Revert #3492 #8300
Merged
Revert #3492 #8300
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
Dreamsorcerer
added
the
bot:chronographer:skip
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #8300 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 97.57% 97.56% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 107 107
Lines 33085 33026 -59
Branches 3868 3862 -6
==========================================
- Hits 32282 32223 -59
Misses 587 587
Partials 216 216
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
bdraco
approved these changes
Apr 6, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
#3492 was never backported and nobody seems to have reported the missing feature after 5 years which suggests there is little demand for it.
Furthermore, there is a risk that this may introduce HTTP request smuggling vulnerabilities.
Therefore, we should revert this for now. If there is desire to re-add the feature, the specs will need to referenced and evaluated to ensure this doesn't present a security issue.