Closed hacdias closed 3 months ago
All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:
Project coverage is 60.57%. Comparing base (
2f8a18d
) to head (f96974f
).
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #603 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 59.72% 60.57% +0.84%
==========================================
Files 238 238
Lines 29831 29462 -369
==========================================
+ Hits 17817 17846 +29
+ Misses 10405 10001 -404
- Partials 1609 1615 +6
Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
gateway/gateway.go | 83.54% <ø> (ø) |
|
gateway/handler.go | 79.62% <100.00%> (+1.34%) |
:arrow_up: |
gateway/handler_car.go | 79.89% <100.00%> (+1.28%) |
:arrow_up: |
gateway/hostname.go | 74.36% <100.00%> (+0.17%) |
:arrow_up: |
@lidel before I open a PR for the specifications, we should decide what to do with CAR requests that contain "parameters" in the Accept
header itself (e.g. dups
, order
).
These cannot be translated into query URL parameters, so the Content-Location
header would not be fully correct. For now, I am not adding it. I wonder if we shouldn't instead make it possible to also set these parameters through the URL, or just keep is as it is.
@lidel I've opened a PR in the specs repository: https://github.com/ipfs/specs/pull/471
Addresses https://github.com/orgs/ipshipyard/projects/1/views/1?pane=issue&itemId=58406852 Close https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/issues/606
Specs PR: https://github.com/ipfs/specs/pull/471