issue_comments: 513279397
This data as json
| html_url | issue_url | id | node_id | user | created_at | updated_at | author_association | body | reactions | issue | performed_via_github_app |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/537#issuecomment-513279397 | https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/537 | 513279397 | MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDUxMzI3OTM5Nw== | 647359 | 2019-07-19T15:47:57Z | 2019-07-19T15:48:09Z | NONE | The middleware implementation there works okay with a router nested inside if the scope is *mutated*. (Ie. "endpoint" doesn't need to exist at the point that the middleware starts running, but if it *has* been made available by the time an exception is thrown, then it can be used.) Starlette's usage of "endpoint" there is unilateral, rather than something I've discussed against the ASGI spec - certainly it's important for any monitoring ASGI middleware to be able to have some kind of visibility onto some limited subset of routing information, and `"endpoint"` in the scope referencing some routed-to callable seemed general enough to be useful. | {"total_count": 0, "+1": 0, "-1": 0, "laugh": 0, "hooray": 0, "confused": 0, "heart": 0, "rocket": 0, "eyes": 0} | 463544206 |