From 45158c1da454b5c7406418afeccaecf54232deeb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Lo=C3=AFc=20Hoguin?= Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0100 Subject: Clarify comments about remaining tests to add to rfc7540_SUITE --- test/rfc7540_SUITE.erl | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-) (limited to 'test/rfc7540_SUITE.erl') diff --git a/test/rfc7540_SUITE.erl b/test/rfc7540_SUITE.erl index b560d02..5abd456 100644 --- a/test/rfc7540_SUITE.erl +++ b/test/rfc7540_SUITE.erl @@ -406,10 +406,43 @@ http_upgrade_client_preface_settings_ack_timeout(Config) -> ok. %% @todo We need a successful test with actual options in HTTP2-Settings. +%% SETTINGS_MAX_FRAME_SIZE is probably the easiest to test. The relevant +%% RFC quote is: +%% +%% 3.2.1 +%% A server decodes and interprets these values as it would any other +%% SETTINGS frame. Explicit acknowledgement of these settings +%% (Section 6.5.3) is not necessary, since a 101 response serves as +%% implicit acknowledgement. + +%% @todo We need to test an upgrade with a request body. It is probably +%% worth having a configuration value for how much we accept while still +%% upgrading (if too big, we would just stay on HTTP/1.1). We therefore +%% needs a test for when the body is small enough, and one for when the +%% body is larger than we accept. The relevant RFC quote is: +%% +%% 3.2 +%% Requests that contain a payload body MUST be sent in their entirety +%% before the client can send HTTP/2 frames. This means that a large +%% request can block the use of the connection until it is completely +%% sent. + +%% @todo We should definitely have a test with OPTIONS. The relevant +%% RFC quote is: +%% +%% 3.2 +%% If concurrency of an initial request with subsequent requests is +%% important, an OPTIONS request can be used to perform the upgrade to +%% HTTP/2, at the cost of an additional round trip. -%% @todo We need to test an upgrade with a request body (small and too large). +%% @todo If we ever handle priority, we need to check that the initial +%% HTTP/1.1 request has default priority. The relevant RFC quote is: +%% +%% 3.2 +%% The HTTP/1.1 request that is sent prior to upgrade is assigned a +%% stream identifier of 1 (see Section 5.1.1) with default priority +%% values (Section 5.3.5). -%% @todo Also assigned default priority values but not sure how to test that. http_upgrade_response(Config) -> doc("A response must be sent to the initial HTTP/1.1 request " "after switching to HTTP/2. The response must use " @@ -431,7 +464,7 @@ http_upgrade_response(Config) -> {ok, << 4:8, 0:40, _:Len/binary >>} = gen_tcp:recv(Socket, 6 + Len, 1000), %% Send the SETTINGS ack. ok = gen_tcp:send(Socket, cow_http2:settings_ack()), - %% Receive the SETTINGS ack, and the response HEADERS and DATA (streamid 1). + %% Receive the SETTINGS ack, and the response HEADERS and DATA (Stream ID 1). Received = lists:reverse(lists:foldl(fun(_, Acc) -> case gen_tcp:recv(Socket, 9, 1000) of {ok, << 0:24, 4:8, 1:8, 0:32 >>} -> @@ -762,42 +795,10 @@ prior_knowledge(Config) -> {ok, << 8:24, 6:8, 0:7, 1:1, 0:96 >>} = gen_tcp:recv(Socket, 17, 1000), ok. - - -%% Tests still need to be added for the following points: - -%% @todo how to test this? -%3.2.1 -% A server decodes and interprets these values as it would any other -% SETTINGS frame. - -%3.2 -% @todo (maybe an option to disable HTTP/2?) -% A server that does not support HTTP/2 can respond to the request as -% though the Upgrade header field were absent - -%% @todo Do we reject "http" requests over TLS and "https" requests over TCP? -%% Yes, see 421 status code. But maybe some configuration is in order. - -%3.5 -%% @todo yeah idk -%(if the upgrade failed and the connection send this before 101 then -% we should 400 and close the connection, but not sure how it can fail) -% @todo (maybe an option to disable HTTP/2?) -% The client sends -% the client connection preface immediately upon receipt of a 101 -% (Switching Protocols) response (indicating a successful upgrade) - -%% @todo -%3.5 -%(big mess) -% To avoid unnecessary latency, clients are permitted to send -% additional frames to the server immediately after sending the client -% connection preface, without waiting to receive the server connection -% preface. It is important to note, however, that the server -% connection preface SETTINGS frame might include parameters that -% necessarily alter how a client is expected to communicate with the -% server. Upon receiving the SETTINGS frame, the client is expected to -% honor any parameters established. In some configurations, it is -% possible for the server to transmit SETTINGS before the client sends -% additional frames, providing an opportunity to avoid this issue. +%% @todo If we ever add an option to disable HTTP/2, we need to check +%% the following things: +%% * HTTP/1.1 Upgrade returns an HTTP/1.1 response (3.2) +%% * HTTP/1.1 Upgrade errors out if the client sends HTTP/2 frames +%% without waiting for the 101 response (3.2, 3.5) +%% * Prior knowledge handshake fails (3.4) +%% * ALPN selects HTTP/1.1 (3.3) -- cgit v1.2.3