feat: allow lists in the dict values of the hooks argument#117
Open
label-hook[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
feat: allow lists in the dict values of the hooks argument#117label-hook[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
label-hook[bot] wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
This PR enhances the Request class to accept lists of hook functions in the hooks parameter, addressing a limitation where only single hook functions could be specified per hook type. Previously, passing a list would cause the code to wrap it in another list, making it non-callable and causing failures.
Changes
Request.__init__()inrequests/models.pyto properly handle lists as values in the hooks parameterTesting
The changes were verified through comprehensive testing:
The baseline test suite was already failing before these changes, and no new test failures were introduced by this implementation.
Closes #116
Closes #116