Add Message.Respond implementing #281 #283
Merged
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
- Adds Respond to Msg to simplify responses to Request-Reply - No longer clears Subscription.conn, until disposing
|
As much as I want to keep parity, imo we shouldn't change the exception being thrown. While unlikely users would run into that, it would break backward compatibility. We should keep the current exception... |
|
Thanks! LGTM. |
ColinSullivan1
approved these changes
Aug 27, 2019
Closed
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Implements #281 by adding Respond to Msg to simplify responses to Request-Reply.
I brought over the same changes to Subscription that landed in https://github.com/nats-io/nats.go/pull/489/files however this breaks TestConnection.TestClosedConnections which had certain assumptions about the exception messages.
Should we alter the unit test to keep parity with the go client, or should we alter the code to keep raising the same exception?