docs: Fix upload handler examples + add context#2704
Merged
Conversation
A few of our examples incorrectly called server-only functions at the top-level scope of a route module which will result in an error when they use Node globals. The examples were fixed and clarity added where needed. Addresses issue raised in #2248.
Contributor
Author
|
Looks like we have some outdated snapshots on |
machour
approved these changes
Apr 8, 2022
jacob-ebey
approved these changes
Apr 9, 2022
derenkeskin
reviewed
Apr 10, 2022
Co-authored-by: Deren Keskin <deren.keskin@gmail.com>
12 tasks
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
A few of our examples incorrectly called server-only functions at the top-level scope of a route module which will result in an error when they use Node globals. This PR fixes those examples and adds clarity where needed on the "gotchas" page.
This addresses the issue raised in #2248.