Bump to OkHttp 4.X #2709
Merged
Bump to OkHttp 4.X #2709
Conversation
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
bmarcaur
commented
Oct 20, 2023
| @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ public boolean verify(String host, SSLSession session) { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| public boolean verify(String host, X509Certificate certificate) { | |||
| return verifyAsIpAddress(host) ? verifyIpAddress(host, certificate) : verifyHostname(host, certificate); | |||
| return canParseAsIpAddress(host) ? verifyIpAddress(host, certificate) : verifyHostname(host, certificate); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: can we remove the static import and instead import okhttp3.internal.Util;
Suggested change
| return canParseAsIpAddress(host) ? verifyIpAddress(host, certificate) : verifyHostname(host, certificate); | |
| return Util.canParseAsIpAddress(host) ? verifyIpAddress(host, certificate) : verifyHostname(host, certificate); |
bmarcaur
commented
Oct 20, 2023
| @@ -586,7 +585,7 @@ private static void retryIfAllowed(Callback callback, Call call, Exception excep | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| private static boolean isStreamingBody(Call call) { | |||
| return call.request().body() instanceof UnrepeatableRequestBody; | |||
| return call.request().body() != null && call.request().body().isOneShot(); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
PR removing the type and introducing the new API
schlosna
approved these changes
Oct 30, 2023
| @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ public boolean verify(String host, SSLSession session) { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| public boolean verify(String host, X509Certificate certificate) { | |||
| return verifyAsIpAddress(host) ? verifyIpAddress(host, certificate) : verifyHostname(host, certificate); | |||
| return canParseAsIpAddress(host) ? verifyIpAddress(host, certificate) : verifyHostname(host, certificate); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
nit: can we remove the static import and instead import okhttp3.internal.Util;
Suggested change
| return canParseAsIpAddress(host) ? verifyIpAddress(host, certificate) : verifyHostname(host, certificate); | |
| return Util.canParseAsIpAddress(host) ? verifyIpAddress(host, certificate) : verifyHostname(host, certificate); |
okhttp-clients/src/main/java/com/palantir/conjure/java/okhttp/Okhttp39HostnameVerifier.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
👍 |
bmarcaur
added
merge when ready
autorelease
and removed
🤖 fix nits
merge when ready
labels
|
Released 7.67.0 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Before this PR
ForwardingOkHttpClientis incompatible with 4.0.0 because all of the fields are made final. This removes the abstraction (as it was not used, more info on that below) and hasRemotingOkHttpClientsimply override thenewCallmethod that it was concerned about.After this PR
We should be able to upgrade our version of OkHttp. This should fix #1933.
Possible downsides?
Subtle behavior change? Very unlikely that this breaks anyones usage of
RemotingOkHttpClientInfo on usage
Public usage of
ForwardingOkHttpClientPublic usage of
RemotingOkHttpClientInternal usage of
ForwardingOkHttpClientInternal usage of
RemotingOkHttpClientAs you can see from all of the links, the only usages are internal to this repo (or internal forks) making this ABI change a strictly internal concern.
There are currently 258 internal repos that have both a version 4.x+ of
OkHttpandokhttp-clientson their classpath, i.e. have the potential for a runtime error should they ever callOkHttpClients#create.So I had a shower thought thought, we have so many "incompatible" repos (see above) I wondered if this was hitting us in the field and we just didn't know it. So I did an Aries search and did not find any errors similar to the one described in #1933. Which makes sense as I imagine that would be devastating and crash most services, but also means that
okhttp-clientsis being overly broadcasted by$something. This PR feels like a strict improvement, but the thing it is improving smells.Edit: I have spent more time burning down OkHttp internally and have two
$somethings.magritte-sdkbut their movement off of Okhttp/retrofit is a WIP. There is a draft PR. But the biggest offender are references to old versions of libraries i.e. stalled excavators are inhibiting flow through the system. I have internal links to back this up if you need.