Virtual Hosts: support HTTP/2 using :authority #570
Closed
Conversation
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
|
Review changes with |
joseluisq
requested changes
Oct 18, 2025
Collaborator
joseluisq
left a comment
joseluisq
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I will add some test cases.
Collaborator
|
@CrazyCraftix I made the mistake of force-pushing accidentally when wanting to add tests. |
Author
|
All good, thanks for integrating it! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
It resolves #569
Description
So far, the HTTP host header has been used to determine the hostname that is being accessed. In HTTP/2, this header is not guaranteed to be sent. Instead, the ":authority" pseudo-header field is used. I added a check for that header to make virtual hosts also work with HTTP/2.
Also I found out that the HTTP host header may also contain the port number, so I added a check to remove it if it's there.
How Has This Been Tested?
Not thoroughly, just manually for my usecase, so there may still be problems I didn't consider.
I suppose an automated test would be nice but I'm not sure what's the best way to do this.