Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove route_info from params (Close #789) #879

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 8, 2015

Conversation

rodzyn
Copy link
Contributor

@rodzyn rodzyn commented Jan 5, 2015

No description provided.

@dblock
Copy link
Member

dblock commented Jan 5, 2015

This definitely needs a CHANGELOG entry and possibly an UPGRADING note.

@rodzyn
Copy link
Contributor Author

rodzyn commented Jan 7, 2015

Updated

@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ Upgrading Grape

Grape now supports, but doesn't require Rack 1.6.0. If you encounter an issue with parsing requests larger than 128KB, explictly require Rack 1.6.0 in your Gemfile.

Key route_info is excluded from params. See [#879](https://github.com/intridea/grape/pull/879) for more information.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks confusing, the description is above a Gemfile example that relates to the note above. Make it two sections, something like:

### Added Rack 1.6.0 Support

...

### Removed route_info

Also please properly backquote things like params.

@rodzyn
Copy link
Contributor Author

rodzyn commented Jan 8, 2015

@dblock I was too rush, right. Changed

dblock added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 8, 2015
Remove route_info from params (Close #789)
@dblock dblock merged commit 3eea554 into ruby-grape:master Jan 8, 2015
@dblock
Copy link
Member

dblock commented Jan 8, 2015

Merged, thanks.

@jnv
Copy link

jnv commented Oct 14, 2015

Is there any other way how to get this information?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants