search

eclipse-californium / californium.tools

Californium project
Other
59 stars 57 forks source link

cf-rd cannot register an endpoint to RD with a context in URI query #24

Closed navoda closed 8 years ago

navoda commented 8 years ago

I tried to Register an endpoint to the RD using Third-party registration where a remote client sends a POST request with the endpoint details.

Interaction: CLIENT --> RD Method: POST URI Template: /{+rd}{?ep,d,et,lt,con} con := in the form of scheme://host:port

This template is according to CoRE Resource Directory 6.3 Registration

As an example

Req: POST coap://rd.example.com/rd?ep=node1&d=core&con=coap://localhost:5683

But when RDNodeResource is using this URI query to add a resource to the RD, regarding the given endpoint, the con attribute fails to pass correctly.

I found the class LinkAttribute (org.eclipse.californium.tools.resources.LinkAttribute) receives the query con=coap://localhost:5683 and omits the host and port returning only the schema (in this case coap).

This cause the system to fail to understand the con attribute as an actual URI, hence rejects the whole Resource creation.

Can you please confirm if this is a bug. If it is, I can send a patch to fix this.

sophokles73 commented 8 years ago

@navoda,

I am sorry for the delay, I am currently working on multiple other projects and, to be frank, the Tools module is not really my special area of expertise. I will take a look at it right now and come back to you later ...

sophokles73 commented 8 years ago

@navoda,

can you check if this is still an issue with the latest commit (57daf9ed768e3865049270ea06e4b51c0097fb52)? I have merged a PR that had been lingering around for some time which also seemed to have addressed this problem.

navoda commented 8 years ago

Hi @sophokles73, I tried out the RD with the latest commit and it seems the issue has been fixed. Thank you for the quick response. Can I also know when you will have a release with the committed changes?

sophokles73 commented 8 years ago

Glad this works :-) Regarding a release, that's a tough question. We haven't really made a plan for a 1.1.0 release yet. However, I do not think that we should wait for too much longer now. So, my feeling currently would be to do a 1.1.0 in November ...

If this issue has been solved for you, can you please close it? Thanks, Kai