-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 747
Automatic Port Selection and Secured Communication #1038
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
Open
FlorianRappl
wants to merge
7
commits into
develop
Choose a base branch
from
feature/socket-enhancements
base: develop
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
d3b895e
Implemented socket authentication and improved port selection
FlorianRappl 3306aaa
Merge branch 'develop' of https://github.com/ElectronNET/Electron.NET…
FlorianRappl a3e22b2
Update src/ElectronNET.Host/main.js
FlorianRappl 3d75a97
Added timeout
FlorianRappl 6c2b1fa
Added missing tsc output
FlorianRappl 050c31c
Removed whitespace
FlorianRappl 91f76f8
Added space
FlorianRappl File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
This file contains hidden or 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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
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.
There should be a path completely without reading the process output.
(without auth token)
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 would not do that. It's less secure and just more complicated. Let's keep it to the point.
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 do not want to have that in our application that dotnet is relying on the console output of Electron.
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 have nothing against making the auth token mandatory, but it can be provided by the dotnet side as cli param, so it doesn't need to be read it from the console output. (that's no more and no less secure)
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.
Theoretically possible, but that's another branch / logic that we would need to take care of. So I'd opt out of that.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
Was just a thought. My only actual concern is the console parsing. That's admittedly a rather egoistic concern. I do not mean to say that parsing CLI output is generally wrong or bad, it's about the specific context of our app: Linux is a world of 1001 surprises, often bad surprises and I don't want to employ anything which has potential for causing bad surprises - that's why I would like to retain a path where this doesn't happen.
Thanks
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.
Yeah can relate to that... My suggestion would be to have it merged / out in a preview version and test it extensively. If that does not hold / has weak points then I think a different approach must be anyway found (because I would still insist that a single flow is better than multiple - but that single flow has to work in all cases).
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.
The problem is this: as soon as this is merged, there is no more point for me to submit any fixes and updates, because I cannot use the packages anymore.
Beyond my own usage, introducing something new in a way that it's optional, is generally advantageous: