Http stream support #212
Merged
Http stream support #212
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
castrodd
reviewed
Jan 30, 2024
castrodd
reviewed
Jan 30, 2024
castrodd
reviewed
Jan 30, 2024
castrodd
reviewed
Jan 30, 2024
castrodd
reviewed
Jan 30, 2024
castrodd
reviewed
Jan 30, 2024
castrodd
reviewed
Jan 30, 2024
castrodd
approved these changes
Jan 31, 2024
|
Was this released in the 4.2.0 release 2 weeks ago? If not, is there an ETA? |
|
No it wasn't, please see #97 (comment) |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
HTTP stream support should require minimal changes by the user. The only thing required is turning on this flag:
Otherwise it's up to them to use the existing HTTP request/response types as streams instead of buffers.
I've added end-to-end tests here which can be used as sample code for now: Azure/azure-functions-nodejs-e2e-tests#32
Lastly, the only known problem is that the
request.paramsobject will not be populated. Plenty of scenarios don't need this and users should be able to workaround the problem by parsing the url themselves, so I'd rather get this moving while we figure that specific feature out offline.Depends on v3.9.0 of the worker which has finished rolling out in Azure with host v4.28, but we don't have an official core tools release yet.
Related to #97
Related to #171