Skip to content

Conversation

@dekellum
Copy link
Contributor

The StatusCode docs imply full coverage of IANA status codes and these two were added after the original implementation.

Its a highly safe change, but I'd wait for 1.0.0, treating it more like a new feature.

Closes #439

@c410-f3r
Copy link

c410-f3r commented Dec 5, 2021

@seanmonstar This PR is very trivial and shouldn't take much time to review

Copy link

@robjtede robjtede left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think being on the IANA list is a good enough candidacy requirement despite these being "experimental" RFCs.

Comment on lines -19 to +40
fn equates_with_u16() {
fn partial_eq_ne() {
let status = StatusCode::from_u16(200u16).unwrap();
assert_eq!(200u16, status);
assert_eq!(status, 200u16);
assert_ne!(status, 201u16);
assert_ne!(status, 0u16);

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Everything in this file strikes me as detritus from #451.

@seanmonstar
Copy link
Member

Sorry this languished. I agree, being "Proposed Standards" is a good time to support it.

I lean towards merging some of these things individually, so I merged the oldest PR with just EARLY HINTS (#758).

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.

StatusCode doesn't have TOO_EARLY and EARLY_HINTS variants

4 participants