Most of the times when we construct a stream-open-like element, we
want the jabber:client namespace. Hence add a constructor that does
select the namespace implicitly.
Before the existence of AbstractStreamOpen, StreamOpen sufficed our need
during sending an open stream element. Since the intention behind
introducing AbstractStreamOpen is to allow underlying transports provide
transport specific opening streams, these changes will further support
the cause.
This commit will allow us to send transport specific open element
which should be inherited from AbstractStreamOpen.
This PR aims to provide parseXrdLinkReferencesFor() method the ability
to parse forward to the first START_ELEMENT tag.The HttpLookupMethodTest
tests the HttpLookupMethod class by parsing String. This makes use of
PacketParserUtils.getParserFor(String), which already does forward
winding to reach START_ELEMENT. However when fetching endpoints from a
remote host meta data, PacketParserUtils.getParserFor(InputStream) is
used which doesn't do winding in any form. And thus, even though
HttpLookupMethodTest tests pass, this implementation would crash while
parsing remote host-meta.
We previously only set 'connected' after connectInternal()
returned. This could lead to notifyConnectionError() ignoring stream
error exceptions, e.g. when establishing TLS which happens also in
connectInternal(), because 'connected' was still 'false'.
2020-08-06 13:08:06.265 19830-20423/org.atalk.android D/SMACK: SENT (0):
<stream:stream xmlns='jabber:client' to='atalk.sytes.net' xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams' version='1.0' xml:lang='en'>
2020-08-06 13:08:06.333 19830-20424/org.atalk.android D/SMACK: RECV (0): ?xml version='1.0'?>
<stream:stream id='16420577292739412012' version='1.0' xml:lang='en' xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams' from='atalk.sytes.net' xmlns='jabber:client'>
<stream:error>
<policy-violation xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-streams'/>
<text xml:lang='en' xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-streams'>
Too many (20) failed authentications from this IP address (::ffff:42.60.7.13). The address will be unblocked at 05:15:34 06.08.2020 UTC
</text>
</stream:error>
</stream:stream>
2020-08-06 13:08:06.346 19830-20424/org.atalk.android I/aTalk: [241896] org.jivesoftware.smack.AbstractXMPPConnection.notifyConnectionError() Connection was already disconnected when attempting to handle org.jivesoftware.smack.XMPPException$StreamErrorException: policy-violation You can read more about the meaning of this stream error at http://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html#streams-error-conditions
<stream:error><policy-violation xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-streams'/><text xml:lang='en'>Too many (20) failed authentications from this IP address (::ffff:42.60.7.13). The address will be unblocked at 05:15:34 06.08.2020 UTC</text></stream:error>
org.jivesoftware.smack.XMPPException$StreamErrorException: policy-violation You can read more about the meaning of this stream error at http://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html#streams-error-conditions
<stream:error><policy-violation xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-streams'/><text xml:lang='en'>Too many (20) failed authentications from this IP address (::ffff:42.60.7.13). The address will be unblocked at 05:15:34 06.08.2020 UTC</text></stream:error>
at org.jivesoftware.smack.tcp.XMPPTCPConnection$PacketReader.parsePackets(XMPPTCPConnection.java:966)
at org.jivesoftware.smack.tcp.XMPPTCPConnection$PacketReader.access$700(XMPPTCPConnection.java:898)
at org.jivesoftware.smack.tcp.XMPPTCPConnection$PacketReader$1.run(XMPPTCPConnection.java:921)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:919)
Which eventually leads to a NoResponseException
org.jivesoftware.smack.SmackException$NoResponseException: No response
received within reply timeout. Timeout was 30000ms (~30s). While
waiting for establishing TLS
[XMPPTCPConnection[not-authenticated] (4)]
We now set 'connected' to 'true' as soon as the transport (e.g. TCP,
BOSH, …) is connected. While this is in other ways also sensible, it
also allows notifyConnectionError() to handle exceptions in the early
connection stage.
Thanks to Eng Chong Meng for reporting this.
We previously only looked in the registry for 'submit' type forms. But
also 'result' type forms may be send without field type
annotations. Same is true, but less likely, for 'form' type forms.
