Feature: Add Custom HTTP Headers and Method (via CLI and Programmatically)

[ericzorn93]

This feature allows the user to send custom HTTP headers to the JS API in order to introspect and parse the remote URL Swagger/OpenAPI schema. This has been updated for the CLI format as well. These changes will not cause any breaking changes to the API and/or user.

All tests are passing.

[ericzorn93]

Hey @drwpow, it won't let me add reviewers to this PR for some reason.

[drwpow]

Hey @drwpow, it won't let me add reviewers to this PR for some reason.

I believe you have to have repo access to do that. But feel free to just @- mention anyone, or I can add them myself.

[drwpow]

@ericzorn93 this is great! Very well-thought out, great execution, and thanks for improving the tests, too.

I’m happy to approve & merge this but let me know if you wanted additional reviewers as well.

[ericzorn93]

@drwpow you can feel free to merge, I may have other PRs in the future refining some tests. However, this functionality would be a great help. Thank you 😀

Also, cc: @gr2m @garyposter @scvnathan as additional approvers

[gr2m]

I'm sorry I don't have the bandwidth to review. But we gotta trust the tests. If something breaks, that's the fault of the test setup, not your PR :) Looks like great work, thank you!

[ericzorn93]

@gr2m Thank you. If we are good, do you or another maintainer mind merging as soon as you have a chance?

[ericzorn93]

@drwpow Sorry to bother you again, but if this PR is safe to merge, do you mind merging to master? I think this would be a great help for my personal use case and others as well 👍

[mbelsky]

This is a great feature that I'd really would like to have in this tool.

[gr2m]

Once you two are in agreement and confirmed that it's working, can you please ping Drew? It's up to him whether the added complexity is something he wants to maintain in the long term. You have my blessing, but I'm just helping out :)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #713 (eaf981c) into main (c35278a) will decrease coverage by 0.28%.
The diff coverage is 89.13%.

❗ Current head eaf981c differs from pull request most recent head 1b13ccf. Consider uploading reports for the commit 1b13ccf to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #713      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   96.35%   96.06%   -0.29%     
==========================================
  Files          12       13       +1     
  Lines         548      585      +37     
  Branches      194      201       +7     
==========================================
+ Hits          528      562      +34     
- Misses         19       22       +3     
  Partials        1        1              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/load.ts	91.24% <86.11%> (-0.35%)	⬇️
prettier.config.js	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/index.ts	96.66% <100.00%> (ø)
src/utils.ts	96.87% <100.00%> (+0.32%)	⬆️
src/transform/schema.ts	98.98% <0.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 56cc872...1b13ccf. Read the comment docs.

[gr2m]

sounds like you'll have to bump the coverage ☝🏼 it shouldn't drop

[ericzorn93]

@gr2m I have added a number of small tests for utility functions to attempt to bump coverage. I don't know how much more I can really increase unit test coverage of the load function without adding insignificant granular unit tests

[ericzorn93]

@gr2m all test coverage has been updated

[ericzorn93]

• Hey @gr2m, @mbelsky, and @drwpow. Sorry to be pushy, but my PR should be good to go with all requested changes and increased test coverage. Now, you can add headers individually like the CURL CLI, or via a JSON string.

Do you mind merging? Thank you so much.

This functionality would be great in my current project 🎉

[gr2m]

This functionality would be great in my current project 🎉

To take the pressure of, maybe publish your own fork for the time being? I don't know when @drwpow will have the time to review, and it's bad etiquette in independent Open Source projects to pressure maintainers like that, please don't do that.

[ericzorn93]

@gr2m I completely understand and did not think of that tbh. I will do this in the meantime. I apologize for any pressure I have put on the maintainers

[drwpow]

@ericzorn93 sorry for the delay on this! This library has been difficult for me to maintain the past few months. I went ahead and approved and merged this in #764, with a few changes as-noted. See that PR for more details.

This approach of merging your work in another PR is a bit unorthodox, and I apologize. Please check that off as a failure on my part to give you a timely review! If you’d like to adjust anything from my revisions, please open up another PR.

Overall I wanted to say again what a quality PR this was! Your JS Docs are excellent, your comments are excellent, and I am amazed at the amount of thought & care you put into this PR. And I apologize again for not merging this in sooner because it is quality work.

I’ll be shipping a new minor version with this feature soon!

[drwpow]

@all-contributors please add @ericzorn93 for code, test, docs

[allcontributors]

@drwpow

I've put up a pull request to add @ericzorn93! 🎉

[ericzorn93]

@drwpow No worries at all. I completely understand. I apologize for coming across pushy, I was just trying to incorporate this on a script that I have been working on.

I completely understand that maintaining widely used open source software can be a difficult task and very time consuming. This is a great repo!

Thanks for the kind words and I look forward to contributing more in the future 😀.

Thanks,
Eric