force-pushed
the
fix/assets/service_broker
branch
from
faf33a8
to
2d94558
Compare
davewalter
approved these changes
Jan 24, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Are you submitting this PR against the develop branch?
Yes
What is this change about?
Uses the RewindableInput middleware to recapture a Rack 2 expectation that no longer exists in Rack 3 – that the request.body is rewindable.
Resolves the following error message when curling the
/configendpoint:Please provide contextual information.
What version of cf-deployment have you run this cf-acceptance-test change against?
v37.0.0
Please check all that apply for this PR:
Did you update the README as appropriate for this change?
If you are introducing a new acceptance test, what is your rationale for including it CATs rather than your own acceptance test suite?
N/A
How many more (or fewer) seconds of runtime will this change introduce to CATs?
None
What is the level of urgency for publishing this change?
Tag your pair, your PM, and/or team!
None