Method + Path combination constraints

[wyattisimo]

This update allows you to define constraints for discrete method and path combinations.

See the updated README for more details: https://github.com/Matchbook/rack-ssl-enforcer#method--path-combination-constraints

[wyattisimo]

erg. Travis failed, but all tests passed when I ran them locally.

[wyattisimo]

ooohhh, Travis is testing with 1.8.7, which doesn't support a #length method for Symbol

[wyattisimo]

Amended commit e53a1df to be compatible with Ruby 1.8.7

[rymai]

Thank you @wyattisimo!

It looks good to me, what do you think @tobmatth / @thibaudgg ?

[thibaudgg]

Looks good!

[rymai]

"seperately" => "separately" ;-)

[wyattisimo]

haha, I guess I need a spell-checker in my text editor 😁

[wyattisimo]

amended commit 10594b6 to fix spelling: "seperately" => "separately"

[wyattisimo]

Don't merge this yet. There's a bug when specifying a :methods_with_paths constraint along with other constraints because in the enforce_ssl_for? method, the if/else block creates two distinct paths of logic, but is contained within a loop using all?.

[tobmatth]

@rymai I think there's a bug when specifying a :methods_with_paths constraint along with other constraints. Would not merge.

;)

[wyattisimo]

@rymai @tobmatth Amended commit 00ddb0e with the fixes and a "complex" spec to test specifying :only, :only_methods, and :only_methods_with_paths constraints all at the same time.

This ended up requiring more significant changes than I originally expected. I tweaked enforce_ssl? so it's handling a little more logic and sending the complete list of provided constraints to enforce_ssl_for? (instead of only sending one class of constraints at a time). I think this made it easier to define the logic for combining the groups of constraints properly and actually makes it a little more readable.

Let me know what you think.

[rymai]

Looks good to me now. @tobmatth is it ok for you?

[stevenleeg]

+1 for this pull request!

[rymai]

@wyattisimo Could you please rebase on master? Thanks!

@tobmatth What do you think of this PR now?