httpd: accept OPTIONS http method#11316
Conversation
Closes: erlang#11119 Thanks to Torbjörn Törnkvist (https://github.com/etnt) for the original investigation and patch.
CT Test Results 2 files 23 suites 24m 4s ⏱️ Results for commit da8f7d5. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. To speed up review, make sure that you have read Contributing to Erlang/OTP and that all checks pass. See the TESTING and DEVELOPMENT HowTo guides for details about how to run test locally. Artifacts
// Erlang/OTP Github Action Bot |
|
Hi! Thanks for the PR, it can stay like this and I'll make sure it's included in maint |
|
Thank you. Please let me know if there are any problems or anything else required for this patch. |
If you click the button to edit the title, I believe you should be able to change the target branch there. (Don't do this now as @Whaileee will take care of it anyway, just an FYI). |
|
I did not know that, thanks for the tip! |
Add OPTIONS to the bodyless method guard in mod_esi:erl/3 alongside GET, HEAD, and DELETE. Add httpd_example:options/3 as an ESI callback target for testing. Extend test coverage: - http_format_SUITE:validate_request_line covers all 8 methods on HTTP/0.9, 1.0, and 1.1, including OPTIONS * (RFC 9110 Section 7.1) - httpd_SUITE:options verifies OPTIONS passes validation without ESI - httpd_SUITE:esi_options verifies OPTIONS routes through mod_esi Remove notes.md entry.
|
@lpil I've pushed testcases, and some missing details, like the guard clause for mod_esi |
|
Great! Thank you 🙏 |
3 participants
Hello!
Closes: #11119
Thanks to Torbjörn Törnkvist (https://github.com/etnt) for the original investigation and patch.
I had a look for somewhere to write a test for this, but I was unable to locate any existing tests for the other methods, so I was not sure what test code I ought to write for this addition.
I also noticed that erts
packet_parser.cdoes not know of all the HTTP methods. Should that be corrected also?edit: Oops, I intended to target maint with this PR, but selected master by mistake. Can you correct that, or should I remake the PR?