before filter for >= 0.10.0

[kushkella]

As of 0.9.0 version of gem before filter was only called for the version block within which it was defined. But from 0.10.0 it is being called for all version blocks as long as we don't group them as a resource/group/namespace. e.g.

class Test < Grape::API
  resource :foo do
    version 'v1', :using => :path do
      before do
        puts 'foo'
      end
      get '/' do
        # something
      end
    end

    version 'v1', :using => :path do
      before do
        puts 'bar'
      end
      get '/:id' do
        # something
      end
    end
  end
end

when using 0.9.0 when I request GET /foo/1, the resource will only log "bar". But with 0.10.0 it will log both "foo" and "bar" as long as both version blocks are not individually wrapped inside a blank namespace/resource/group etc.

It would be great if you could explain if this is the desired behavior. Thanks!

[dblock]

Very interesting. If anything this is a regression and we should document it in UPGRADING.md - would appreciate a PR.

I am honestly not sure what we want here. The version block is not something that even has to be a block, it has scope for whatever follows it as well. I am inclined to say that this is what we want by design and the workaround is to use namespace. That said, I could easily argue the opposite.

Would love to hear what others have to say.

[kushkella]

Sure, I will create a PR.

I don't really like using version without a block. It is easy to read version of a specific resource-method if it is wrapped inside a version block. I started off with using version the way you described, but since we have so many methods/paths listed under a resource, it gets cumbersome to track versions without wrapping them in a version block.

And we use path for versioning, so we can easily switch to namespace/group etc. But I think we should treat version as something similar to namespace. The only difference being that version can be specified in path, header etc.

[dblock]

I think I agree. Lets treat it as a regression for now that we should be fixing, want to try to do that?

[kushkella]

Sure, I'll give it a shot and keep you posted. Meanwhile I try that, I'll document this behavior and create a PR. Thanks!

[kushkella]

If possible, please release a new version of Grape soon. I'll really appreciate that. Thanks!

[dblock]

Will do.

[dblock]

I believe this was fixed by #901, closing. Please reopen @kushkella if I misunderstood something.