-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.9k
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Add some more integration tests for forward proxy
- Test the difference in behavior with port numbers included in the uri and not
- Loading branch information
Matt Woodyard
committed
Aug 22, 2017
1 parent
363df1b
commit eea1f7f
Showing
4 changed files
with
47 additions
and
0 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
Thanks for adding this test!
The proxy I previously worked on didn't allow route matching based on client port. I don't think it's a bad thing to do -
I'd let @mattklein123 make the call if we want to allow or if we should strip out port for matching entirely. My concern is if we have a normal route going to "www.foo.com" it won't match "http://www.foo.com:80" or "https://www.foo.com:443" and I'd consider that a bug, and the use case I'd like to see tested and (if necessary) fixed.