docs: client: clarify handshake error conditions #965
+4 −1
Conversation
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
The purpose of this change is to set this behavior in stone, so that, for example, introducing "follow redirects" by default would be a breaking change. The [WebSocket spec](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6455) actually allows the client to follow redirects: > the server might redirect the client using a 3xx status code (but clients are not required to follow them) I think this library should be explicit about whether it does this. I feel like the existing "...so that callers can handle redirects, authentication, etcetera" is not worded strongly enough. Signed-off-by: WofWca <wofwca@protonmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
1 participant
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 Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What type of PR is this? (check all applicable)
Description
The purpose of this change is to set this behavior in stone, so that, for example, introducing "follow redirects" by default would be a breaking change. The WebSocket spec actually allows the client to follow redirects:
I think this library should be explicit about whether it does this.
I feel like the existing "...so that callers can handle redirects, authentication, etcetera" is not worded strongly enough.
Background: I'm working on an application that makes connections to arbitrary addresses, so a target WebSocket server might be malicious. Thus I want to limit the scope of what a malicious server can do. For example, ensure that it's not gonna redirect the client to a private address, or to a DDoS target.
Related Tickets & Documents
Added/updated tests?
Run verifications and test
make verifyis passingmake testis passing