issue_comments: 855278540

This data as json

html_url issue_url id node_id user created_at updated_at author_association body reactions issue performed_via_github_app
https://github.com/simonw/datasette/issues/1238#issuecomment-855278540 https://api.github.com/repos/simonw/datasette/issues/1238 855278540 MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDg1NTI3ODU0MA== 9599 2021-06-05T18:33:25Z 2021-06-05T18:33:25Z OWNER

Got the test to pass by ensuring the tests don't accidentally double-rewrite the path.

Ran into a new problem: ``` @pytest.mark.asyncio @pytest.mark.parametrize( "prefix,expected_path", [(None, "/asgi-scope"), ("/prefix/", "/prefix/asgi-scope")] ) async def test_client_path(datasette, prefix, expected_path): original_base_url = datasette._settings["base_url"] try: if prefix is not None: datasette._settings["base_url"] = prefix response = await datasette.client.get("/asgi-scope") path = response.json()["path"]

      assert path == expected_path

E AssertionError: assert '/asgi-scope' == '/prefix/asgi-scope' E - /prefix/asgi-scope E ? ------- E + /asgi-scope `` That test confirms that messing around with thebase_url` doesn't modify the ASGI scope... but the fix I'm using for this issue DOES modify the ASGI scope.

The question raised here is: should the ASGI scope stay unmodified when base_url is used?

I think it should. It doesn't make sense to obscure the "real" path just to get custom pages to work properly.

 
{
    "total_count": 0,
    "+1": 0,
    "-1": 0,
    "laugh": 0,
    "hooray": 0,
    "confused": 0,
    "heart": 0,
    "rocket": 0,
    "eyes": 0
}
 813899472