Hey everyone! I’m stuck on a tricky problem with WebSockets in my React app. I’m updating an old system and can’t change the backend. The WebSocket API needs specific headers (like cookies) to work right. It’s fine in Postman, but fails in my React code.
The browser’s WebSocket API doesn’t let me add custom headers, which means I can’t send the cookie needed for authentication and that’s really frustrating.
Has anyone experienced this before? I’m looking for any alternative solutions or workarounds since modifying the backend isn’t an option.
I’ve tried a few things:
const mySocket = new WebSocket('wss://example.com/socket');
// Unfortunately, this approach doesn't allow us to set headers
I’ve encountered a similar issue in the past. One effective solution is to use a library like ‘reconnecting-websocket’ or ‘websocket-as-promised’. These libraries offer more control over the WebSocket connection process and often allow you to set custom headers.
Another approach is to implement a handshake mechanism. First, make an HTTP request to your server with the necessary headers to obtain a token. Then, use this token as a query parameter in your WebSocket connection URL. This way, you can authenticate without directly setting headers on the WebSocket.
If these don’t work, consider investigating if your server can accept the authentication information in the WebSocket protocol’s ‘Sec-WebSocket-Protocol’ header. This is a standard header that some WebSocket implementations allow you to set.
yo, that’s a tricky one! have u looked into socket.io? it’s pretty flexible and might let u send those headers. another idea: maybe u could pass the cookie info as a query param in the websocket url? like ‘wss://example.com/socket?auth=cookievalue’. just brainstorming here
have u considered using a proxy server? it could intercept ur websocket requests and add the necessary headers before forwarding them. this way, u wouldn’t need to modify the backend or struggle with browser limitations. just curious, what specific headers are required? maybe theres a creative workaround we haven’t thought of yet?