public interface for regression tests? about mux.jl HOT 4 OPEN

Yes, I think we should at least document how to test without opening sockets.

I don't think this is only useful for regression testing.

All you need to do is response = yourappname.warez(HTTP.Request(blah)) but the warez field is private at the mo. (The http_handler stuff doesn't do all that much, really).

I don't know what the public interface should be, opinions welcome or I'll just experiment :)

The normal way to get a string from a vector of bytes would be String(bytes) or String(take!(bytes)), btw. No need to wrap in an IOBuffer. Or you can copy(bytes) if you don't want it mutated.

from mux.jl.

Perhaps make Mux.App callable?

 (app::App)(req::Request)::Response = app.warez(req)
 (app::App)(method, location) = app(Request(method, location))

Oh, I dislike http_handler magic with regard to converting a Dict to a Response object anyway. That might be a good candidate for removal.

from mux.jl.

I talked about removing mk_response in another PR and might do that.

Making App callable is what I was thinking of doing, too, but I haven't thought it all through yet :)

I'd probably just define this if I did:

(app::App)(x) = app.warex(x)

I don't think it's our responsibility to provide easier ways of creating HTTP request objects, or if we did do that, it can be in a Mux.Request function or something?

from mux.jl.

I think mk_response is rather specialized and could be implemented in user code if someone wanted, so yea, I support removing it as #129 mentions.

Making the definition, (app::App)(x) = app.warex(x) seems obvious/useful.

It's not Mux responsibility to create HTTP request objects. There is one bit of code that checks if an object is showable via "text/html, setting "Content-Type" appropriately -- that might be useful to keep.

from mux.jl.