Accept any HttpRequest instead of HttpUriRequest in CommonHttpClient#305
Merged
renaudhartert-db merged 3 commits intomainfrom Jul 9, 2024
Merged
Accept any HttpRequest instead of HttpUriRequest in CommonHttpClient#305renaudhartert-db merged 3 commits intomainfrom
HttpRequest instead of HttpUriRequest in CommonHttpClient#305renaudhartert-db merged 3 commits intomainfrom
Conversation
renaudhartert-db
changed the title
renaudhartert-db
changed the title
HttpRequest instead of HttpUriRequest in CommonHttpClient
tanmay-db
approved these changes
Jul 9, 2024
Contributor
tanmay-db
left a comment
tanmay-db
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. Just for my understanding, how was the regressions detected?
Contributor
Author
Thanks! I've added some context to the PR description |
tanmay-db
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 10, 2024
### New Features and Improvements * Specify proxy auth explicitly when using system proxy ([#300](#300)). ### Internal Changes * Add Release tag and Workflow Fix ([#309](#309)). * Improve Changelog by grouping changes ([#308](#308)). ### Other Changes * Accept any `HttpRequest` instead of `HttpUriRequest` in `CommonHttpClient` ([#305](#305)). * Test parsing of error messages with `int` error codes ([#303](#303)).
Merged
github-merge-queue bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 12, 2024
## 0.27.1 ### New Features and Improvements * Specify proxy auth explicitly when using system proxy ([#300](#300)). * Accept any `HttpRequest` instead of `HttpUriRequest` in `CommonHttpClient` ([#305](#305)). * Add credential provider for Azure Github OIDC ([#307](#307)). ### Internal Changes * Add Release tag and Workflow Fix ([#309](#309)). * Improve Changelog by grouping changes ([#308](#308)). * Test parsing of error messages with `int` error codes ([#303](#303)). * Run AccountClientIT test only for aws-prod-ucacct ([#311](#311)).
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
Changes
This PR addresses a regression reportedly introduced in PR #290 when connecting via a proxy that requires authentication (see context).
The problem comes from a casting exception in
CommonHttpClientwhich attempts to cast aBasicHttpRequest(which represents the next request after receiving the auth required response) into aHttpUriRequest. This PR solves the casting issue by processing the ancestor of both classes,HttpRequest.Context
The regression was detected when trying to authenticate via a Proxy that requires authentication. In particular, the request to respond to the proxy's authentication request is automatically created as a
BasicHttpRequestby the apacheHttpClient.Tests
Unit tests and integration tests are passing. The fix was also verified by the user who uncovered the issue.
Note: we should add a regression test that simulate the proxy setting. However, I'd like to take the time to experiment with different configurations. Given that the change is relatively simple, I'd recommend to proceed with this PR and add the test in a follow-up PR.