Code review comment for lp:~tartley/canonical-identity-provider/status-code-diagnostics
Revision history for this message
| Jonathan Hartley (tartley) wrote | # |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
f33e652
(Get the code!)
> LGTM with two caveats/comments.
>
> 1- Would .format() syntax be clearer/nicer? (I prefer .format but don't mind
> old % syntax)
> 2- If response is big, this will cause horrid test output spew. It might be
> desirable, or may not. Not sure there's a good alternative :/ truncating it
> might risk losing the actual part in conflict.
FWIW, the original code already output the response content, with potential spew. This change just adds the actual/expected response code too.
Having said that, truncating seems harmless. Worse case, for massive responses, the dev will need to do some more investigation.