Carlos Fuentes
Carlos Fuentes
>I think that we can't integrate this feature in the fastify.register() stuff because at that point we already configured the internal config (not 100% sure) > >If we want to...
I'm finding quite more hidden testing situations that might need to be sorted out; the cherry-pick sadly was not completely clean.
There are a few tests that will be interesting to migrate to the new interceptor setup, but those will take more time so I'd skip them from now. But the...
Will create a new one from scratch, the cherry-pick on this one went out of hand
The suggestion of the callback is exactly what we wanted to avoid to give more ergonomics to provide inversion of control and hint the handler when to execute the further...
Of returning `boolean` or `number`? - That will mean another breaking change and deprecation notice for v6 - we wanted to enable use cases where caller wants to use async...
> But yes, simply exposing the built-in `retry-after` handling function is the easiest approach. People will provide their version of `retry` function, and in that `retry` function they can call...
That was somehow the point, provide out-of-box implementation that its a good default, and leave more customized implementations up to the implementer. One thing that I've been thinking about, is...
I imagine this can be reproducible with a simple http2 server that replies with `goaway` frame. If you can find a way to provide an [Minimum Reproducible Example](https://stackoverflow.com/help/minimal-reproducible-example) that isolates...
Thanks! I'll add it as tests case; already have WIP