Conversation
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #952 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 75.69% 75.01% -0.69%
==========================================
Files 61 61
Lines 2786 2886 +100
==========================================
+ Hits 2109 2165 +56
- Misses 523 566 +43
- Partials 154 155 +1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
I am traveling rn, will take a look probably Tuesday! |
This uses a single struct for the authentication. This prevents further re-requesting of the already requested data.
| clientElevated := g.Group("") | ||
| { | ||
| clientElevated.Use(authentication.RequireElevatedClient) | ||
| clientElevated.POST("/client:elevate", clientHandler.ElevateClient) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe /client/:id/elevate is more REST-y?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've got this from here: https://google.aip.dev/136 though I'm not sure how common this actually is. I don't really have a preference, do you have one?
PS: Thanks for the review!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's okay, I prefer using REST as that matches as the current "vibe" of designs, but I'm not going to insist on it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've changed this to /client/:id/elevate, you're right, this is more consistent with other apis e.g. /application/:id/image.
The types aren't needed, and are provided by the package.
2 participants
step-up.webm
Fixes #944