Skip to content
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

Allow capital case on JSONRPC message #649

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Allow capital case on JSONRPC message #649

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

MrCasCode
Copy link

Some providers send a non-standard typing, so add an alias to allow decoding capital version

Some providers send a non-standard typing, so add an alias to allow decoding capital version
@tomusdrw
Copy link
Contributor

tomusdrw commented Nov 8, 2021

Hey @MrCasCode, thank you for the contribution. We are trying to implement the JSON-RPC specification strictly (see also #595, #448, #642) and the spec states:

All member names exchanged between the Client and the Server that are considered for matching of any kind should be considered to be case-sensitive. The terms function, method, and procedure can be assumed to be interchangeable.

Hence I'm going to close the PR without merging - adding support for arbitrary implementations that don't match the spec is not something we want to support long term - feel free to reach out to the providers you've mentioned and have them fix the member case.

Alternatively please consider implementing a more generic solution of non-strict mode, given in such mode we could support JSONRPC member I don't see a reason why JSONrpc or JsOnRpC should be rejected - i.e. we should ignore casing in members and also allow arbitrary extra members as described in #595.

I hope you'll understand the decision, but feel free to re-open or discuss further.

@tomusdrw tomusdrw closed this Nov 8, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants