Use enhanced enums for option types, handle unknown option numbers #89
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
JosefWN
reviewed
May 16, 2022
|
Great work, looks good! Very nice with added type safety and improved readability! |
See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7252#section-5.4.1 for the rationale behind this change.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
As mentioned in #80, this PR lets the library use enhanced enums for option types, making the respective code a bit more concise.
While I was at it, I added some additional logic for handling options that are unknown to the client in accordance to RFC 7252, section 4.2. Such options will now be ignored (in the case of elective options) or will cause responses to be rejected (in the case of critical options).
I am looking forward to your feedback :)
// CC @JosefWN