Skip to content

Raise an ArgumentError unless a hook is called with a block #3377

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 12, 2025
Merged

Raise an ArgumentError unless a hook is called with a block #3377

merged 1 commit into from
Aug 12, 2025

Conversation

joshuay03
Copy link
Contributor

@joshuay03 joshuay03 commented May 2, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Description

Prerequisite: #3376

I don't see why hooks should be processed if a block is not given, and if it's being called that way it could be due to user error. This ensures an ArgumentError is raised unless a block is given when configuring hooks.

Your checklist for this pull request

  • I have reviewed the guidelines for contributing to this repository.
  • I have added (or updated) appropriate tests if this PR fixes a bug or adds a feature.
  • My pull request is 100 lines added/removed or less so that it can be easily reviewed.
  • If this PR doesn't need tests (docs change), I added [ci skip] to the title of the PR.
  • If this closes any issues, I have added "Closes #issue" to the PR description or my commit messages.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.
  • All new and existing tests passed, including Rubocop.

@joshuay03 joshuay03 mentioned this pull request May 2, 2024
Merged
7 tasks
@joshuay03 joshuay03 changed the title Update DSL hook processing logic to be consistent Raise an ArgumentError unless a hook is called with a block May 2, 2024
@joshuay03 joshuay03 marked this pull request as draft May 2, 2024 11:54
@dentarg
Copy link
Member

dentarg commented May 14, 2024

Should this be considered a breaking change and introduced with Puma 7?

@joshuay03
Copy link
Contributor Author

joshuay03 commented May 15, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Should this be considered a breaking change and introduced with Puma 7?

That makes sense to me 👍🏽 I think #3376 is fine to release before that?

@dentarg dentarg added feature breaking change v7 Breaking changes for v7 labels Jun 5, 2024
@dentarg dentarg added this to the 7.0.0 milestone Jun 5, 2024
@joshuay03 joshuay03 mentioned this pull request Oct 16, 2024
Merged
7 tasks
@nateberkopec nateberkopec added the waiting-for-changes Waiting on changes from the requestor label Nov 29, 2024
@joshuay03 joshuay03 force-pushed the raise-argument-error-on-block-less-hooks branch 4 times, most recently from 02a69f0 to b021113 Compare December 2, 2024 22:40
@joshuay03 joshuay03 marked this pull request as ready for review December 2, 2024 22:40
@github-actions github-actions bot added waiting-for-review Waiting on review from anyone and removed waiting-for-changes Waiting on changes from the requestor labels Dec 2, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added waiting-for-merge and removed waiting-for-review Waiting on review from anyone labels Dec 11, 2024
@joshuay03 joshuay03 force-pushed the raise-argument-error-on-block-less-hooks branch from b021113 to 477269c Compare August 2, 2025 02:08
@schneems
Copy link
Contributor

LGTM, thanks for the contribution!

@schneems schneems merged commit 16f13ad into puma:master Aug 12, 2025
83 checks passed
@joshuay03 joshuay03 moved this from In Progress / Pending Review to Done in Open Source Aug 12, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@nateberkopec nateberkopec nateberkopec approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
breaking change feature v7 Breaking changes for v7
Projects
None yet
Milestone
7.0.0
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@joshuay03 @dentarg @schneems @nateberkopec