Server#closed_socket? - parameter may be a MiniSSL::Socket

[MSP-Greg]

Description

Similar code and naming is used Server#cork_socket & Server#uncork_socket...

Your checklist for this pull request

• I have reviewed the guidelines for contributing to this repository.
• I have added (or updated) appropriate tests if this PR fixes a bug or adds a feature.
• My pull request is 100 lines added/removed or less so that it can be easily reviewed.
• If this PR doesn't need tests (docs change), I added [ci skip] to the title of the PR.
• If this closes any issues, I have added "Closes #issue" to the PR description or my commit messages.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• All new and existing tests passed, including Rubocop.

[dentarg]

Is it correct that without this change, if you use Puma to terminate SSL/TLS, you aren't getting the benefit of #1227?

If that's the case, would be good to change the PR title so that info is reflected in the changelog/history – I didn't understand what this was about until I read the chat where #1227 was linked :)

[dentarg]

Similar code and naming is used Server#cork_socket & Server#uncork_socket

Yeah I'm not a big fan of "skt" 😆 but I will 🙈

[dentarg]

LGTM

[dentarg]

Can we test this?

[dentarg]

Can we test this?

I see that #1227 didn't add a test, I wonder if tests have been added later on or if this is untested? 🤔

[MSP-Greg]

Sorry. I wasn't clear. I should have seen it before.

The MiniSSL::Socket isn't related to IO or any Socket, it just has a few methods that make it appear IO like. But, it has a TCPSocket that it 'connects' with. So, testing whether Client#io.is_a? TCPSocket will never pass, but testing Client#io.to_io.is_a? TCPSocket will. Same thing is done at the start of cork_socket and uncork_socket.

Or, when passing in a MiniSSL::Socket or OpenSSL::Socket to methods that also handle TCPSocket or UNIXSocket , one needs to be careful for what tests/methods are with them...