Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0ebe65d and d98863b.

• ctx.go (1 hunks)
• ctx_test.go (1 hunks)

• GitHub Check: lint
• GitHub Check: Compare
• GitHub Check: repeated
• GitHub Check: unit (1.24.x, macos-latest)
• GitHub Check: Analyse
• GitHub Check: unit (1.24.x, windows-latest)
• GitHub Check: unit (1.24.x, macos-13)
• GitHub Check: unit (1.24.x, ubuntu-latest)

ctx.go (4)

400-406: Cookie validation implementation looks good!

The default path setting and SessionOnly handling are correctly implemented. This ensures cookies have a valid path and session-only cookies don't persist.

---

408-420: SameSite mapping is well-structured with secure defaults.

The mapping correctly handles all SameSite modes and defaults to Lax mode for better security.

---

422-437: Excellent use of standard library validation!

Using http.Cookie.Valid() provides robust validation and early rejection of invalid cookies, which aligns perfectly with the PR objectives.

---

422-437: Verify if additional domain validation with utils.IsIPv4 is needed.

The PR objectives mention validating cookie domains using utils.IsIPv4, but the current implementation delegates all validation to http.Cookie.Valid(). Please verify if additional IP-based domain validation is required or if the standard library validation is sufficient.

#!/bin/bash
# Check if utils.IsIPv4 is used elsewhere for cookie domain validation
rg -A 5 "IsIPv4.*[Dd]omain|[Dd]omain.*IsIPv4" --type go

# Check the implementation of cookie domain validation in tests
fd -e go -x grep -l "cookie.*domain\|domain.*cookie" {} | xargs grep -A 5 -B 5 "IsIPv4\|Invalid.*[Dd]omain"

# Look for cookie validation test cases
ast-grep --pattern 'func Test.*Cookie.*Invalid'

ctx_test.go (1)

923-946: LGTM! Comprehensive cookie validation test.

This test effectively validates the cookie rejection functionality with well-chosen edge cases. The test structure is clean and follows Go testing best practices:

• Covers critical invalid scenarios (empty names, invalid characters, domain/path violations, security requirements)
• Properly isolates each test case with header resets
• Uses clear, descriptive comments for each test case
• Follows the expected behavior of rejecting invalid cookies by ensuring no Set-Cookie header is set

The test cases are particularly well-selected, covering RFC violations, security requirements (partitioned cookies needing secure flag), and various malformed inputs.

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0ebe65d and efb5571.

• ctx.go (1 hunks)
• ctx_test.go (1 hunks)

ctx.go (3)

420-434: LGTM! Excellent RFC validation approach.

Creating an http.Cookie struct and using its Valid() method is the right approach for ensuring RFC compliance. This addresses the PR objective of improving Cookie RFC validation by leveraging the standard library's validation logic.

---

416-416: Add test coverage for SameSite disabled case.

The static analysis indicates this line is not covered by tests. Ensure there's a test case that exercises the CookieSameSiteDisabled branch.

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for existing test cases covering SameSite disabled scenario
# Expected: Find test cases that set SameSite to disabled value

rg -A 10 -B 5 "SameSiteDisabled|CookieSameSiteDisabled" --type go

---

454-455: Add test coverage for DefaultMode and Disabled SameSite cases.

These lines handling CookieSameSiteDefaultMode and CookieSameSiteDisabled are not covered by tests according to static analysis.

#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check test coverage for SameSite edge cases
# Expected: Find or confirm missing test cases for default and disabled modes

rg -A 15 -B 5 "Test.*Cookie.*SameSite|SameSite.*test" --type go

ctx_test.go (1)

940-963: Excellent comprehensive test coverage for invalid cookie scenarios.

This test systematically validates multiple edge cases and invalid input scenarios, ensuring that the enhanced cookie validation properly rejects malformed cookies. The test structure with proper header reset between iterations and the comprehensive coverage of validation rules (including the important partitioned-without-secure case) demonstrates thorough testing practices.