Closed dennyb87 closed 7 months ago
I'm not convinced the documentation was ever right it that we should change the code to comport
I see, if that's the case feel free to close the pull request, fixing the documentation would do as well, although returning the response seemed useful.
Yeah I'd want Nate's input too when he has time. I'm more inclined to fix the docs
This looks wrong. The documentation being linked in the original issue is not our documentation, it's Kenneth's 3.x fork. This was a requested feature several years ago to allow for more functional programming with something like response.raise_for_status().content
which was rejected. If Kenneth added it to his 3.x branch, that's not something we'll be supporting.
I'm not able to find this line in any of our public docs, but if you are able to, please provide a link. I'm going to close this PR out as won't fix since this isn't expected behavior, we can discuss any instances of this in the official docs in the tracking issue. Thanks!
Fix
raise_for_status()
behaviour to comply with documentation as per issue #6683. In particular, makes it return the response to ease chaining in trivial cases.