sparklemotion / sparklemotion/http-cookie
Consider ditching domain_name?
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Ruby
- Stars
- 135
- Forks
- 55
- Avg merge
- 1m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 4
Description
domain_name transitively pulls in unf which in turn pulls in unf_ext. We've gotten some complaints about this in http.rb:
Is it really necessary, and is the transitive dependency on a native extension worth it?
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
No files or tests are named. Trace the dependency declaration and the uses of domain_name, then assess whether it can be removed without changing cookie behavior; done means resolving the dependency question and avoiding the unf and unf_ext transitive native-extension dependency if replacement is viable.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- ruby
- Domain
- networking
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100