Utility change: allow manually defining URI for using reflection capability of albedo #20
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
Signed-off-by: Sebitosh <soloplayerdiablo@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Sebitosh <soloplayerdiablo@gmail.com>
airween
approved these changes
Mar 6, 2025
Member
|
Thanks @Sebitosh! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
Implements overwriting the default
input.urikey in the schema. This is in particular useful for using albedo's reflection capability which reflects the response defined in the request body of a post.The reason I am implementing this is for writing a test case demonstrating this issue: owasp-modsecurity/ModSecurity#2514 .
To write the test case I need the back-end to include a response body.
Ultimately it would be nice if albedo could include a specific response body on some endpoint when configured to do so (so I can define a response body to a request that isn't necessarily a POST request), I'll probably create an issue on the project's page soon to discuss this proposition.
Syntax