-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 174
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
Restrict option parsers to their compatible options #487
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Codecov ReportBase: 69.46% // Head: 69.59% // Increases project coverage by
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #487 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 69.46% 69.59% +0.13%
==========================================
Files 90 90
Lines 5737 5710 -27
==========================================
- Hits 3985 3974 -11
+ Misses 1571 1560 -11
+ Partials 181 176 -5
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report at Codecov. |
e8a6e5b
to
ee037bd
Compare
Signed-off-by: Chris Koch <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Chris Koch <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Chris Koch <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Chris Koch <[email protected]>
…tions RFC 8415 Appendix B and C describe which option codes are allowed in which options, for most of them anyway. Signed-off-by: Chris Koch <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Chris Koch <[email protected]>
Tests that for the correct option code, the correct deserialization is applied. Signed-off-by: Chris Koch <[email protected]>
All other options are still parsed; the option parser does not return an error. Most RFCs that specify options say that one should ignore options specified in places they shouldn't be, rather than take other actions.
This also moves us toward satisfying requests like #395 -- being able to implement lazy parsing.