gh-1019: Implemented prior knowledge approach to h2c #3873

mjpitz · 2018-02-20T22:55:35Z

Needs a unit test, but I wanted to get the idea out there of how easy this could be.

An Address's List comes from the initial configuration. If someone specifies the H2C protocol in that list, then we assume prior knowledge since it requires users to specify the protocol in their configuration.

I tried to wire a boolean attribute through the constructor chain, but that got really gross. This seemed like an easier approach with a lot fewer changes in code.

swankjesse · 2018-02-21T02:34:36Z

I’m reluctant to implement support for H2C because it’s a cleartext protocol and cleartext is dead to me.

jjshanks · 2018-02-21T02:52:49Z

@swankjesse While understandable we have a pretty reasonable use case. Transparent TLS via a service mesh. We have clients that use Retrofit and Feign but can't use h2c to talk to localhost without this kind of change.

swankjesse · 2018-02-21T03:18:01Z

Gotcha. So cleartext doesn’t leave the host. That’s not so bad.

yschimke · 2018-02-21T06:42:14Z

okhttp/src/main/java/okhttp3/internal/connection/RealConnection.java

+
+      // this implementation takes the "prior knowledge" approach to the spec
+      // https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540#section-3.4
+      if (route.address().protocols().contains(Protocol.H2C)) {


I suggest we change

https://github.com/square/okhttp/blob/master/okhttp/src/main/java/okhttp3/OkHttpClient.java#L854-L856

To allow H2C on it's own, but only on it's own, no fallback to HTTP/1.1.

Done. This ended up cleaning up some of the logic in the establishment.

yschimke · 2018-02-21T06:44:59Z

I'm a big fan of this, have hit this a couple of times before during development and ended up using Netty.

yschimke · 2018-02-21T07:20:59Z

To be clear, my main concern is this makes a client that is single purpose. So we should probably only allow H2C as the single supported protocol for a client. Otherwise this client instance will be mostly usable for https but broken for most external plaintext traffic.

It seems better to be really explicit that the client is single purpose.

mjpitz · 2018-02-22T18:09:50Z

okhttp/src/main/java/okhttp3/OkHttpClient.java

+        // when using h2c prior knowledge, no other protocol should be supported.
+        throw new IllegalArgumentException("protocols containing h2c cannot use other protocols:"
+                + uniqueProtocols);
+      } else if (!uniqueProtocols.contains(Protocol.HTTP_1_1)) {


bug: this needs to check if uniqueProtocols does not contain H2c

This is checked implicitly via the if case above

Actually it's not. In the event that someone specifies only H2C, then the second if check evaluates to false, triggering this else if. Caught it in one of the unit tests I was writing.

mjpitz · 2018-02-22T18:10:16Z

okhttp/src/main/java/okhttp3/Protocol.java

+   * Cleartext implementation of HTTP2. This enumeration exists for the "prior knowledge" upgrade
+   * semantic supported by the protocol.
+   */
+  H2C("h2c"),


bug: this needs to be added to the static get method.

yschimke · 2018-02-22T19:55:17Z

okhttp/src/main/java/okhttp3/OkHttpClient.java

-      // Validate that the list has everything we require and nothing we forbid.
-      if (!protocols.contains(Protocol.HTTP_1_1)) {
-        throw new IllegalArgumentException("protocols doesn't contain http/1.1: " + protocols);
+      final Set<Protocol> uniqueProtocols = new HashSet<>(protocols);


@swankjesse has stated a preference for LinkedHashSet makes these a lot more predictable in tests, e.g. checking the exception message. But generally you could probably just check the contains(H2C) and size > 1 on the list and fold in duplicates as bad input. But this isn't super critical code path, so that's minor.

Good catch. -It wasn't super clear if the list of protocols was treated as a prioritized.- Adding to preserve ordering since it's in the Javadoc that order is expected to be preserved.

yschimke · 2018-02-22T19:58:44Z

okhttp/src/main/java/okhttp3/OkHttpClient.java


      // Assign as an unmodifiable list. This is effectively immutable.
-      this.protocols = Collections.unmodifiableList(protocols);
+      this.protocols = Collections.unmodifiableList(new ArrayList<>(uniqueProtocols));


I think changing the selected protocol because of hashing could affect the ALPN selection IIRC. Not so much an issue without SPDY, but undesirable.

Yeah. I think that change went a little too far. Going to revert back to using just the list and suffer the minimal performance cost.

… using prior knowledge

…ted javadoc to represent handling of h2c.

mjpitz · 2018-02-23T02:10:06Z

Do y'all prefer rebase or merge when conflicts arise? I didn't see a CONTRIBUTING guide anywhere.

I tend to do merges, but don't have a preference for either way.

JakeWharton · 2018-02-23T02:22:48Z

We'll squash when merging a multi-commit PR so it's up to you.

…

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018, 9:10 PM Jaye Pitzeruse ***@***.***> wrote: Do y'all prefer rebase or merge when conflicts arise? I didn't see a CONTRIBUTING guide anywhere. I tend to do merges, but don't have a preference for either way. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3873 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAEEEf7jKRnaXKWbHhlVxRfr2cyBB9ogks5tXh4AgaJpZM4SMzgI> .

…on and added a concrete check on the protocols list.

mjpitz · 2018-02-23T04:52:50Z

Working checkpoint. I tested this against a service I have that supports H2C out of box. Started to make modifications to the MockWebServer, but that might be a bit too ambitious. I tried putting in a shortcut, but that didn't seem to work. I'll try a few more things over the next couple of days

mjpitz · 2018-02-23T18:04:55Z

Alright, I managed to get the MockWebServer working and pulled the test cases from HttpOverHttp2Test up to an Http2TestBase that can be shared by both the cleartext and TLS flavors.

Added to this review because creating another one would effectively re-diff this entire set.

yschimke · 2018-02-23T21:26:24Z

okhttp-tests/src/test/java/okhttp3/internal/http2/HttpOverH2CTest.java

+/**
+ * Test H2C, the cleartext implementation of HTTP/2.
+ *
+ * @author jpitz


strip author tags

yschimke · 2018-02-23T21:30:14Z

okhttp/src/main/java/okhttp3/internal/http2/Http2Codec.java

@@ -124,6 +124,9 @@ public Http2Codec(OkHttpClient client, Interceptor.Chain chain, StreamAllocation
  @Override public Response.Builder readResponseHeaders(boolean expectContinue) throws IOException {
    List<Header> headers = stream.takeResponseHeaders();
    Response.Builder responseBuilder = readHttp2HeadersList(headers);
+    if (client.protocols().contains(Protocol.H2C)) {


why set it here and not inside readHttp2HeadersList?

That method was public static and so I would need to thread the value through the method signature, causing a breaking API change.

This could actually be cached on the class. No need to do the linear scan all the time.

Alternatively, another attribute could be added to the OkHttpClient and that can be a cached referenced for the lifetime of the client

yschimke · 2018-02-23T21:36:17Z

okhttp/src/main/java/okhttp3/internal/connection/RealConnection.java

@@ -260,9 +260,14 @@ private void connectSocket(int connectTimeout, int readTimeout, Call call,

  private void establishProtocol(ConnectionSpecSelector connectionSpecSelector,
      int pingIntervalMillis, Call call, EventListener eventListener) throws IOException {
-    if (route.address().sslSocketFactory() == null) {
-      protocol = Protocol.HTTP_1_1;
+    if (route.address().protocols().contains(Protocol.H2C)) {


It seems like this check could be a subset of the "if (route.address().sslSocketFactory() == null) " case

meaning 0 cost in the more common https case, and clearer that this is a special case of clear text. Thoughts?

yschimke · 2018-02-23T21:40:02Z

okhttp/src/main/java/okhttp3/OkHttpClient.java

@@ -844,15 +844,25 @@ public Builder dispatcher(Dispatcher dispatcher) {
     * HTTP/1.1} only. If the server responds with {@code HTTP/1.0}, that will be exposed by {@link
     * Response#protocol()}.
     *
-     * @param protocols the protocols to use, in order of preference. The list must contain {@link
-     * Protocol#HTTP_1_1}. It must not contain null or {@link Protocol#HTTP_1_0}.
+     * @param protocols the protocols to use, in order of preference. If the list contains {@link


Could we reword this to start with the normal case of HTTP_1_1. As it is has a very H2C centric view of the world.

I'll take another crack. I started trying to word it that way, but ran into issues with clarity.

yschimke · 2018-02-23T21:43:01Z

okhttp-tests/src/test/java/okhttp3/internal/http2/Http2TestBase.java

+ * Base test cases for HTTP2 communication. These tests are executed for both H2C and HTTP2
+ * based requests. For implementation specific tests, include in the appropriate test case.
+ *
+ * This code originally lived in the HttpOverHttp2Test class, but was abstracted out for use


I don't think this history is needed. We have git for that.

yschimke · 2018-02-23T21:49:56Z

okhttp-tests/src/test/java/okhttp3/internal/http2/HttpOverH2CTest.java

+  }
+
+  @Test
+  public void testProtocol() throws Exception {


It feels like these tests from here onwards would be more natural in ProtocolTest (new), MockWebserverTest and OkHttpClientTest. Thoughts?

Ah. I looked for a ProtocolTest and there wasn't one. Didn't look again after handling the merge. I'll move them.

yschimke · 2018-02-23T21:54:27Z

okhttp-tests/src/test/java/okhttp3/internal/http2/HttpOverH2CTest.java

+
+  @Before
+  public void setUp() throws Exception {
+    super.setUp(


It feels like this could be handled without as much major surgery with a @parameterized test. Not sure which is generally favoured, but I try to avoid subclassing in case there is another dimension of freedom to the tests in the future e.g. Platform.

But interested to hear input from others and yours.

It also means you can't go to a single test and run it from within Http2TestBase.

Huh.. This week I learned. Didn't know about Parameterized builds in JUnit. This is exactly what I am looking for.

…emaining test methods into appropriate classes

…to the ssl check

mjpitz · 2018-02-24T00:04:41Z

@yschimke : master doesn't appear to have a ProtocolTest yet. Where is it?

…codec

yschimke · 2018-02-24T17:59:25Z

okhttp-tests/src/test/java/okhttp3/internal/http2/HttpOverHttp2Test.java

+  @Parameters
+  public static Collection<Object[]> data() {
+
+      return Arrays.asList(new Object[][] {


indentation looks off

yschimke · 2018-02-24T18:00:56Z

Looking good to me, only nits and formatting.

yschimke · 2018-02-24T19:45:41Z

mockwebserver/src/test/java/okhttp3/mockwebserver/MockWebServerTest.java

@@ -456,4 +457,22 @@
    RecordedRequest request = server.takeRequest();
    assertEquals("request", request.getBody().readUtf8());
  }
+
+  @Test(expected = IllegalArgumentException.class)


Same as previous comment, OkHttp tests favour explicit catch and check exception message over annotation expected tests.

yschimke

Care to update the description, remove "quick stab", before we merge ?

mjpitz · 2018-02-24T20:20:23Z

@yschimke : done. any idea what's going on with the travis test? I'd prefer to have a green build before pushing forward

swankjesse

This is great.

swankjesse · 2018-02-25T02:06:44Z

mockwebserver/src/main/java/okhttp3/mockwebserver/MockWebServer.java

@@ -420,7 +428,7 @@ public void processConnection() throws Exception {
            return;
          }
          socket = sslSocketFactory.createSocket(raw, raw.getInetAddress().getHostAddress(),
-              raw.getPort(), true);
+                  raw.getPort(), true);


nit: indent

swankjesse · 2018-02-25T02:07:01Z

mockwebserver/src/main/java/okhttp3/mockwebserver/MockWebServer.java

@@ -436,6 +444,10 @@ public void processConnection() throws Exception {
            protocol = protocolString != null ? Protocol.get(protocolString) : Protocol.HTTP_1_1;
          }
          openClientSockets.remove(raw);
+        } else if (protocols.contains(Protocol.H2C)) {
+          // force use of H2c


nit: I don’t think the comment is necessary!

swankjesse · 2018-02-25T02:07:44Z

okhttp-tests/src/test/java/okhttp3/OkHttpClientTest.java

+    }
+  }
+
+  @Test public void testH2COkHttpClientConstructionSuccess() {


swankjesse · 2018-02-25T02:07:54Z

okhttp-tests/src/test/java/okhttp3/OkHttpClientTest.java

+  }
+
+  @Test public void testH2COkHttpClientConstructionSuccess() {
+    final OkHttpClient okHttpClient = new OkHttpClient.Builder()


nit: final isn’t necessary

habbit. we prefer having every thing be final.

swankjesse · 2018-02-25T02:08:06Z

okhttp-tests/src/test/java/okhttp3/ProtocolTest.java

@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+package okhttp3;


nit: copyright header

swankjesse · 2018-02-25T02:09:04Z

okhttp-tests/src/test/java/okhttp3/internal/http2/HttpOverHttp2Test.java

 public final class HttpOverHttp2Test {
  private static final Logger http2Logger = Logger.getLogger(Http2.class.getName());
+  private static final SslClient sslClient = SslClient.localhost();
+
+  @Parameters


swankjesse · 2018-02-25T02:10:14Z

okhttp-tests/src/test/java/okhttp3/internal/http2/HttpOverHttp2Test.java

@@ -1147,6 +1183,8 @@ private int countFrames(List<String> logs, String message) {
   * <p>This test uses proxy tunnels to get a hook while a connection is being established.
   */
  @Test public void concurrentHttp2ConnectionsDeduplicated() throws Exception {
+    if (protocol == Protocol.H2C) return; // only run for http2


yeah, I think you want assumeTrue() here

swankjesse · 2018-02-25T02:10:56Z

okhttp/src/main/java/okhttp3/internal/connection/RealConnection.java

@@ -261,8 +261,15 @@ private void connectSocket(int connectTimeout, int readTimeout, Call call,
  private void establishProtocol(ConnectionSpecSelector connectionSpecSelector,
      int pingIntervalMillis, Call call, EventListener eventListener) throws IOException {
    if (route.address().sslSocketFactory() == null) {
-      protocol = Protocol.HTTP_1_1;
+      if (route.address().protocols().contains(Protocol.H2C)) {


swankjesse · 2018-02-25T02:11:14Z

okhttp/src/main/java/okhttp3/internal/connection/RealConnection.java

+  private void startHttp2(int pingIntervalMillis) throws IOException {
+    socket.setSoTimeout(0); // HTTP/2 connection timeouts are set per-stream.
+    http2Connection = new Http2Connection.Builder(true)
+            .socket(socket, route.address().url().host(), source, sink)


supernit: +4 on wrapped lines

swankjesse · 2018-02-25T02:12:25Z

okhttp/src/main/java/okhttp3/internal/http2/Http2Codec.java


  public Http2Codec(OkHttpClient client, Interceptor.Chain chain, StreamAllocation streamAllocation,
      Http2Connection connection) {
    this.client = client;
    this.chain = chain;
    this.streamAllocation = streamAllocation;
    this.connection = connection;
+
+    // cache this so we don't do linear scans on every call


this comment is misleading. “linear scans” is on a list of a very small constant size.

(I think I’d just omit the comment)

yschimke · 2018-02-25T07:17:37Z

okhttp-tests/src/test/java/okhttp3/internal/http2/HttpOverHttp2Test.java

 public final class HttpOverHttp2Test {
  private static final Logger http2Logger = Logger.getLogger(Http2.class.getName());
+  private static final SslClient sslClient = SslClient.localhost();
+
+  @Parameters


Can you change this so the IDE makes it clear what is running

@Parameters(name="{2}")

yschimke · 2018-02-25T07:25:14Z

Running fine locally in both IDE and "mvn test", so the JVM died during HttpOverHttp2 is baffling

$ mvn test -Dtest=HttpOverHttp2Test -DfailIfNoTests=false

I'll dig into why it's failing, particularly as I pushed you towards the parameterised test, which is a likely suspect.

yschimke · 2018-02-25T08:22:30Z

Failing with

Uncaught exception in OkHttp thread "Thread-12"
java.util.concurrent.RejectedExecutionException: Task okhttp3.internal.http2.Http2Connection$6@57e4c31e rejected from java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor@12e64786[Shutting down, pool size = 1, active threads = 0, queued tasks = 0, completed tasks = 1]
	at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$AbortPolicy.rejectedExecution(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:2063)
	at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.reject(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:830)
	at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.execute(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1379)
	at okhttp3.internal.http2.Http2Connection.pushResetLater(Http2Connection.java:907)
	at okhttp3.internal.http2.Http2Connection$ReaderRunnable.rstStream(Http2Connection.java:691)
	at okhttp3.internal.http2.Http2Reader.readRstStream(Http2Reader.java:242)
	at okhttp3.internal.http2.Http2Reader.nextFrame(Http2Reader.java:137)
	at okhttp3.internal.http2.Http2Connection$ReaderRunnable.execute(Http2Connection.java:608)
	at okhttp3.internal.NamedRunnable.run(NamedRunnable.java:32)
	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
Last test to start was: serverSendsPushPromise_GET[h2c](okhttp3.internal.http2.HttpOverHttp2Test)
The command "mvn test -e -X -Dtest=HttpOverHttp2Test -DfailIfNoTests=false; cat okhttp-tests/target/surefire-reports/*" exited with 0.

yschimke · 2018-02-25T10:48:24Z

It's something wacky with reuse of clients and mockwebserver instances and/or Http2Connections (these are used separately in both client and MockWebServer). Anyway, the shutdown of pushExecutor causes uncaught exceptions which we barf on.

I suspect a convergence of

This PR now has multiple tests using push promises
The tests run slightly differently in travis CI and locally and Intellij
An existing timing bug with RejectedExecutionException thrown after shutdown of a connection
An existing test bug with MockWebserver or more likely client usage e.g. we are actually sharing connections across tests?
InstallUncaughtExceptionHandlerListener should ideally not System.exit() the test runner
I changed logging recently to hide the output of InstallUncaughtExceptionHandlerListener by default

… back to using assumeTrue

yschimke

I think we will need to resolve the problems before landing this

e.g. https://github.com/square/okhttp/pull/3888/files

yschimke · 2018-02-25T12:56:57Z

okhttp-tests/src/test/java/okhttp3/internal/http2/HttpOverHttp2Test.java

+  private static final SslClient sslClient = SslClient.localhost();
+
+  @Parameters(name = "{2}")
+  public static Collection<Object[]> data() {


This makes the client instances used across test runs. Can we change this to

@Parameters(name = "{0}") public static Collection<Protocol> data() { return Arrays.asList(Protocol.H2C, Protocol.HTTP_2); }

yschimke · 2018-02-25T12:58:14Z

okhttp-tests/src/test/java/okhttp3/internal/http2/HttpOverHttp2Test.java

+  private String scheme;
+  private Protocol protocol;
+
+  public HttpOverHttp2Test(OkHttpClient client, String scheme, Protocol protocol) {


public HttpOverHttp2Test(Protocol protocol) { this.protocol = protocol; this.client = protocol == Protocol.HTTP_2 ? buildClient() : buildH2cClient(); this.scheme = protocol == Protocol.HTTP_2 ? "https" : "http"; } private static OkHttpClient buildH2cClient() { return defaultClient().newBuilder() .connectionPool(new ConnectionPool()) .protocols(Arrays.asList(Protocol.H2C)) .build(); } private static OkHttpClient buildClient() { return defaultClient().newBuilder() .protocols(Arrays.asList(Protocol.HTTP_2, Protocol.HTTP_1_1)) .dns(new SingleInetAddressDns()) .sslSocketFactory(sslClient.socketFactory, sslClient.trustManager) .hostnameVerifier(new RecordingHostnameVerifier()) .connectionPool(new ConnectionPool()) .build(); }

then in tear down

@After public void tearDown() throws Exception { Authenticator.setDefault(null); http2Logger.removeHandler(http2Handler); http2Logger.setLevel(previousLevel); client.connectionPool().evictAll(); }

… connections from the pool in teardown

swankjesse · 2018-02-25T17:29:47Z

mockwebserver/src/main/java/okhttp3/mockwebserver/MockWebServer.java

@@ -223,6 +227,10 @@ public void setProtocols(List<Protocol> protocols) {
    this.protocols = protocols;
  }

+  public List<Protocol> protocols() {
+    return Collections.unmodifiableList(protocols);


when we set the protocols we call Util.immutableList() so I think unmodifiableList() is not necessary

swankjesse · 2018-02-25T17:30:08Z

okhttp-tests/src/test/java/okhttp3/OkHttpClientTest.java

+      new OkHttpClient.Builder()
+              .protocols(Arrays.asList(Protocol.H2C, Protocol.HTTP_1_1));
+      fail("When H2C is specified, no other protocol can be specified");
+    } catch (final IllegalArgumentException e) {


nit: more finals

also I really like expected instead of e for these

yschimke · 2018-02-26T06:27:04Z

This push failure happened on master https://api.travis-ci.org/v3/job/346125271/log.txt

So I suspect it is an existing problem, unrelated to this test now. The reused static clients you had in an earlier version would have made it a lot more noticeable.

mjpitz · 2018-02-26T20:51:14Z

Alright, I believe all feedback has been address at this point. Let me know if theres anything else y'all need from me 😄

swankjesse · 2018-02-27T04:05:03Z

Thanks @jpitz. Very nice first PR!

mjpitz · 2018-02-28T00:01:19Z

No problem. Happy to help! Let me know if any issues arise and would like me to assist.

…

On Feb 26, 2018, at 10:05 PM, Jesse Wilson ***@***.***> wrote: Thanks @jpitz. Very nice first PR! — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

Generates following table with PR count. ``` ┌──────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Title │ gh-1019: Implemented prior knowledge approach to h2c │ ├──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ PR Author │ mjpitz │ ├──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ URL │ square/okhttp#3873 │ ├──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Ready On │ Feb 20, 2018, 5:55:35 PM │ ├──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Review Time │ yschimke=1d 2h 45m │ │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ swankjesse=1d 2h 45m │ ├──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ PR Comments │ swankjesse=3 │ │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ jjshanks=1 │ │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ yschimke=9 │ │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ mjpitz=10 │ │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ JakeWharton=1 │ ├──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Merged On │ Feb 26, 2018, 6:55:11 PM │ ├──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Open → Merge │ 6d 0h 59m 36s │ └──────────────┴──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ```

Closes #155 Closes #161 Generates following table: ``` ┌──────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Title │ gh-1019: Implemented prior knowledge approach to h2c │ ├──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ PR Author │ mjpitz │ ├──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ URL │ square/okhttp#3873 │ ├──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Ready On │ Feb 20, 2018, 5:55:35 PM │ ├──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Review Time │ yschimke=1d 2h 45m │ │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ swankjesse=1d 2h 45m │ ├──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ PR Comments │ swankjesse made total 19 comments. │ │ │ Code Review Comments = 16, Issue Comments = 3 │ │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ jjshanks made total 1 comments. │ │ │ Code Review Comments = 0, Issue Comments = 1 │ │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ yschimke made total 30 comments. │ │ │ Code Review Comments = 21, Issue Comments = 9 │ │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ mjpitz made total 26 comments. │ │ │ Code Review Comments = 16, Issue Comments = 10 │ │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ JakeWharton made total 1 comments. │ │ │ Code Review Comments = 0, Issue Comments = 1 │ ├──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Merged On │ Feb 26, 2018, 6:55:11 PM │ ├──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Open → Merge │ 6d 0h 59m 36s │ └──────────────┴──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ```

yschimke reviewed Feb 21, 2018

View reviewed changes

mjpitz commented Feb 22, 2018

View reviewed changes

yschimke reviewed Feb 22, 2018

View reviewed changes

Jaye Pitzeruse and others added 4 commits February 22, 2018 20:03

gh-1019: quick stab at a prior knowledge approach to cleartext HTTP2

486edfd

gh-1019: added strict requirement on h2c being the only protocol when…

e5a4940

… using prior knowledge

gh-1019: added unit test to test some of the simpler code paths. upda…

63b6bc0

…ted javadoc to represent handling of h2c.

gh-1019: removed a merge that got committed

f2cb597

Jaye Pitzeruse and others added 2 commits February 22, 2018 20:59

gh-1019: added reference to prior knowledge on the protocol enumerati…

35eb595

…on and added a concrete check on the protocols list.

gh-1019: fixed reporting of protocol used in the response object

5981b30

mjpitz mentioned this pull request Feb 23, 2018

Support “HTTP” URIs (HTTP Upgrade mechanism) #1019

Closed

yschimke requested changes Feb 23, 2018

View reviewed changes

yschimke reviewed Feb 23, 2018

View reviewed changes

Jaye Pitzeruse added 3 commits February 23, 2018 17:52

gh-1019: switched over to using a parameterized unit test and moved r…

6d35a8b

…emaining test methods into appropriate classes

gh-1019: updated javadoc on OkHttpClient and moved the H2C upgrade in…

b5f36eb

…to the ssl check

Merge branch 'master' into jpitz/gh-1019

f90cec6

Jaye Pitzeruse added 2 commits February 23, 2018 18:07

gh-1019: moved cache initialization into setUp call

4e1d049

gh-1019: fixed broken unit test and started cacheing protocol on the …

5a26ae2

…codec

yschimke reviewed Feb 24, 2018

View reviewed changes

gh-1019: fixed formatting and changed style of unit test

a9e5456

yschimke reviewed Feb 24, 2018

View reviewed changes

gh-1019: fixed remaining tests in mockwebservertest

5b47c9d

yschimke approved these changes Feb 24, 2018

View reviewed changes

mjpitz changed the title ~~gh-1019: quick stab at a prior knowledge approach to h2c~~ gh-1019: Implemented prior knowledge approach to h2c Feb 24, 2018

swankjesse reviewed Feb 25, 2018

View reviewed changes

yschimke reviewed Feb 25, 2018

View reviewed changes

gh-1019: adjusted indentation, removed extraneous comments, and moved…

7817792

… back to using assumeTrue

yschimke requested changes Feb 25, 2018

View reviewed changes

Jaye Pitzeruse added 3 commits February 25, 2018 07:19

gh-1019: simplified the constructor to the unit test and evicting all…

2de4bc5

… connections from the pool in teardown

whitespace

d0ad551

more whitespace

92e2bda

yschimke approved these changes Feb 25, 2018

View reviewed changes

gh-1019: simplified data for the test

af1ac89

swankjesse approved these changes Feb 25, 2018

View reviewed changes

Jaye Pitzeruse added 2 commits February 26, 2018 09:32

gh-1019: removed finals and renamed exception variables to expected

d32e9f0

gh-1019: removed unneeded call to unmodifiable list

76ba28b

yschimke merged commit 9a6f88d into square:master Feb 26, 2018

gh-1019: Implemented prior knowledge approach to h2c #3873

gh-1019: Implemented prior knowledge approach to h2c #3873

Conversation

mjpitz commented Feb 20, 2018 • edited

swankjesse commented Feb 21, 2018

jjshanks commented Feb 21, 2018

swankjesse commented Feb 21, 2018

yschimke Feb 21, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

yschimke commented Feb 21, 2018

yschimke commented Feb 21, 2018

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

mjpitz Feb 23, 2018 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mjpitz commented Feb 23, 2018

JakeWharton commented Feb 23, 2018 via email

mjpitz commented Feb 23, 2018 • edited

mjpitz commented Feb 23, 2018 • edited

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

mjpitz commented Feb 24, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

yschimke commented Feb 24, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

yschimke left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mjpitz commented Feb 24, 2018

swankjesse left a 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

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

yschimke commented Feb 25, 2018

yschimke commented Feb 25, 2018

yschimke commented Feb 25, 2018 • edited

yschimke left a 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

yschimke commented Feb 26, 2018

mjpitz commented Feb 26, 2018

swankjesse commented Feb 27, 2018

mjpitz commented Feb 28, 2018 via email

mjpitz commented Feb 20, 2018 •

edited

yschimke Feb 21, 2018 •

edited

mjpitz Feb 23, 2018 •

edited

mjpitz commented Feb 23, 2018 •

edited

mjpitz commented Feb 23, 2018 •

edited

yschimke commented Feb 25, 2018 •

edited