Open
Conversation
... in anticipation of adding additional HTTP manager / request settings.
Contributor
Author
|
The latest build errors look like issues with the builder themselves. Is there anyway to retry the builds? |
Contributor
Author
|
CC: @krdlab. |
Contributor
Author
|
NB this PR may be moot, I've realized that the important functions which need a modified We could improve the interface a bit more by using a custom Monad that just wraps |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The primary reason for this change is to pave the way for user-defined HTTP manager / request settings that need to be carried with the OIDC settings (but do not really belong in the data type itself). ReaderT is more natural anyway for carrying the OIDC settings around to all the different functions that need it.
There's some very minor refactoring activity (e.g using local let bindings instead of where bindings), I tried to keep it specific to the addition of the ReaderT type though.
I know this is an API lift, so it likely requires a new minor version bump if this change is accepted.