Testing HTTP versions offered by endpoint

[ragebflame]

Hi,

I am looking for a way of testing if my API is serving content over the various HTTP versions. I have things configured to only server HTTP/2, but I would like a way of confirming this.

sample.hurl

GET https://media-laptop.lan
HTTP/1.0 200

GET https://media-laptop.lan
HTTP/1.1 200

GET https://media-laptop.lan
HTTP/2 200

hurl -k --test sample.hurl

sample.hurl: Running [1/1]
error: Assert HTTP version
  --> sample.hurl:2:1
   |
 2 | HTTP/1.0 200
   | ^^^^^^^^ actual value is <HTTP/2>
   |

sample.hurl: Failure (1 request(s) in 57 ms)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executed files:  1
Succeeded files: 0 (0.0%)
Failed files:    1 (100.0%)
Duration:        57 ms

I have been reading the documentation around HTTP version responses, but don't see a way of asserting on the value returned.

[jcamiel]

Hi @ragebflame if I understand correctly, you would like a way to test that your version is not HTTP/1.0 or not HTTP/1.1 ?
Currently, we have implicit and explicit assert on status:

Implicit:

GET https://foo.com
HTTP 200

Explicit:

GET https://foo.com
HTTP *
[Asserts]
status == 200

We have implicit assert on version as well:

GET https://foo.com
HTTP/2 200

But no explicit assert on version. It makes sense to be able to write:

GET https://foo.com
HTTP 200
[Asserts]
version != HTTP/1.0

If this is what you want, we can turn this discussion to an issue for our TODO list

[ragebflame]

Hi @jcamiel,

Thanks for the quick response.

Hi @ragebflame if I understand correctly, you would like a way to test that your version is not HTTP/1.0 or not HTTP/1.1 ? Currently, we have implicit and explicit assert on status:

Yes, this is what I was looking for. A way to ensure that the endpoint is not serving requests over a HTTP version lower than 2.

But no explicit assert on version. It makes sense to be able to write:

GET https://foo.com
HTTP 200
[Asserts]
version != HTTP/1.0

If this is what you want, we can turn this discussion to an issue for our TODO list

This is what I meant (but worded things poorly!). I'd be happy for this to be added as a TODO item if you guys think it would be a useful addition.

[jcamiel]

Issue created here => #1706

[ragebflame]

Great. Thanks!