-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 35.4k
http: add new functions to OutgoingMessage #10805
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
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -934,6 +934,66 @@ Example: | |
| var contentType = response.getHeader('content-type'); | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### response.getHeaderNames() | ||
| <!-- YAML | ||
| added: REPLACEME | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| * Returns: {Array} | ||
|
|
||
| Returns an array containing the unique names of the current outgoing headers. | ||
| All header names are lowercase. | ||
|
|
||
| Example: | ||
|
|
||
| ```js | ||
| response.setHeader('Foo', 'bar'); | ||
| response.setHeader('Set-Cookie', ['foo=bar', 'bar=baz']); | ||
|
|
||
| var headerNames = response.getHeaderNames(); | ||
| // headerNames === ['foo', 'set-cookie'] | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### response.getHeaders() | ||
| <!-- YAML | ||
| added: REPLACEME | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| * Returns: {Object} | ||
|
|
||
| Returns a shallow copy of the current outgoing headers. Since a shallow copy | ||
| is used, array values may be mutated without additional calls to various | ||
| header-related http module methods. The keys of the returned object are the | ||
| header names and the values are the respective header values. All header names | ||
| are lowercase. | ||
|
|
||
| Example: | ||
|
|
||
| ```js | ||
| response.setHeader('Foo', 'bar'); | ||
| response.setHeader('Set-Cookie', ['foo=bar', 'bar=baz']); | ||
|
|
||
| var headers = response.getHeaders(); | ||
| // headers === { foo: 'bar', 'set-cookie': ['foo=bar', 'bar=baz'] } | ||
| ``` | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Out of curiosity: did you investigate the possibility of having a variation on this that returns an iterator instead? Not sure if that would perform better or worse than a copy if we allowed it to do a live iteration. Obviously it depends entirely on how we expect users to make use of this. Also, a
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I thought about the iterator, but I'm not sure if the performance is up to par with existing solutions.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'll experiment with it a bit and see what I get
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Added |
||
|
|
||
| ### response.hasHeader(name) | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Is this necessary? One could just do
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. As a performance optimization when simply checking for the existence of a header,
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yep. |
||
| <!-- YAML | ||
| added: REPLACEME | ||
| --> | ||
|
|
||
| * `name` {String} | ||
| * Returns: {Boolean} | ||
|
|
||
| Returns `true` if the header identified by `name` is currently set in the | ||
| outgoing headers. Note that the header name matching is case-insensitive. | ||
|
|
||
| Example: | ||
|
|
||
| ```js | ||
| var hasContentType = response.hasHeader('content-type'); | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| ### response.headersSent | ||
| <!-- YAML | ||
| added: v0.9.3 | ||
|
|
||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -18,6 +18,10 @@ var RE_FIELDS = new RegExp('^(?:Connection|Transfer-Encoding|Content-Length|' + | |
| var RE_CONN_VALUES = /(?:^|\W)close|upgrade(?:$|\W)/ig; | ||
| var RE_TE_CHUNKED = common.chunkExpression; | ||
|
|
||
| // Used to store headers returned by getHeaders() | ||
| function OutgoingHeaders() {} | ||
| OutgoingHeaders.prototype = Object.create(null); | ||
|
|
||
| var dateCache; | ||
| function utcDate() { | ||
| if (!dateCache) { | ||
|
|
@@ -426,6 +430,37 @@ OutgoingMessage.prototype.getHeader = function getHeader(name) { | |
| }; | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| // Returns an array of the names of the current outgoing headers. | ||
| OutgoingMessage.prototype.getHeaderNames = function getHeaderNames() { | ||
| return (this._headers ? Object.keys(this._headers) : []); | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| // Returns a shallow copy of the current outgoing headers. | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. looks like a deep copy to me, what am I missing?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It's not. Array values are no longer copied.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. ok, so then in the docs above we need to warn that the return value should not be modified, right? Or is it deliberately supported, modifying the array values?
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. and I really misread the code 😊 I thought I saw two loops.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It's just matching
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I can't speak about the origin of
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. OK, so my request is that that implication be stated in the docs, so people don't think its like #10795, an unfortunate loop-hole, that will be closed in the future, and that they should not depend on.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I think #10795 is a different situation. There is arguably less usefulness in mutating the list of ciphers/hashes supported by OpenSSL. Mutating the array values in this PR is more useful because you do not have to continually execute
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I agree it is different. I just want it stated in the docs, rather than "implied" (your word). I suggest you include what you just wrote:
You seem dead set against adding an explanatory sentence, because you feel the user should be able to derive this understanding from the word "shallow" (if I understand you correctly), but I don't think one extra sentence is overkill here.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @sam-github It's added now... LGTY? |
||
| OutgoingMessage.prototype.getHeaders = function getHeaders() { | ||
| const headers = this._headers; | ||
| const ret = new OutgoingHeaders(); | ||
| if (headers) { | ||
| const keys = Object.keys(headers); | ||
| for (var i = 0; i < keys.length; ++i) { | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Is there any reason this can't be an
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Performance. Last we checked, |
||
| const key = keys[i]; | ||
| const val = headers[key][1]; | ||
| ret[key] = val; | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| return ret; | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| OutgoingMessage.prototype.hasHeader = function hasHeader(name) { | ||
| if (typeof name !== 'string') { | ||
| throw new TypeError('"name" argument must be a string'); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| return !!(this._headers && this._headers[name.toLowerCase()]); | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This would return true for
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Technically yes, but that's nothing new.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. A
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. You could make the same argument for the already existing
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I guess we can fix it a separate PR. |
||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| OutgoingMessage.prototype.removeHeader = function removeHeader(name) { | ||
| if (typeof name !== 'string') { | ||
| throw new TypeError('"name" argument must be a string'); | ||
|
|
||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -21,6 +21,13 @@ const cookies = [ | |
| const s = http.createServer(common.mustCall((req, res) => { | ||
| switch (test) { | ||
| case 'headers': | ||
| // Check that header-related functions work before setting any headers | ||
| // eslint-disable-next-line no-restricted-properties | ||
| assert.deepEqual(res.getHeaders(), {}); | ||
| assert.deepStrictEqual(res.getHeaderNames(), []); | ||
| assert.deepStrictEqual(res.hasHeader('Connection'), false); | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. These two need not be deep?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Perhaps not the
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Yeah, object comparisons are fine. I meant this line and the next one. |
||
| assert.deepStrictEqual(res.getHeader('Connection'), undefined); | ||
|
|
||
| assert.throws(() => { | ||
| res.setHeader(); | ||
| }, /^TypeError: Header name must be a valid HTTP Token \["undefined"\]$/); | ||
|
|
@@ -34,15 +41,52 @@ const s = http.createServer(common.mustCall((req, res) => { | |
| res.removeHeader(); | ||
| }, /^TypeError: "name" argument must be a string$/); | ||
|
|
||
| const arrayValues = [1, 2, 3]; | ||
| res.setHeader('x-test-header', 'testing'); | ||
| res.setHeader('X-TEST-HEADER2', 'testing'); | ||
| res.setHeader('set-cookie', cookies); | ||
| res.setHeader('x-test-array-header', [1, 2, 3]); | ||
| res.setHeader('x-test-array-header', arrayValues); | ||
|
|
||
| assert.strictEqual(res.getHeader('x-test-header'), 'testing'); | ||
| assert.strictEqual(res.getHeader('x-test-header2'), 'testing'); | ||
|
|
||
| const headersCopy = res.getHeaders(); | ||
| // eslint-disable-next-line no-restricted-properties | ||
| assert.deepEqual(headersCopy, { | ||
| 'x-test-header': 'testing', | ||
| 'x-test-header2': 'testing', | ||
| 'set-cookie': cookies, | ||
| 'x-test-array-header': arrayValues | ||
| }); | ||
| // eslint-disable-next-line no-restricted-properties | ||
| assert.deepEqual(headersCopy['set-cookie'], cookies); | ||
| assert.strictEqual(headersCopy['x-test-array-header'], arrayValues); | ||
|
|
||
| assert.deepStrictEqual(res.getHeaderNames(), | ||
| ['x-test-header', 'x-test-header2', | ||
| 'set-cookie', 'x-test-array-header']); | ||
|
|
||
| assert.strictEqual(res.hasHeader('x-test-header2'), true); | ||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. nit: being pedantic here but it would be good to expand the test to include mixed case header name (to ensure the
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Added. |
||
| assert.strictEqual(res.hasHeader('X-TEST-HEADER2'), true); | ||
| assert.strictEqual(res.hasHeader('X-Test-Header2'), true); | ||
| assert.throws(() => { | ||
| res.hasHeader(); | ||
| }, /^TypeError: "name" argument must be a string$/); | ||
| assert.throws(() => { | ||
| res.hasHeader(null); | ||
| }, /^TypeError: "name" argument must be a string$/); | ||
| assert.throws(() => { | ||
| res.hasHeader(true); | ||
| }, /^TypeError: "name" argument must be a string$/); | ||
| assert.throws(() => { | ||
| res.hasHeader({ toString: () => 'X-TEST-HEADER2' }); | ||
| }, /^TypeError: "name" argument must be a string$/); | ||
|
|
||
| res.removeHeader('x-test-header2'); | ||
|
|
||
| assert.strictEqual(res.hasHeader('x-test-header2'), false); | ||
| assert.strictEqual(res.hasHeader('X-TEST-HEADER2'), false); | ||
| assert.strictEqual(res.hasHeader('X-Test-Header2'), false); | ||
| break; | ||
|
|
||
| case 'contentLength': | ||
|
|
||
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.
Do we really need
uniquehere?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.
Yes, because header names can be repeated in the outoing headers, which could cause duplicate values in this Array, but it doesn't, the Array can be relied on to be unique.
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.
Thanks @sam-github :-)