When letting the user put the system into an invalid state is a desirable property
A bug report was opened against RavenDB by one of our developers: “We should prevent error if the user told us to use a URL whose hostname isn’t matching the certificate provided.”
The intent is clear, we have a setup in which we have a certificate, and the only valid URLs in this case are hostnames that are in the certificate. If the user configured the system so we’ll be listening on: https://my-rvn-one but the certificate has hostname “their-rvn-two”, then we know that this is going to cause issues for clients. They will try to connect but fail because of certificate validation. The hostname in the URL and the hostnames in the certificate don’t match, therefor, an error.
I closed this bug as Won’t Fix, and that deserve an explanation. I usually care very deeply about the kind of errors that we generate, and we want to catch things as early as possible.
But sometimes, that is the worst possible thing. By preventing the user from doing the “wrong” thing, we also prevent it from doing something that is required if you got yourself into a bad state.
Consider the following case, a node is down, and we provisioned another one. We got a different IP, but we need to update the DNS record. That is going to take 24 hours to propagate properly, but we need to be up now. So I change the system configuration to use a different URL, but I can’t get a certificate for the new one yet for whatever reason. Now the validation kicks in, and I’m dead in the water. I might just want to be able to peek into the system, or configure the clients to ignore the certificate error, or something.
In this case, putting the system into an invalid state (such as mismatch between hostname and certificate) is desirable. An admin may want to do this for a host of reasons, mostly because they are under the gun and need things to work. There are surprisingly a large number of such cases, where you know that the situation is invalid, but you allow it because not doing so will lead to blocking off important scenarios.
I think that after closing the issue as "won't fix", you should open another one that says "We should warn if the user told us to use a URL whose host name isn’t matching the certificate provided."
Jesus, Why would we want to do that? The user is going to immediately get that warning when they go into the browser, and that is a pretty clear one. That is the expected behavior.