-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
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
add support for raw context.Context in keyauth middleware #3287
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
pretty straightforward option to use context.Context instead of just fiber.Ctx, tests added accordingly.
Thanks for opening this pull request! 🎉 Please check out our contributing guidelines. If you need help or want to chat with us, join us on Discord https://gofiber.io/discord |
Important Review skippedDraft detected. Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the You can disable this status message by setting the Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
pretty straightforward option to use context.Context instead of just fiber.Ctx, tests added accordingly.
Description
as discussed in #3212 and #3175, some of the middleware would benefit from exposing support for raw context.Context, for usage outside of the HTTP layer. this is the first out of 3 pull requests for middlewares that are deemed necessary to support this as of now.
Type of change
Draft
i'm opening this as a draft PR as of now, if it aligns with what the issues requested, i'm happy to update the documentation and benchmarks, i feel like it's correct tho, since it basically mirrors the implementation and usage of the same feature for requestID (from #3200).