-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 193
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
Fix request Content-Type
header checking in servers
#3690
Fix request Content-Type
header checking in servers
#3690
Conversation
This fixes two bugs: 1. `Content-Type` header checking was succeeding when no `Content-Type` header was present but one was expected. 2. When a shape was @httpPayload`-bound, `Content-Type` header checking occurred even when no payload was being sent. In this case it is not necessary to check the header, since there is no content. Code has been refactored and cleaned up. The crux of the logic is now easier to understand, and contained in `content_type_header_classifier`.
A new generated diff is ready to view.
A new doc preview is ready to view. |
request: { | ||
method: "POST", | ||
uri: "/MalformedContentTypeWithBody", | ||
body: "{}", |
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 need an additional test to verify that it's acceptable to omit the Content-Type header when the body is empty?
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.
"x-amzn-errortype": "UnsupportedMediaTypeException" | ||
} | ||
}, | ||
tags: [ "content-type" ] |
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 need a appliesTo = server
?
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.
No, @httpMalformedRequestTests
only apply to servers.
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ | |||
$version: "1.0" |
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.
A general question: are we sticking to version 1.0 or do we write all new tests in version 2.0 syntax?
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.
We should write all new tests in 2.0 syntax. But since the tests in this file are copied from the ones upstream in Smithy (and they'll go away in the next Smithy release), this is OK, I just made the same modifications that I did upstream: smithy-lang/smithy#2310
{ | ||
id: "RestJsonWithBodyExpectsApplicationJsonContentTypeNoHeaders", | ||
documentation: """ | ||
When there is modeled input, the content type must be application/json""", |
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.
Nit: indentation
@httpRequestTests([ | ||
{ | ||
id: "RestJsonEnumPayloadRequest2", | ||
uri: "/EnumPayload2", |
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.
Could we please add documentation
key to the tests that are defined in this file?
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.
These tests come from upstream, we should make the changes there.
let mime = expected_content_type | ||
.parse::<mime::Mime>() | ||
// `expected_content_type` comes from the codegen. | ||
.expect("BUG: MIME parsing failed, `expected_content_type` is not valid; please file a bug report under https://github.com/smithy-lang/smithy-rs/issues"); |
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.
Should we print the value of expected_content_type
to make it easier to debug?
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.
I'd rather not incur an unconditional format!
heap-allocating call for something that should never happen.
// the core Smithy library, which _does not_ require deserializing the payload. | ||
// If no members have `@httpPayload`, the expected `Content-Type` header as dictated _by the protocol_ is | ||
// checked later on for non-streaming operations, in `serverRenderShapeParser`. | ||
// Both checks require buffering the entire payload, since the check must only be performed if the payload is |
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.
I'm curious, can't we simply check the Content-Length instead of buffering the entire payload?
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.
No, Content-Length
is best-effort, we should not rely on it for this. We could use it to fail early in some scenarios like these when it's set though.
content_type_header_classifier(content_type, expected_content_type) | ||
} else { | ||
Ok(()) | ||
fn parse_expected_mime(expected_content_type: &str) -> mime::Mime { |
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.
I'm curious, considering each protocol has a specific Content-Type MIME type, why do we parse the &str
to Mime
at runtime? Wouldn't it be more efficient to simply pass the mime::Mime
to the function instead?
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, we could codegen a const
Mime
value for each expected Content-Type
in a request. We already do this to check the Accept
header (against the Content-Type
of the response):
Lines 243 to 261 in e912cf5
val verifyAcceptHeaderStaticContentTypeInit = | |
writable { | |
httpBindingResolver.responseContentType(operationShape)?.also { contentType -> | |
val init = | |
when (contentType) { | |
"application/json" -> "const $staticContentType: #{Mime}::Mime = #{Mime}::APPLICATION_JSON;" | |
"application/octet-stream" -> "const $staticContentType: #{Mime}::Mime = #{Mime}::APPLICATION_OCTET_STREAM;" | |
"application/x-www-form-urlencoded" -> "const $staticContentType: #{Mime}::Mime = #{Mime}::APPLICATION_WWW_FORM_URLENCODED;" | |
else -> | |
""" | |
static $staticContentType: #{OnceCell}::sync::Lazy<#{Mime}::Mime> = #{OnceCell}::sync::Lazy::new(|| { | |
${contentType.dq()}.parse::<#{Mime}::Mime>().expect("BUG: MIME parsing failed, content_type is not valid") | |
}); | |
""" | |
} | |
rustTemplate(init, *codegenScope) | |
} | |
} | |
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.
I opened #3703.
return Err(MissingContentTypeReason::UnexpectedMimeType { | ||
match (actual_content_type, expected_content_type) { | ||
(None, None) => Ok(()), | ||
(None, Some(expected_content_type)) => { |
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.
What if the input is optional, and instead of sending us an empty body, the client sends no content at all? Since it's permissible to skip the Content-Type when the body is empty, the client also omits setting the Content-Type header. Wouldn't this scenario lead to failure?
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.
No, because the codegen is such that we only call content_type_header_classifier_smithy
when !bytes.is_empty()
.
writable { | ||
operationShape | ||
.inputShape(model) | ||
.members() |
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.
Does Smithy allow decorating a member of a target shape with @httpPayload
? If so, will members()
return all descendants or just the immediate members of the input structure?
For instance,
structure ParentInput {
x: DescendantShape
}
structure DescendantShape {
@httpPayload
y: String
}
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.
No, see smithy-lang/smithy#1379 (comment).
…-content-type-checking-in-servers
A critical thing I missed was to bump |
A new generated diff is ready to view.
A new doc preview is ready to view. |
## Motivation and Context This PR upgrades Smithy to 1.50.0. The majority of the changes follow `TODO` added in #3690. Other than that, a few adjustments needed to be made: - for the client - added two failing tests `RestJsonClientPopulatesDefaultValuesInInput` and `RestJsonClientUsesExplicitlyProvidedMemberValuesOverDefaults` to known failing tests for the same reason [here](https://github.com/smithy-lang/smithy-rs/blob/main/codegen-client/src/main/kotlin/software/amazon/smithy/rust/codegen/client/smithy/generators/protocol/ClientProtocolTestGenerator.kt#L72) - added one broken test (i.e. the upstream test definition is incorrect but our implementation is correct) to known broken tests per ([smithy#2341](smithy-lang/smithy#2341), [smithy-rs#3726](#3726 (comment))) - for the server - removed `rest-xml-extras.smithy` since `RestXmlMustSupportParametersInContentType` is now available upstream Smithy 1.50.0 - added the following to known failing tests (since the `awsJson1_0` counterparts are already in the list, but we need the server team to verify this assumption & provide additional `TODO` comments if necessary) - `RestJsonServerPopulatesDefaultsWhenMissingInRequestBody` - `RestJsonServerPopulatesDefaultsInResponseWhenMissingInParams`, - `RestJsonServerPopulatesNestedDefaultValuesWhenMissingInInResponseParams` ## Testing Existing tests in CI ---- _By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice._ --------- Co-authored-by: Zelda Hessler <zhessler@amazon.com>
RPC v2 CBOR is a new protocol that ~is being added~ has [recently been added](https://smithy.io/2.0/additional-specs/protocols/smithy-rpc-v2.html) to the Smithy specification. _(I'll add more details here as the patchset evolves)_ Credit goes to @jjant for initial implementation of the router, which I built on top of from his [`jjant/smithy-rpc-v2-exploration`](https://github.com/awslabs/smithy-rs/tree/jjant/smithy-rpc-v2-exploration) branch. Tracking issue: #3573. ## Caveats `TODO`s are currently exhaustively sprinkled throughout the patch documenting what remains to be done. Most of these need to be addressed before this can be merged in; some can be punted on to not make this PR bigger. However, I'd like to call out the major caveats and blockers here. I'll keep updating this list as the patchset evolves. - [x] RPC v2 has still not been added to the Smithy specification. It is currently being worked on over in the [`smithy-rpc-v2`](https://github.com/awslabs/smithy/tree/smithy-rpc-v2) branch. The following are prerrequisites for this PR to be merged; **until they are done CI on this PR will fail**: - [x] Smithy merges in RPC v2 support. - [x] Smithy releases a new version incorporating RPC v2 support. - Released in [Smithy v1.47](https://github.com/smithy-lang/smithy/releases/tag/1.47.0) - [x] smithy-rs updates to the new version. - Updated in #3552 - [x] ~Protocol tests for the protocol do not currently exist in Smithy. Until those get written~, this PR resorts to Rust unit tests and integration tests that use `serde` to round-trip messages and compare `serde`'s encoders and decoders with ours for correctness. - Protocol tests are under the [`smithy-protocol-tests`](https://github.com/smithy-lang/smithy/tree/main/smithy-protocol-tests/model/rpcv2Cbor) directory in Smithy. - We're keeping the `serde_cbor` round-trip tests for defense in depth. - [ ] #3709 - Currently only server-side support has been implemented, because that's what I'm most familiar. However, we're almost all the way there to add client-side support. - ~[ ] [Smithy `document` shapes](https://smithy.io/2.0/spec/simple-types.html#document) are not supported. RPC v2's specification currently doesn't indicate how to implement them.~ - [The spec](https://smithy.io/2.0/additional-specs/protocols/smithy-rpc-v2.html#shape-serialization) ended up leaving them as unsupported: "Document types are not currently supported in this protocol." ## Prerequisite PRs This section lists prerequisite PRs and issues that would make the diff for this one lighter or easier to understand. It's preferable that these PRs be merged prior to this one; some are hard prerequisites. They mostly relate to parts of the codebase I've had to touch or ~pilfer~ inspect in this PR where I've made necessary changes, refactors and "drive-by improvements" that are mostly unrelated, although some directly unlock things I've needed in this patchset. It makes sense to pull them out to ease reviewability and make this patch more semantically self-contained. - #2516 - #2517 - #2522 - #2524 - #2528 - #2536 - #2537 - #2531 - #2538 - #2539 - #2542 - #3684 - #3678 - #3690 - #3713 - #3726 - #3752 ## Testing <!--- Please describe in detail how you tested your changes --> <!--- Include details of your testing environment, and the tests you ran to --> <!--- see how your change affects other areas of the code, etc. --> ~RPC v2 has still not been added to the Smithy specification. It is currently being worked on over in the [`smithy-rpc-v2`](https://github.com/awslabs/smithy/tree/smithy-rpc-v2) branch.~ This can only be tested _locally_ following these steps: ~1. Clone [the Smithy repository](https://github.com/smithy-lang/smithy/tree/smithy-rpc-v2) and checkout the `smithy-rpc-v2` branch. 2. Inside your local checkout of smithy-rs pointing to this PR's branch, make sure you've added `mavenLocal()` as a repository in the `build.gradle.kts` files. [Example](8df82fd). 4. Inside your local checkout of Smithy's `smithy-rpc-v2` branch: 1. Set `VERSION` to the current Smithy version used in smithy-rs (1.28.1 as of writing, but [check here](https://github.com/awslabs/smithy-rs/blob/main/gradle.properties#L21)). 2. Run `./gradlew clean build pTML`.~ ~6.~ 1. In your local checkout of the smithy-rs's `smithy-rpc-v2` branch, run `./gradlew codegen-server-test:build -P modules='rpcv2Cbor'`. ~You can troubleshoot whether you have Smithy correctly set up locally by inspecting `~/.m2/repository/software/amazon/smithy/smithy-protocols-traits`.~ ## Checklist <!--- If a checkbox below is not applicable, then please DELETE it rather than leaving it unchecked --> - [ ] I have updated `CHANGELOG.next.toml` if I made changes to the smithy-rs codegen or runtime crates ---- _By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice._
This fixes two bugs:
Content-Type
header checking was succeeding when noContent-Type
header was present but one was expected.
@httpPayload
-bound,Content-Type
header checkingoccurred even when no payload was being sent. In this case it is not
necessary to check the header, since there is no content.
Code has been refactored and cleaned up. The crux of the logic is now
easier to understand, and contained in
content_type_header_classifier
.Checklist
CHANGELOG.next.toml
if I made changes to the smithy-rs codegen or runtime cratesBy submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.