code review 5694045: net/http: some more cookie tests

net/http: some more cookie tests

Including a commented-out test we might
tackle later, after seeing what browsers do.

[bradfitz, 2012-02-23 04:42:41]

Hello dsymonds@golang.org (cc: golang-dev@googlegroups.com),

I'd like you to review this change to
https://go.googlecode.com/hg/

[dsymonds, 2012-02-23 04:48:55]

LGTM

http://codereview.appspot.com/5694045/diff/3002/src/pkg/net/http/cookie_test.go
File src/pkg/net/http/cookie_test.go (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5694045/diff/3002/src/pkg/net/http/cookie_test....
src/pkg/net/http/cookie_test.go:137: Expires:    time.Date(2012, 3, 7, 14, 25,
6, 0, time.UTC),
s/3/time.March/

[rsc, 2012-02-23 04:50:51]

maybe they saw it with our software?
the http header reader used to do that
comma concatenation because rfc 2616
said they had to be equivalent and it was
easier to record a string instead of a []string.
but in practice rfc 2616 was wrong so we
had to undo that.

[bradfitz, 2012-02-23 04:51:59]

*** Submitted as http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=116b2ccf6c88 ***

net/http: some more cookie tests

Including a commented-out test we might
tackle later, after seeing what browsers do.

R=dsymonds, rsc
CC=golang-dev
http://codereview.appspot.com/5694045

[bradfitz, 2012-02-23 04:53:49]

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org> wrote:

> maybe they saw it with our software?
>

It's http all the way down.  Still trying to figure out which layer.


> the http header reader used to do that
> comma concatenation because rfc 2616
> said they had to be equivalent and it was
> easier to record a string instead of a []string.
> but in practice rfc 2616 was wrong so we
> had to undo that.
>