Rewrite of PR #1103 + addition Android specific patches #1113

johnno1962 · 2017-07-11T18:42:41Z

Hi, This PR is a rewrite of #1103 after discussion that started just after it was merged. This is a restructuring of the Android specific api to provide the path to a certificates authorities file required for libcurl to work. It also includes a few other patches required for foundation to build for Android.

xwu · 2017-07-11T21:34:54Z

Foundation/Host.swift

+                    #else
+                    typealias maxhostlen_t = socklen_t
+                    #endif
+                    if getnameinfo(info.ai_addr, sa_len, host, maxhostlen_t(NI_MAXHOST), nil, 0, flags) == 0 {


What is going on here? The fourth argument should be of type size_t on all platforms, should it not? I'm not aware of any type known as maxhostlen_t. If necessary, you can simply use numericCast(NI_MAXHOST) on all platforms.

Thanks, top tip. Didin’t know about numericCast()!

xwu · 2017-07-11T21:39:31Z

Foundation/NSURLSession/http/EasyHandle.swift

-                    try! CFURLSession_easy_setopt_ptr(rawHandle, CFURLSessionOptionCAINFO, caInfo).asError()
-                }
-            }
+        if URLSession.sslUnsafeBypassPeerVerify {


Unsafe should not be part of this name. In Swift, "safe" and "unsafe" refer to memory safety and there is nothing unsafe about this particular property.

Furthermore, as this is a Boolean property, it should be named according to Swift guidelines for Boolean properties (i.e., it should begin with a verb such as "is," "has," or in this case "verify"). Probably best to align with underlying cURL usage and phrase this in the positive, as in: URLSession.verifyPeerSSLCertificate (default: true).

Now verifyPeerSSLCertificate.

xwu · 2017-07-11T21:40:56Z

Foundation/NSURLSession/http/EasyHandle.swift

+        else if let caInfo = URLSession._sslCertificateAuthorityFile {
+            try! CFURLSession_easy_setopt_int(rawHandle, CFURLSessionOptionSSL_VERIFYPEER, 1).asError()
+            try! CFURLSession_easy_setopt_ptr(rawHandle, CFURLSessionOptionCAINFO, caInfo).asError()
+        }


Else...? That is, what happens if the user wants verification but has a nil value for _sslCertificateAuthorityFile?

No bypass + no authority file == SSL not working.

xwu · 2017-07-11T21:41:36Z

Foundation/NSURLSession/http/EasyHandle.swift

+extension URLSession {
+    /// See https://curl.haxx.se/docs/sslcerts.html
+    /// For SSL to work you need a "cacert.pem" to be accessible at the
+    /// by setting URLSession.sslCertificateAuthorityFile to a file URL.


This sentence is ungrammatical--"to be accessible at the <what???> by setting"...

xwu · 2017-07-11T21:42:44Z

Foundation/NSURLSession/http/EasyHandle.swift

+    /// by setting URLSession.sslCertificateAuthorityFile to a file URL.
+    /// Downloadable here: https://curl.haxx.se/docs/caextract.html
+    /// Alternatively you can bypass SSL peer verification altogether:
+    /// URLSession.sslUnsafeBypassPeerVerify = true (not advised)


These doc comments should be affixed to the corresponding properties. Here, they are documenting a fileprivate static var, which is not useful in autogenerated documentation.

xwu · 2017-07-11T21:44:25Z

Foundation/NSURLSession/http/EasyHandle.swift

+            sslUnsafeBypassPeerVerify = false
+            free(_sslCertificateAuthorityFile)
+            guard value.isFileURL && FileManager.default.fileExists(atPath: value.path) else {
+                NSLog("*** sslCertificateAuthorityFile not FileURL or does not exist ***")


Put single quotes around properties (i.e. 'sslCertificateAuthorityFile').

"FileURL" is neither a real type name nor an English word.

Reword:

'sslCertificateAuthorityFile' does not represent a file that exists

xwu · 2017-07-11T21:47:05Z

Foundation/NSURLSession/http/EasyHandle.swift

+    /// Downloadable here: https://curl.haxx.se/docs/caextract.html
+    /// Alternatively you can bypass SSL peer verification altogether:
+    /// URLSession.sslUnsafeBypassPeerVerify = true (not advised)
+    fileprivate static var _sslCertificateAuthorityFile: UnsafeMutablePointer<Int8>?


Shouldn't this be _sslCertificateAuthorityFilePathPtr or something like that? It's not simply the backing variable for sslCertificateAuthorityFile.

xwu · 2017-07-11T21:48:47Z

Foundation/NSURLSession/http/EasyHandle.swift

+                return URL(fileURLWithPath: String(cString: value))
+            }
+            else {
+                return URL(fileURLWithPath: "NOVALUE")


Huh? There is a standard way to indicate the absence of something in Swift, and that's nil. This computed property should be of type URL?, and here the return value should be nil.

phausler · 2017-07-11T21:49:44Z

Foundation/NSURLSession/http/EasyHandle.swift

+            sslUnsafeBypassPeerVerify = false
+            free(_sslCertificateAuthorityFile)
+            guard value.isFileURL && FileManager.default.fileExists(atPath: value.path) else {
+                NSLog("*** sslCertificateAuthorityFile not FileURL or does not exist ***")


this should probably be fatal

phausler · 2017-07-11T21:50:16Z

Foundation/Host.swift

@@ -138,7 +140,12 @@ open class Host: NSObject {
                }
                let sa_len: socklen_t = socklen_t((family == AF_INET6) ? MemoryLayout<sockaddr_in6>.size : MemoryLayout<sockaddr_in>.size)
                let lookupInfo = { (content: inout [String], flags: Int32) in
-                    if getnameinfo(info.ai_addr, sa_len, host, socklen_t(NI_MAXHOST), nil, 0, flags) == 0 {
+                    #if os(Android)


our other guards in Foundation are outdented to the first column

phausler · 2017-07-11T21:51:18Z

Foundation/NSURLSession/http/EasyHandle.swift

+                return URL(fileURLWithPath: String(cString: value))
+            }
+            else {
+                return URL(fileURLWithPath: "NOVALUE")


again also should be fatal

ok, better than a nil I figure.

johnno1962 · 2017-07-11T22:37:07Z

Ready to roll?

xwu · 2017-07-11T22:46:36Z

Foundation/NSURLSession/http/EasyHandle.swift

+        else if let caInfo = URLSession._sslCertificateAuthorityFilePathPtr {
+            try! CFURLSession_easy_setopt_int(rawHandle, CFURLSessionOptionSSL_VERIFYPEER, 1).asError()
+            try! CFURLSession_easy_setopt_ptr(rawHandle, CFURLSessionOptionCAINFO, caInfo).asError()
+        }


Again, what happens if neither of these cases is true? It should be a fatal error, probably.

It may work one day if libcurl starts to support Android for SSL. Also, At this point we don’t know if the user is making an SSL request.

xwu · 2017-07-11T22:48:03Z

Foundation/NSURLSession/http/EasyHandle.swift

+    /// Downloadable here: https://curl.haxx.se/docs/caextract.html
+    public static var sslCertificateAuthorityFile: URL {
+        set(value) {
+            verifyPeerSSLCertificate = true


Setting sslCertificateAuthorityFile should not automatically flip the switch on the second, independent setting.

If the user bothered to turn off certificate verification, then it should stay off until it's explicitly flipped on again. Nothing about setting a file path for CA information implies that you'd automatically want to verify SSL certificates. That is, after all, the intuition that led you to separate these two things into two properties instead of one.

I’ll push back on this one. There is no point in setting the CA file if verifyPeerSSLCertificate isn’t true. This is for safety.

Then there should not be two distinct properties.

Does cURL automatically discard the one setting when the other is set? If not, then users would have no expectation that it's the case here.

Moreover, your implementation does nothing in particular to provide such "safety" if a user sets this property and then the Boolean. Doing one thing vs. another when two independent properties are set in a different order is difficult to reason about.

Originally there was only one property a string which could be null, a path or a dummy value. In some ways it was better but the code got to be a bit of a mess when we started using URLs. The only alternative would be some kind of magic enum that looked after the ownership of the file path pointer. While it’s interesting to meditate on making it airtight I think we need to draw a guillotine down on this. Its a very niche api. The api is at least simple which is a good start and it’s not so difficult to reason about. Between the two properties the last set takes effect though the coupling is regrettable its unavoidable.

Yes, I recall. I'm not arguing for a more complicated API. What I'm saying is, since you've chosen the path of presenting two properties, they should be independent of each other. This is consistent with user expectation both in Foundation and in cURL. Precisely because this is a niche API that will not be amply documented, it's important that these expectations are met. It is very surprising that...

NSSession.verifyPeerSSLCertificate = false NSSession.sslCertificateAuthorityFile = url

...gives a different result than...

NSSession.sslCertificateAuthorityFile = url NSSession.verifyPeerSSLCertificate = false

...keeping in mind that the default for verifyPeerSSLCertificate is true, so if a user wants that setting to be false, he or she will necessarily have to set that value somewhere explicitly.

I know of nowhere in the standard library or Foundation where setting one public property implicitly changes another public property, but not vice versa, in this way.

(This comment was in reference to the previous design. Let me think about this one. I like it better...)

While I enjoy our online jousts this one is getting a bit OTT :) An app dev has two choices: either set verifyPeerSSLCertificate to false (not advised but can be useful if you self-sign during development) or set sslCertificateAuthorityFile to a valid URL of a pem fille copied from app resources. If they do both the more secure option prevails. If they do neither SSL doesn’t work until libcurl supports Android. I’d realy like to keep this simple rather than create a minefield of interlocks that need to be implemented and documented.

I could put in another guard if it would help:

guard verifyPeerSSLCertificate else { fatalError("'sslCertificateAuthorityFile' set while peer verification disabled") } guard value.isFileURL && FileManager.default.fileExists(atPath: value.path) else { fatalError("'sslCertificateAuthorityFile' does not reference a file that exists: \(value.path)") }

I’d rather not implement get/set on verifyPeerSSLCertificate and introduce bugs.

Well, thanks for bearing with me. I do like this design better. No need for the fatalError guard since you've documented the behavior. In fact, I think I like it better without the additional guard, as the guard itself is triggered or not depending on the order in which the properties are set :P

Cool. Guard removed. My preference. Now, about elided newlines in multiline strings...

xwu · 2017-07-11T22:49:48Z

Foundation/NSURLSession/http/EasyHandle.swift

+            verifyPeerSSLCertificate = true
+            free(_sslCertificateAuthorityFilePathPtr)
+            guard value.isFileURL && FileManager.default.fileExists(atPath: value.path) else {
+                fatalError("'sslCertificateAuthorityFile' set: not file URL or does not exist ***")


How about let's use a grammatical error message: "'sslCertificateAuthorityFile' does not reference a file that exists"

xwu · 2017-07-11T22:54:23Z

Foundation/NSURLSession/http/EasyHandle.swift

+                return URL(fileURLWithPath: String(cString: value))
+            }
+            else {
+                fatalError("'sslCertificateAuthorityFile' get: no value available")


Likewise here: "'sslCertificateAuthorityFile' has not been set"

Altered to return nil

xwu · 2017-07-11T23:02:34Z

Foundation/NSURLSession/http/EasyHandle.swift

+#if os(Android)
+extension URLSession {
+    fileprivate static var _sslCertificateAuthorityFilePathPtr: UnsafeMutablePointer<Int8>?
+    /// You can bypass SSL peer verification altogether (not advised)


Doc comments have a particular style in Swift. Here, let's try to mimic that:

/// A Boolean that is `true` if peer SSL certificates are to be verified. /// /// You can bypass verification by setting this property to `false` (not recommended).

xwu · 2017-07-11T23:17:57Z

Foundation/NSURLSession/http/EasyHandle.swift

+    /// See https://curl.haxx.se/docs/sslcerts.html
+    /// For SSL to work you need a "cacert.pem" to be accessible at the path
+    /// provided by setting URLSession.sslCertificateAuthorityFile to a URL.
+    /// Downloadable here: https://curl.haxx.se/docs/caextract.html


/// The URL representing a PEM-encoded certificate authority file to be used for peer SSL certificate verification. /// /// See: /// - https://curl.haxx.se/docs/sslcerts.html /// - https://curl.haxx.se/docs/caextract.html

Thanks. Updated

alblue · 2017-07-12T15:34:59Z

@swift-ci please test

johnno1962 · 2017-07-12T15:40:01Z

Sorry, fix of typo..

johnno1962 · 2017-07-12T23:44:44Z

@phausler I think this PR is ready now and I’ve just done a final test run. Merge/squish away!

johnno1962 · 2017-07-14T01:12:13Z

For reference, the android CACerts are there but are not prepared correctly for OpenSSL 1.0.x to use http://www.javacms.tech/questions/1728116/how-to-make-ssl-peer-verify-work-on-android

phausler · 2017-07-14T14:17:28Z

@swift-ci please test

phausler · 2017-07-14T14:19:05Z

Foundation/NSURLSession/http/EasyHandle.swift

+                return
+            }
+            guard value.isFileURL && FileManager.default.fileExists(atPath: value.path) else {
+                fatalError("'sslCertificateAuthorityFile' does not reference a file that exists: \(value.path)")


So if the path is a directory this won't hit btw

I’ve got a fix. Do you want me to push it through?

var isDir: ObjCBool = false guard value.isFileURL && FileManager.default.fileExists(atPath: value.path, isDirectory: &isDir) && !isDir else { fatalError("'sslCertificateAuthorityFile' does not reference a file that exists: \(value.path)") }

phausler · 2017-07-14T15:35:57Z

Foundation/NSURLSession/http/EasyHandle.swift

-            guard value.isFileURL && FileManager.default.fileExists(atPath: value.path) else {
+            var isDir: ObjCBool = false
+            guard value.isFileURL && FileManager.default.fileExists(atPath: value.path,
+                                                                    isDirectory: &isDir) && !isDir else {


Looks good to me

phausler · 2017-07-14T15:36:18Z

@swift-ci please test

johnno1962 · 2017-07-15T00:07:15Z

Did that second "please test" go through?

xwu · 2017-07-15T20:22:59Z

@johnno1962 ...Uh, did you mean to invalidate testing for this PR by pushing unrelated changes?

xwu · 2017-07-15T20:24:36Z

Foundation/NSPathUtilities.swift

@@ -30,7 +30,11 @@ public func NSTemporaryDirectory() -> String {
            return tmpdir
        }
    }
+    #if os(Android)


This should be outdented, if I recall, according to Philippe.

Just trying to follow the existing guards in the file.. Should I change those too?

Nah, you're right. I didn't see the other ones.

The following would also need to be changed but I’m trying to avoid conflicts.
modified: Foundation/Data.swift
modified: Foundation/DateFormatter.swift
modified: Foundation/NSData.swift
modified: Foundation/NSObjCRuntime.swift
modified: Foundation/NSPathUtilities.swift
modified: Foundation/NSUserDefaults.swift
modified: Foundation/NumberFormatter.swift
modified: Foundation/Process.swift

/data/local/tmp isn’t writable by an app anyway so I’ve reverted this change. You have to set TMPDIR env var to the Context.getCacheDir().getPath() for various things to work.

johnno1962 · 2017-07-15T21:04:56Z

Testing didn’t go through anyway for some reason… and I've resynced to master so these are required

pushkarnk · 2017-07-17T13:11:41Z

@swift-ci please test

pushkarnk · 2017-07-17T13:11:57Z

@swift-ci please test

pushkarnk · 2017-07-17T13:12:40Z

👆You need to request twice, sometimes 😃

johnno1962 · 2017-07-17T13:55:42Z

Thanks @pushkarnk, looks good to me now.

johnno1962 · 2017-07-17T22:17:08Z

@phausler, would you like me to delete the “android" directory. It’s obsolete now.

parkera · 2017-07-18T00:12:12Z

Sure, that'd be good.

parkera · 2017-07-18T00:14:17Z

Foundation/NSURLSession/http/EasyHandle.swift

+    /// See:
+    /// - https://curl.haxx.se/docs/sslcerts.html
+    /// - https://curl.haxx.se/docs/caextract.html
+    public static var sslCertificateAuthorityFile: URL? {


Wait a minute here - are we attempting to add new Android-specific API?

It’s Linux specific really where libcurl is being used but only essential on Android where the CA root certificates don't work with OpenSSL 1.0. Otherwise, no https: requests work. http://www.javacms.tech/questions/1728116/how-to-make-ssl-peer-verify-work-on-android

Where does the developer get the value to pass to this API? When do they set it? Why can't we just do the right thing for them automatically so they don't have platform-specific API to use?

It’s a long story on Android…. very difficult to replicate in C. The simplest way is to add a raw asset for the cacert.pem file then copy that to a place where you can get the actual file path in Java and pass that to Swift to set using this api. https://github.com/SwiftJava/swift-android-samples/blob/master/swifthello/src/main/java/net/zhuoweizhang/swifthello/SwiftHello.java#L35 — https://github.com/SwiftJava/swift-android-samples/blob/master/swifthello/src/main/swift/Sources/main.swift#L20

This way we don’t fill up corefoundation with quite a bit of android specific NDK code.

A bit more info here.. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13317387/how-to-get-file-in-assets-from-android-ndk might not be insurmountable…

OK, so it looks like an NDK solution is insurmountable. There simply isn’t enough api to find resources on an app that starts out as Java as far as I can see. The original implementation was an enivronment variable avoiding an API but that was wasn't secure which is how we arrived here.

johnno1962 · 2017-07-19T17:19:37Z

I thnk this is as ready to merge as it will ever be.

xwu · 2017-08-24T17:25:48Z

@johnno1962 Can we leave the TimeZone changes out of this PR?

It’s quite another kettle of fish and the changes here aren’t clearly correct (for example: is GMT guaranteed to be equal to UTC for all time going forward? why does “GMT” need to be rewritten to “GMT+00”? should any of this be done in the Swift portion of Foundation or in CF? is simply logging the error acceptable, or should this fatalError on Android? ultimately, a complete solution would be to figure out how to hook up CF to Android’s tzinfo—this should not be insurmountable and may not even be more involved than the workaround.)

johnno1962 · 2017-08-24T18:20:09Z

No problem. It was mainly to get the tests working. I’ll check again if there is a solution in the NDK.

johnno1962 · 2017-08-26T19:49:09Z

@xwu I’ve resubmitted the time zone fix under #1189 in the finish. I’ve looked into the NDK options and they are very limited like they are for any UNIX. On my device there is no /usr/share/zoneinfo/ database but a single file in a proprietary format known only to Java. Answering your reservations one by one UTC and GMT are synonnyms for all intents an purposes in this context and GMT needs to be rewritten to GMT+0000 as this is the only format CFTimeZone.c understands without acces to a database by name. I’d rather not try to alter CFTimeZone.c as it is sourced differently from the swift and swift is a higher level language. An invalid Timezone should be fatal when you are debugging but a foundation library should not crash peoples apps out in the field IMO so I’ve opted for the latter. I’ve introduced a pseudo timezone “System” which people can use to format dates to the timezone of the device.

xwu · 2017-08-26T22:17:30Z

@johnno1962 Let's discuss the time zone issue on #1189, then.

amraboelela · 2017-09-12T04:11:29Z

Please don't delete the files in android directory as I am working on fixing them. Thanks.

alblue · 2017-10-13T15:11:09Z

@johnno1962 this PR has become somewhat stale with everything else that's been going on; can we close this one down and then later open a new PR for when the remaining changes can be viewed? I presume you've got the changes in a branch and can call them back when needed. Keeping it open won't help get it reviewed any faster, and rebasing/amending after the work on other PRs isn't likely to be of benefit.

By the way, it's easier for me to go through and review PRs when they're targeted to a specific issue; when there's multiple different potentially different changes overlaid (and many review comments) I tend to get lost. So I appreciate the work you've been doing in splitting them up and drip-feeding them as PRs so we can move things along. Thanks!

johnno1962 · 2017-10-13T15:33:22Z

@alblue, I’m still of the opinion this PR can be rehabilitated once the other PR’s have landed. It’s actually quite minor and I’d like to see it through on principle. Once #1198 has landed I’ll rebase and you’ll see what I mean.

alblue · 2017-10-13T15:39:57Z

@johnno1962 the problem is (from my reviewer's perspective) is that this thread has had 90+ comments on it and covered several different versions of the changes that you want to make, some of which are no longer relevant to the ultimate change set and with commentary that has diverged. So even if this change can be rehabilitated on this PR, it's still going to be difficult to go through and figure out what is still relevant and what isn't.

On the other hand, a new PR rebased onto master as smaller patches is much easier to get through, because they can be reviewed individually. It also helps from a punctuality perspective because more recently created PRs are towards the top of the list of reviews, and this one is languishing down at the bottom (so I have to remember to go and look for it specifically).

Finally, for this particular change set, it was a rebase and split from a prior PR with a number and 'android specific patches' as the title - so it's not really clear to me what this is actually trying to achieve.

So once the other patch set you're working on is changed, then rebasing and taking whatever is outstanding on this PR and creating a new one will make it much easier for me (and others) to help review and move through, especially if the resulting PR is relatively small. More frequent smaller PRs that are targeted to fix a specific issue are better than one large one with a lot of different changes.

amraboelela

Please explain the changes which seems to be affecting non-android environments.

amraboelela · 2017-10-13T16:03:08Z

CoreFoundation/Base.subproj/ForSwiftFoundationOnly.h

@@ -27,7 +27,9 @@
 #include <CoreFoundation/ForFoundationOnly.h>
 #include <fts.h>
 #include <pthread.h>
+#ifndef __ANDROID__


This is going to have conflict with #1249

amraboelela · 2017-10-13T16:06:21Z

Foundation/URLSession/http/HTTPURLProtocol.swift

@@ -528,16 +532,16 @@ extension _HTTPURLProtocol: _EasyHandleDelegate {
        }
    }

-    func transferCompleted(withErrorCode errorCode: Int?) {
+    func transferCompleted(withError error: NSError?) {


How is this related to Android only?

Wait for the rebase

johnno1962 · 2017-10-13T17:08:03Z

Hi @alblue, chipping away at this rather ill-fated PR I’ve created #1264 which contains the original nub of the original PR. Hopefully we can get this merged without too much drama.

johnno1962 · 2017-10-13T23:03:35Z

@alblue et all. This PR has been rebased & tested and can be merged as is. It contains three changes:

The original change to Foundation/NSURLSession/http/EasyHandle.swift that started all this off.
Deleting the out of date scripts in the android directory.
The remainder are the minor changes to have Foundation build for Android.

As item 3. will clash with @amraboelela’s versions there is also PR #1264 which will contains just items 1. & 2. which you could also merge - Take your pick. This PR has been built on OSX and Android where the foundation tests were run to competition (with the last commit applied for android.)

 Executed 1161 tests, with 25 failures (0 unexpected) in 16.021 (16.021) seconds

You can ignore almost all of the above comments as in the end the PR was presented separately and rebased to pretty much just the original changes to Foundation/NSURLSession/http/EasyHandle.swift

Thanks for the drive on merging outstanding PRs this week. It’s been a big help to me keeping sane!

alblue · 2017-10-16T10:50:31Z

Since #1264 has been put through test-and-merge, I'm going to close this down and leave any outstanding fixes to other/newly filed PRs. Thanks for splitting it up and making the process easier for us to review!

johnno1962 changed the title ~~Rewite of PR #1103 after discussion + addition Andoird specific patches~~ Rewrite of PR #1103 after discussion + addition Andoird specific patches Jul 11, 2017

johnno1962 changed the title ~~Rewrite of PR #1103 after discussion + addition Andoird specific patches~~ Rewrite of PR #1103 + addition Andoird specific patches Jul 11, 2017

johnno1962 changed the title ~~Rewrite of PR #1103 + addition Andoird specific patches~~ Rewrite of PR #1103 + addition Android specific patches Jul 11, 2017

xwu reviewed Jul 11, 2017

View reviewed changes

phausler reviewed Jul 11, 2017

View reviewed changes

xwu reviewed Jul 11, 2017

View reviewed changes

phausler reviewed Jul 14, 2017

View reviewed changes

phausler approved these changes Jul 14, 2017

View reviewed changes

xwu reviewed Jul 15, 2017

View reviewed changes

parkera requested changes Jul 18, 2017

View reviewed changes

johnno1962 force-pushed the master branch 6 times, most recently from 16de987 to d7c1668 Compare September 3, 2017 14:21

johnno1962 mentioned this pull request Sep 11, 2017

Android: Fixed prepare.sh to download the toolchain instead from http… #1207

Closed

johnno1962 force-pushed the master branch from cc01278 to b577bf7 Compare September 14, 2017 16:04

johnno1962 mentioned this pull request Sep 14, 2017

NSLocalizedDescription for http errors taken from libcurl #1198

Merged

johnno1962 mentioned this pull request Oct 13, 2017

For testing Foundation on Android #1189

Merged

amraboelela reviewed Oct 13, 2017

View reviewed changes

johnno1962 mentioned this pull request Oct 13, 2017

Required For HTTPS URLSession requests to work on Android #1264

Merged

johnno1962 force-pushed the master branch 3 times, most recently from c057cd8 to a99d202 Compare October 13, 2017 21:55

Changes required for Android port

3fd25e7

johnno1962 force-pushed the master branch from a99d202 to 3fd25e7 Compare October 13, 2017 22:23

For Testing on Android to work

aa66627

alblue closed this Oct 16, 2017

Rewrite of PR #1103 + addition Android specific patches #1113

Rewrite of PR #1103 + addition Android specific patches #1113

Conversation

johnno1962 commented Jul 11, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

johnno1962 commented Jul 11, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

johnno1962 Jul 11, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

johnno1962 Jul 11, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

johnno1962 Jul 12, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

xwu Jul 12, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

johnno1962 Jul 12, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

johnno1962 Jul 12, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

alblue commented Jul 12, 2017

johnno1962 commented Jul 12, 2017

johnno1962 commented Jul 12, 2017 • edited Loading

johnno1962 commented Jul 14, 2017 • edited Loading

phausler commented Jul 14, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

johnno1962 Jul 14, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

phausler commented Jul 14, 2017

johnno1962 commented Jul 15, 2017 • edited Loading

xwu commented Jul 15, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

johnno1962 Jul 15, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

johnno1962 Jul 15, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

johnno1962 commented Jul 15, 2017 • edited Loading

pushkarnk commented Jul 17, 2017

pushkarnk commented Jul 17, 2017

pushkarnk commented Jul 17, 2017 • edited Loading

johnno1962 commented Jul 17, 2017

johnno1962 commented Jul 17, 2017

parkera commented Jul 18, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

johnno1962 Jul 18, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

johnno1962 commented Jul 11, 2017 •

edited

Loading

johnno1962 Jul 11, 2017 •

edited

Loading

johnno1962 Jul 11, 2017 •

edited

Loading

johnno1962 Jul 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

xwu Jul 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

johnno1962 Jul 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

johnno1962 Jul 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

johnno1962 commented Jul 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

johnno1962 commented Jul 14, 2017 •

edited

Loading

johnno1962 Jul 14, 2017 •

edited

Loading

johnno1962 commented Jul 15, 2017 •

edited

Loading

johnno1962 Jul 15, 2017 •

edited

Loading

johnno1962 Jul 15, 2017 •

edited

Loading

johnno1962 commented Jul 15, 2017 •

edited

Loading

pushkarnk commented Jul 17, 2017 •

edited

Loading

johnno1962 Jul 18, 2017 •

edited

Loading

johnno1962 Jul 18, 2017 •

edited

Loading

johnno1962 Jul 18, 2017 •

edited

Loading

alblue commented Oct 13, 2017 •

edited

Loading

johnno1962 commented Oct 13, 2017 •

edited

Loading

johnno1962 commented Oct 13, 2017 •

edited

Loading