feat(grpc): add support for authority pseudo-header #4898
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What?
This PR adds support for setting the authority pseudo-header when sending gRPC requests.
Why?
This MR is similar to #3454, which was not accepted because the feature was supposed to work without changes using the
dns://authority/endpoint
syntax.The company I work at uses gRPC services with TLS certificates matching the gRPC service name. So for example we would have a gRPC service
company.test.v1
hosted on a machine reachable fromtest-v1.internal.company.com
, but exposing a certificate signed forcompany.test.v1
.I tried using the
dns:///
syntax like this:But I end up with this error, the same as if I was simply trying to connect without the
dns:///
syntax.I have a workaround by configuring my
/etc/hosts
file so that the addess inconnect
is company.test.v1 but I would prefer if it was a k6 parameter directly.With the changes made in this MR i can connect like this:
Which allows the TLS handshake to work properly.
Checklist
make check
) and all pass.Checklist: Documentation (only for k6 maintainers and if relevant)
Please do not merge this PR until the following items are filled out.
Related PR(s)/Issue(s)
#3454