Closed MariusKl closed 5 years ago
Rather than doing that (Which is basically taking a ton of the heart away) would it be better if instead we allowed you to capture the request object provided by Feign?
You could hence perhaps take the request as a parameter and then use its internals to capture requestUrl/headers/etc - thoughts?
It's an idea. Would be fine for us. Mabe you can provide a single DTO Object that holds request, response and the body or the method that resolves it. Then Exception Constructors need less parameters and the DTO can be extended when things change...
Take a look at https://github.com/OpenFeign/feign-annotation-error-decoder/issues/18 - the idea is that it would then return a standard Feign Request object (look at https://github.com/OpenFeign/feign/blob/master/core/src/main/java/feign/Request.java) which you can then use to get resolved URI/Headers/etc if you want.
If that looks good, let's close this ticket out and upvote that one. Are you ok to give it a try at making the changes and I can review afterwards?
Thank you for adding this in #18
Hi,
I would like to use my own ExceptionGenerator to be free to add another field (requestUrl) to my exception. Could you adapt the AnnotationErrorDecoder to be able to pass an ExceptionGeneratorBuilder to this class?
I thought about adding a new method
public Builder withExceptionGeneratorBuilder(ExceptionGenerator.Builder exceptionGenerator) { this.exceptionGenerator = exceptionGenerator; return this; }
to the AnnotationErrorDecoder, but due to the current design this would lead to a lot of changes in the ExceptionGenerator and ExceptionGeneratorBuilder classes and its design.