httpcaddyfile: Adjust path matcher sorting to solve for specificity #5462
Conversation
This file contains 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
francislavoie
force-pushed
the
path-matcher-sorting
branch
from
3797a1b to
2ca0616
Compare
francislavoie
force-pushed
the
path-matcher-sorting
branch
from
2ca0616 to
21b9e99
Compare
mholt
approved these changes
Mar 27, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Our existing Caddyfile path matcher sorting has served us quite well, but I only just thought of one edgecase we didn't handle very well.
In the case that the user defines both
/fooand/foo*matchers on the same directive type, previously it would sort/foo*first because it's a longer path matcher (more chars).The problem is, technically
/foois more specific because*matches 0 or more characters. So we need to reverse the order of those when the paths are the same other than having a*suffix.Also, I took the liberty of refactoring the implementation a bit to use an inline function to deduplicate the condition. That was my fault when I introduced the case for handling
varsbeing reversed.