-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10.4k
Allow headers to match on ReferenceEquals before OrdinalIgnoreCase #9341
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
halter73
merged 6 commits into
dotnet:master
from
benaadams:reference-equal-headernames
Apr 18, 2019
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
bbd1c8a
Allow headers to match on ReferenceEquals before trying OrdinalIgnore…
benaadams 82f897c
Use HeaderNames more consistently
benaadams 506456c
Feedbacks
benaadams c9d21ce
Internal the consts
benaadams 6fef5a7
Merge remote-tracking branch 'refs/remotes/aspnet/master' into refere…
benaadams 8db0ab3
undo accidental change
benaadams File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this is a breaking change? These can't be used in attributes anymore?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Indeed. Do we have any examples where it's relevant? I have not seen these used in attributes.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Was one in http2 tests; though that was testing the headers
Wouldn't think it was common? e.g. everything in ASP.NET Core repos work and this was the only change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suppose its a choice:
Fast header string matching (extremely common; used in every request, 1258 uses in ASP.NET Core itself)
Use in attributes (extremely uncommon, 2 test uses in ASP.NET Core itself and those testing http/2 protocol psudeo headers)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It’s not common no. The only other thing is that I’d like to eventually burn the headers assembly to the ground
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Keeping it would involve duplication, which would get pretty confusing.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To caveat the scope, its source code breaking if used in attributes or other string const initalization; otherwise isn't source code breaking.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh I didn't see the whole change. I think this change is fine then. The few cases I found on the internet were not in attribute cases where a const is required. They were just regular imperative code. Carry on.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We use these quite a bit in
case
statements for what it's worth...though I guess not anymore. Bleh.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry :-/