Fix failing extension-negotiation expectation in tests.test_websocket_additional_rfc6455
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Newbie friendliness
- 53/100
Research direction
Read tests/test_websocket_additional_rfc6455.py, starting with test_accept_rejects_extension_negotiation around line 57, then trace the WebSocket accept and extension negotiation behavior it exercises. Run uv run python -m unittest -v tests.test_websocket_additional_rfc6455; done means the intended behavior is clarified, the test or implementation matches it, and the module passes.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Summary
tests.test_websocket_additional_rfc6455 has a failing expectation in test_accept_rejects_extension_negotiation.
Reproduction
uv run python -m unittest -v tests.test_websocket_additional_rfc6455
Current result
- Ran: 3 tests
- Failures: 1
- Failing test:
test_accept_rejects_extension_negotiation
Failure details
At:
tests/test_websocket_additional_rfc6455.py:57
Assertion:
with self.assertRaises(RuntimeError):
...
Observed:
- No
RuntimeErrorwas raised - failure:
AssertionError: RuntimeError not raised
Notes
The other two tests in this module currently pass, so the mismatch appears localized to extension-negotiation rejection behavior/expectation.
Acceptance criteria
- Clarify intended behavior for extension negotiation in this scenario.
- Align implementation or test expectation accordingly.
uv run python -m unittest -v tests.test_websocket_additional_rfc6455passes.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 3
- Forks
- 3
- Avg merge
- 7h 59m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 8
Getting set up
- No Dockerfile or Docker Compose file
- No pull request template
- Read the contributing guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from tigrbl/tigrcorn
-
good first issue
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 84/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
good first issue
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 88/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
good first issue
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 85/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
good first issue
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 92/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
good first issue
Difficulty 1/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 86/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
Similar issues
-
needs-triage
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
gke-labs/kube-agents#5671 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
docs(auth): Method B step 4 should tell users to tick "Use this client for an AI-powered agent"Opendocumentation next-release v0.9.6
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 88/100
khuisman/mcp-gee-sweet#1446 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
model:sonnet runtime:claude security size:S
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 75/100
FootprintAI/Containarium#3671 ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
HolidayBase: reassigning `language` does not re-initialize translations or re-populate holidaysPossibly taken @shikhabhadoria claimed this today. Open
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 78/100
vacanza/holidays#4116 · 1 comment ·
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day
-
bug CLI exec
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 84/100
Maintainers usually reply within 1 day