[test-runner] plugin `serve()` hook sees `/__web-dev-server__web-socket.js` request
See original GitHub issueThis seems to be a new change since upgrading from v0.7.xx to v0.9.0, where the serve()
plugin hook is firing for this request. This isn’t a blocker - we can ignore it in the plugin easily - but it is new behavior and a bit unexpected as a plugin author.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 3 years ago
- Comments:5 (2 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
[test-runner] Custom dev server? · Issue #471 - GitHub
Each request, including the initial test HTML and the test files, go through the serve hook in a plugin. So you could intercept...
Read more >21.1.0 API Reference - hapi.dev
The server object is the main application container. The server manages all incoming requests along with all the facilities provided by the framework....
Read more >React Hooks: How to make a POST request to server
I am a beginner.I am trying to implement a POST request from React.js in a simple form, ...
Read more >Delay-Accepting-Requests - Fastify
One of them is the onReady hook, which is useful for executing tasks right before the server starts accepting new requests. There isn't,...
Read more >
Top Related Medium Post
No results found
Top Related StackOverflow Question
No results found
Troubleshoot Live Code
Lightrun enables developers to add logs, metrics and snapshots to live code - no restarts or redeploys required.
Start Free
Top Related Reddit Thread
No results found
Top Related Hackernoon Post
No results found
Top Related Tweet
No results found
Top Related Dev.to Post
No results found
Top Related Hashnode Post
No results found
Is
@web/test-runner-commands
considered to be a builtin plugin? I’ve found that when I try to use it in one of my test files, I get errors (in vite, which is similar to snowpack) about an unresolved import of/__web-dev-server__web-socket.js
. From reading this issue, it sounded like that shouldn’t happen because that import should have been resolved/rewritten before it got to the vite plugin. Is that not correct?Thank you!