-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 574
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
Add support for protocol upgrades #1119
Merged
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
dba4979
Define :upgraded Plug.Conn state
mtrudel 010dcdf
Add Plug.Conn.upgrade_adpater/3 & supporting Plug.Conn.Adapter callback
mtrudel e3bf900
Minor doc updates
mtrudel 804a68f
Fix minor copy-pasta variable name issue
mtrudel 8df9c71
Prefer 'args' over 'opts' to demonstrate opacity
mtrudel 4d1884e
Raise an ArgumentError on unsupported upgrade protocols
mtrudel 608a72a
Update lib/plug/conn.ex
mtrudel 1aff012
Reformat upgrade error message
mtrudel e6882eb
Merge branch 'elixir-plug:main' into plug_upgrade
mtrudel 29ddd8a
Support all upgrades other than `:unsupported`
mtrudel a46e2f5
s/unsupported/not_supported
mtrudel File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
This file contains 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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shouldn't this be
:websocket
instead of:supported
? Because I think folks may want to test that a given connection upgrades at certain moments?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In fact, maybe we should allow everything and only support
:unsupported
to test the:unsupported
cases.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd intentionally used
:supported
and:unsupported
to help illustrate that this implementation was only useful to test whether or not an upgrade is supported or not (specifically, users wouldn't get confused seeing:websocket
and wondering why a full-fledged client upgrade didn't work).The test process still gets send a message in this case, which should be sufficient for users to test against. Really, all this needs to do is be able to replicate the return value for a supported and unsupported upgrade.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But as-is it means I wouldn’t be able to test that a specific route is triggering a websocket upgrade, right? Because we would get a function clause error?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh yes, I see your concern now. I suppose given that this is a test plug all bets are off with respect to upgrades (or anything else, really) actually doing anything.
I'll update
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done