SelfSignedCertificate configurable valid dates #4257
Conversation
|
@normanmaurer @ganskef - FYI. |
| @@ -59,9 +60,11 @@ | |||
| private static final InternalLogger logger = InternalLoggerFactory.getInstance(SelfSignedCertificate.class); | |||
|
|
|||
| /** Current time minus 1 year, just in case software clock goes back due to time synchronization */ | |||
| static final Date NOT_BEFORE = new Date(System.currentTimeMillis() - 86400000L * 365); | |||
| static final Date NOT_BEFORE = new Date(SystemPropertyUtil.getLong( | |||
| "io.netty.SelfSignedCertificate.notBefore", System.currentTimeMillis() - 86400000L * 365)); | |||
|
How about renaming |
Scottmitch
force-pushed
the
self_signed
branch
from
320d8e8
to
e5a105a
Compare
Motivation: Users may want to control the valid dates for SelfSignedCertificate. Modifications: - Allow NOT_BEFORE and NOT_AFTER to be controlled via java system properties. Result: Fixes netty#3978
Scottmitch
force-pushed
the
self_signed
branch
from
e5a105a
to
a7321ab
Compare
|
@trustin - Good idea. Done. |
| * @param notBefore Certificate is not valid before this time | ||
| * @param notAfter Certificate is not valid after this time | ||
| */ | ||
| public SelfSignedCertificate(Date notBefore, Date notAfter) throws CertificateException { | ||
| this("example.com"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems like notBefore and notAfter are unused?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pushed a new set of commits. See #4257 (comment)
Motivation: PR #4257 introduced paramters and didn't use them. Modifications: - Use the new paramters Result: No warnings and correct behavior
Motivation: PR #4257 introduced paramters and didn't use them. Modifications: - Use the new paramters Result: No warnings and correct behavior
Motivation: PR #4257 introduced paramters and didn't use them. Modifications: - Use the new paramters Result: No warnings and correct behavior
|
@trustin Any thoughts on this test failure? I've seen it a few times now. |
|
@Scottmitch Some DNS servers were returning NoError for non-existent domains. I removed them from the public DNS server list. Will keep my eyes on the failure.. |
|
@trustin @Scottmitch I think it makes sense to use a "stub" DnsServer for our tests. I will work on this and so make it more robust. |
|
@normanmaurer +1. It would be nice to have isolation in our unit tests that automatically run. It would be nice for dev to switch to the "real" DNS servers too though. |
Motivation: PR netty#4257 introduced paramters and didn't use them. Modifications: - Use the new paramters Result: No warnings and correct behavior
Motivation:
Users may want to control the valid dates for SelfSignedCertificate.
Modifications:
Result:
Fixes #3978