fix(wifi): correct matching requests made from browsers

[pzygielo]

Description of Change

I propose to change matching the request line to determine if it is GET for H or L.

Tests scenarios

With example running - when accessed via HTTP client - currently the request is not recognized as GET /(H|L) due to additional content in line (like HTTP protocol version) following the method.

With this fix it's possible to interact with the example as advertised:

arduino-esp32/libraries/WiFi/examples/SimpleWiFiServer/SimpleWiFiServer.ino

Line 6 in f9bb62a

to the Serial monitor. From there, you can open that address in a web browser

Related links

• https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#section-3.9

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[github-actions]

Warnings

⚠️

Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR: the commit message "fix(wifi): correct matching requests made from browsers": footer must have leading blank line Please fix these commit messages - here are some basic tips: follow Conventional Commits style correct format of commit message should be: <type/action>(<scope/component>): <summary>, for example fix(esp32): Fixed startup timeout issue allowed types are: change,ci,docs,feat,fix,refactor,remove,revert,test sufficiently descriptive message summary should be between 20 to 72 characters and start with upper case letter avoid Jira references in commit messages (unavailable/irrelevant for our customers) TIP: Install pre-commit hooks and run this check when committing (uses the Conventional Precommit Linter).

👋 Hello pzygielo, we appreciate your contribution to this project!

---

Click to see more instructions ...

This automated output is generated by the PR linter DangerJS, which checks if your Pull Request meets the project's requirements and helps you fix potential issues.

DangerJS is triggered with each push event to a Pull Request and modify the contents of this comment.

Please consider the following:
- Danger mainly focuses on the PR structure and formatting and can't understand the meaning behind your code or changes.
- Danger is not a substitute for human code reviews; it's still important to request a code review from your colleagues.
- Resolve all warnings (⚠️ ) before requesting a review from human reviewers - they will appreciate it.
- To manually retry these Danger checks, please navigate to the Actions tab and re-run last Danger workflow.

Review and merge process you can expect ...

We do welcome contributions in the form of bug reports, feature requests and pull requests.

1. An internal issue has been created for the PR, we assign it to the relevant engineer.
2. They review the PR and either approve it or ask you for changes or clarifications.
3. Once the GitHub PR is approved we do the final review, collect approvals from core owners and make sure all the automated tests are passing.
- At this point we may do some adjustments to the proposed change, or extend it by adding tests or documentation.
4. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against d90b22e

[pzygielo]

• footer must have leading blank line

• bug: footer-leading-blank complains with the number sign in the commit body conventional-changelog/commitlint#896?

[P-R-O-C-H-Y]

Hello @pzygielo, I have tested the example, and for me it's working with both versions. With the current code and with your changes the same. Even though in the header these is another content like the HTTP, the current line is headed by each char, so at the end with your change, it will trigger the ON/FF multiple times.

13:47:03.219 -> G
13:47:03.219 -> GE
13:47:03.219 -> GET
13:47:03.219 -> GET 
13:47:03.219 -> GET /
13:47:03.219 -> GET /H
13:47:03.219 -> GET /H 
13:47:03.219 -> GET /H H
13:47:03.219 -> GET /H HT
13:47:03.219 -> GET /H HTT
13:47:03.219 -> GET /H HTTP
13:47:03.219 -> GET /H HTTP/
13:47:03.219 -> GET /H HTTP/1
13:47:03.219 -> GET /H HTTP/1.
13:47:03.219 -> GET /H HTTP/1.1

We can close this PR, as it won't be probably merged. @me-no-dev

[pzygielo]

I have tested the example

Just to make sure - with the (real) browser?

[P-R-O-C-H-Y]

I have tested the example

Just to make sure - with the (real) browser?

Yes, and what I posted is the log from the ESP32, when I added a line to print currentLine before the check.

[pzygielo]

I'll re-try the example on my side again then. Thanks for checking.

[pzygielo]

with [this] change, it will trigger the ON/FF multiple times

Yeah... that would be terrible.

I can't explain/remember the error I was getting initially (in January).

But I confirm that now (w/o my change it is), on the next try - everything works as expected with both examples. 🎉