JSON-RPC request Content-Type is application/json #29946
Conversation
|
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. Code CoverageFor detailed information about the code coverage, see the test coverage report. ReviewsSee the guideline for information on the review process.
If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update. ConflictsReviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first. |
|
🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Make sure to run all tests locally, according to the Possibly this is due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure. |
|
IIRC we do return |
3e908b1 to
f90a84d
Compare
|
Removed bugfix given this is a doc/test only change. |
|
Code review ACK f90a84d |
|
🐙 This pull request conflicts with the target branch and needs rebase. |
|
Code review ACK f90a84d, but I think it would be helpful to change description to something like "doc: specify json content type in rpc examples" because the current description doesn't make it obvious that this is a documentation change, not a change in behavior. PR also needs to be rebased since #27101 was just merged and it conflicts |
|
Picked this up in #30215, given this is a very straightforward change, that just needed rebase and the commit message fixing. |
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
Sorry, something went wrong.
3c08e11 doc: JSON-RPC request Content-Type is application/json (Luke Dashjr) Pull request description: Specify json content type in RPC examples. Picks up #29946. Which needed rebasing and the commit message fixing, ACKs for top commit: laanwj: ACK 3c08e11 tdb3: ACK for 3c08e11 Tree-SHA512: 770bbbc0fb324cb63628980b13583cabf02e75079851850170587fb6eca41a70b01dcedaf1926bb6488eb9816a3cc6616fe8cee8c4b7e09aa39b7df5834ca0ec
This goes all the way back to #3246, and it's not clear why text/plain has been used throughout.
There seems to be a lack of specification of what the correct content-type is, but application/json seems correct and popular, and text/plain definitely isn't.