In order to allow the charm to be backwards compatible, change the
websocket url code to prefer socket_port and/or socket_protocol if they
are also provided with socket_url in the configuration. Added tests.
Moved pertinent code from index.html to app because it was easier to
test there.
*** Submitted:
Prefer socket_port and socket_protocol
In order to allow the charm to be backwards compatible, change the
websocket url code to prefer socket_port and/or socket_protocol if they
are also provided with socket_url in the configuration. Added tests.
Moved pertinent code from index.html to app because it was easier to
test there.
R=bcsaller, bac, jeff.pihach /codereview. appspot. com/7703047
CC=
https:/
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/7703047/ diff/1/ app/app. js
File app/app.js (right):
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/7703047/ diff/1/ app/app. js#newcode276 'socket_ protocol' );
app/app.js:276: socket_protocol = this.get(
On 2013/03/13 17:41:15, bac wrote:
> Don't we prefer 'one var per declaration'?
Done.
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/7703047/ diff/1/ app/app. js#newcode276 'socket_ protocol' );
app/app.js:276: socket_protocol = this.get(
On 2013/03/13 17:47:43, jeff.pihach wrote:
> Should these not be camelCased?
Done.
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/7703047/ diff/1/ app/app. js#newcode281
app/app.js:281: socket_protocol = socket_protocol || 'ws';
On 2013/03/13 17:47:43, jeff.pihach wrote:
> I wonder if we shouldn't default this to 'wss' instead of 'ws'
thoughts?
I thought and then agreed. :-) Done.
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/7703047/