Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Issue #2217 "Enhances line terminator for chunk-size in Chunked Transfer Coding #2218

Conversation

carryel
Copy link
Contributor

@carryel carryel commented Dec 16, 2024

  • When the org.glassfish.grizzly.http.STRICT_CHUNKED_TRANSFER_CODING_LINE_TERMINATOR_RFC_9112 option is enabled, only CRLF is allowed as the chunk-size line terminator in Chunked Transfer Coding.
  • Added testcase depending on whether option is present or not.

parsingState.checkpoint2(extra parsing state field) was not used in chunked transfer coding.
This was added to verify the CR before LF.
If it were not provided as an option, the code logic could be cleaner, but I provided it as an option within the range that does not affect stability and existing operation as much as possible.

arjantijms and others added 20 commits September 27, 2023 11:31
Signed-off-by: Arjan Tijms <[email protected]>
Update versions in poms and adjust pom where needed for that
This way subclasses making use of this ctor can set parameters without
getting NPE.

Signed-off-by: Arjan Tijms <[email protected]>
Create empty SSL parameters in protected ctor
Signed-off-by: Arjan Tijms <[email protected]>
Fixes eclipse-ee4j#2192 - Grizzly 2.4.4/4.0.0 missing Content-Type in response
Update main branch with stray commits from other branches
…hunked Transfer Coding" (eclipse-ee4j#2217)

+ When the org.glassfish.grizzly.http.STRICT_CHUNKED_TRANSFER_CODING_LINE_TERMINATOR_RFC_9112 option is enabled, only CRLF is allowed as the chunk-size line terminator in Chunked Transfer Coding.
+ Added testcase depending on whether option is present or not
@carryel carryel requested a review from arjantijms December 23, 2024 01:29
@pzygielo
Copy link
Contributor

Unclear target branch - should it be master (as is) or main?

@carryel
Copy link
Contributor Author

carryel commented Dec 24, 2024

@pzygielo When I look at the source tree, it looks like main is correct. I'm wondering if I should clean up the PR based on main again, or if I should merge it to master first and then move it to main.

@carryel
Copy link
Contributor Author

carryel commented Dec 24, 2024

Moved to #2220

@carryel carryel closed this Dec 24, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants