Add Protect API #333
Merged
Add Protect API #333
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
macbre
approved these changes
May 5, 2022
|
Thanks! I'm planning to migrate tests suite to jest. This will make mocking way easier. |
|
I shall look forward to it! How often do you usually tag and release after new features land? |
Add an API call for the Protect API endpoint. This takes all of the arguments available for the Protect API.
andrewnicols
force-pushed
the
protectEndpoint
branch
from
b581098 to
52071e9
Compare
|
There hasn't been any active development in this repo recently. But I'll merge your changes soon and tag a release & publish it to npm. Thanks again for your fixes :) Welcome on board. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Add an API call for the Protect API endpoint.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Protect
This takes all of the arguments available for the Protect API.
I have provided tests where possible, but unfortunately vows provides no way to mock the Client to do any more than the very basics. I've tested this locally with my own site, though I'm not sure of the format for the timestamp to be able to verify that (though it is just passing in the value).
I've opted to only support the alternative expiry format - that is that where multiple protections exist, each has its own expiry date.