tests/util: Replace Response::assert_status() with Response::status()
#3061
Conversation
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #3062) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. Note that reviewers usually do not review pull requests until merge conflicts are resolved! Once you resolve the conflicts, you should change the labels applied by bors to indicate that your PR is ready for review. Post this as a comment to change the labels: |
Turbo87
force-pushed
the
status
branch
3 times, most recently
from
4baba4c to
62c91a7
Compare
Turbo87
force-pushed
the
status
branch
3 times, most recently
from
1ab8772 to
7ef8a01
Compare
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #3097) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. Note that reviewers usually do not review pull requests until merge conflicts are resolved! Once you resolve the conflicts, you should change the labels applied by bors to indicate that your PR is ready for review. Post this as a comment to change the labels: |
Turbo87
force-pushed
the
status
branch
6 times, most recently
from
1d09802 to
03c44cd
Compare
Turbo87
force-pushed
the
status
branch
3 times, most recently
from
8a239a9 to
f0bc9d6
Compare
Turbo87
force-pushed
the
status
branch
2 times, most recently
from
fde194a to
bfc4bb5
Compare
…s()` `Response::status()` is easier to use, slightly less verbose in most cases, and does not hide the implementation details as much.
|
Where is |
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 5f8d96f has been approved by |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Response::status()seems easier to use to me and doesn't hide the actual assertion. It also allows us to access things likeStatusCode::is_success()directly.r? @jtgeibel