[WIP] Enable a configuration for skipping a saved search that uses the requ… #2153
Conversation
| @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ def set_current_search_session | |||
| end | |||
|
|
|||
| def find_search_session | |||
| if agent_is_crawler? | |||
| if agent_is_crawler? || skip_session_tracking? | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we go ahead and push agent_is_crawler? into the skip_session_tracking? method?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or, should this check get pushed up to record_search_parameters or before_action :set_current_search_session, if: ... around line 15?
| @@ -78,6 +78,13 @@ def agent_is_crawler? | |||
| crawler_proc.call(request) | |||
| end | |||
|
|
|||
| def skip_session_tracking? | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I haven't look at what track_search_session is, but what if we let it be a boolean and/or a lambda?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah that might be a better extendable approach. I'll look into that.
mejackreed
changed the title
…est and params object
barmintor
force-pushed
the
config-skip-saved-search
branch
from
8f8c025 to
4e0cc07
Compare
|
Not sure if people still want this, but it was in an awkward state of failing tests/requested changes/approved/needed rebase. I've rebased and put the fixups originally requested in. Do we still want this, or can we close this PR? |
barmintor
force-pushed
the
config-skip-saved-search
branch
from
4e0cc07 to
2ef9883
Compare
barmintor
force-pushed
the
config-skip-saved-search
branch
from
2ef9883 to
7b812ba
Compare
…est and params object
Very similar to approach for crawler, but semantically a bit different?
What do others think?