Hi @philwebb @wilkinsona @mbhave any eta on when the pr will be looked at?

@somayaj No ETA I'm afraid. We'll review it as soon as we have time to do so. Thanks for your patience in the meantime.

Thanks so much

Thanks for the PR, @somayaj. Unfortunately, I don't think we should have accepted your offer of a contribution to fix this one as it's deceptively complicated. The matching behavior needs to differ depending on whether or not a separate management port is in use as the use of a different port affects whether or not the links endpoint is available. If we merged these changes and a separate management port was not being used, permitting access to the links endpoint could accidentally permit access to something else. Sorry for the wasted effort here.

Thanks for the PR, @somayaj. Unfortunately, I don't think we should have accepted your offer of a contribution to fix this one as it's deceptively complicated. The matching behavior needs to differ depending on whether or not a separate management port is in use as the use of a different port affects whether or not the links endpoint is available. If we merged these changes and a separate management port was not being used, permitting access to the links endpoint could accidentally permit access to something else. Sorry for the wasted effort here.

@wilkinsona sure, sounds good. Thanks for the opportunity.