Add 2 new tests - COMP-RANGE-POST COMP-UPGRADE-HTTP10

docs/content/compliance/_index.md

@@ -56,14 +56,15 @@ Each test sends a request that violates a specific **MUST** or **MUST NOT** requ
       'COMP-POST-CL-UNDERSEND','COMP-CHUNKED-BODY','COMP-CHUNKED-MULTI',
       'COMP-CHUNKED-EMPTY','COMP-CHUNKED-NO-FINAL',
       'COMP-GET-WITH-CL-BODY','COMP-CHUNKED-EXTENSION',
-      'COMP-CHUNKED-TRAILER-VALID','COMP-CHUNKED-HEX-UPPERCASE'
+      'COMP-CHUNKED-TRAILER-VALID','COMP-CHUNKED-HEX-UPPERCASE',
+      'COMP-RANGE-POST'
     ]},
     { key: 'methods-upgrade', label: 'Methods & Upgrade', testIds: [
       'COMP-METHOD-CONNECT',
       'COMP-UNKNOWN-TE-501','COMP-EXPECT-UNKNOWN','COMP-METHOD-TRACE',
       'COMP-TRACE-WITH-BODY',
       'COMP-UPGRADE-POST','COMP-UPGRADE-MISSING-CONN',
-      'COMP-UPGRADE-UNKNOWN','COMP-UPGRADE-INVALID-VER',
+      'COMP-UPGRADE-UNKNOWN','COMP-UPGRADE-INVALID-VER','COMP-UPGRADE-HTTP10',
       'COMP-CONNECTION-CLOSE','COMP-HTTP10-DEFAULT-CLOSE','COMP-HTTP10-NO-HOST'
     ]}
   ];

docs/content/docs/body/range-post.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+---
+title: "RANGE-POST"
+description: "RANGE-POST test documentation"
+weight: 13
+---
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Test ID** | `COMP-RANGE-POST` |
+| **Category** | Compliance |
+| **Scored** | Yes |
+| **RFC** | [RFC 9110 §14.2](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110#section-14.2) |
+| **RFC Level** | MUST |
+| **Expected** | `2xx` (Range ignored) |
+
+## What it sends
+
+A POST request with a `Range` header. The Range mechanism only applies to GET requests.
+
+```http
+POST / HTTP/1.1\r\n
+Host: localhost:8080\r\n
+Content-Length: 5\r\n
+Range: bytes=0-10\r\n
+\r\n
+hello
+```
+
+## What the RFC says
+
+> "A server MUST ignore a Range header field received with a request method that is unrecognized or for which range handling is not defined." — RFC 9110 §14.2
+
+Range handling is only defined for GET (RFC 9110 §14.2). For all other methods, the server must ignore the Range header and process the request normally.
+
+## Why it matters
+
+If a server incorrectly applies Range semantics to a POST request (returning `206 Partial Content`), it could truncate the request body or cause unexpected behavior. The server should process the full POST body and return a normal `2xx` response.
+
+## Verdicts
+
+- **Pass** — Server returns `2xx` (correctly ignored Range for POST)
+- **Fail** — Server returns `206` (incorrectly applied Range to POST) or any non-2xx response
+
+## Sources
+
+- [RFC 9110 §14.2](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110#section-14.2)

docs/content/docs/upgrade/upgrade-http10.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+---
+title: "UPGRADE-HTTP10"
+description: "UPGRADE-HTTP10 test documentation"
+weight: 5
+---
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Test ID** | `COMP-UPGRADE-HTTP10` |
+| **Category** | Compliance |
+| **Scored** | Yes |
+| **RFC** | [RFC 9110 §7.8](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110#section-7.8) |
+| **RFC Level** | MUST |
+| **Expected** | Not `101` |
+
+## What it sends
+
+An HTTP/1.0 request with WebSocket upgrade headers. The server must ignore the Upgrade field because it was received in an HTTP/1.0 request.
+
+```http
+GET / HTTP/1.0\r\n
+Host: localhost:8080\r\n
+Connection: Upgrade\r\n
+Upgrade: websocket\r\n
+Sec-WebSocket-Key: dGhlIHNhbXBsZSBub25jZQ==\r\n
+Sec-WebSocket-Version: 13\r\n
+\r\n
+```
+
+## What the RFC says
+
+> "A server that receives an Upgrade header field in an HTTP/1.0 request MUST ignore that Upgrade field." — RFC 9110 §7.8
+
+The Upgrade mechanism is an HTTP/1.1 feature. An HTTP/1.0 client cannot participate in protocol switching, so the server must not attempt it.
+
+## Why it matters
+
+If a server processes an Upgrade from an HTTP/1.0 client and returns `101 Switching Protocols`, the client likely cannot handle the protocol switch. This could lead to connection corruption or security issues, especially if a proxy is involved that speaks HTTP/1.0 to the backend.
+
+## Verdicts
+
+- **Pass** — Server returns any status other than `101` (correctly ignored Upgrade)
+- **Fail** — Server returns `101 Switching Protocols` (incorrectly upgraded an HTTP/1.0 request)
+
+## Sources
+
+- [RFC 9110 §7.8](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110#section-7.8)

docs/static/probe/render.js

@@ -279,6 +279,8 @@ window.ProbeRender = (function () {
     'COMP-POST-NO-CL-NO-TE': '/Http11Probe/docs/body/post-no-cl-no-te/',
     'COMP-UNKNOWN-METHOD': '/Http11Probe/docs/request-line/unknown-method/',
     'COMP-UNKNOWN-TE-501': '/Http11Probe/docs/request-line/unknown-te-501/',
+    'COMP-RANGE-POST': '/Http11Probe/docs/body/range-post/',
+    'COMP-UPGRADE-HTTP10': '/Http11Probe/docs/upgrade/upgrade-http10/',
     'COMP-UPGRADE-INVALID-VER': '/Http11Probe/docs/upgrade/upgrade-invalid-ver/',
     'COMP-UPGRADE-MISSING-CONN': '/Http11Probe/docs/upgrade/upgrade-missing-conn/',
     'COMP-UPGRADE-POST': '/Http11Probe/docs/upgrade/upgrade-post/',

src/Http11Probe/TestCases/Suites/ComplianceSuite.cs

@@ -1090,6 +1090,54 @@ public static IEnumerable<TestCase> GetTestCases()
             }
         };
 
+        // ── Range / Conditional ─────────────────────────────────────
+
+        yield return new TestCase
+        {
+            Id = "COMP-RANGE-POST",
+            Description = "Range header on POST must be ignored — Range only applies to GET",
+            Category = TestCategory.Compliance,
+            RfcReference = "RFC 9110 §14.2",
+            PayloadFactory = ctx => MakeRequest(
+                $"POST / HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: {ctx.HostHeader}\r\nContent-Length: 5\r\nRange: bytes=0-10\r\n\r\nhello"),
+            Expected = new ExpectedBehavior
+            {
+                Description = "2xx (Range ignored)",
+                CustomValidator = (response, state) =>
+                {
+                    if (response is null)
+                        return state == ConnectionState.ClosedByServer ? TestVerdict.Fail : TestVerdict.Fail;
+                    if (response.StatusCode == 206)
+                        return TestVerdict.Fail;
+                    if (response.StatusCode is >= 200 and < 300)
+                        return TestVerdict.Pass;
+                    return TestVerdict.Fail;
+                }
+            }
+        };
+
+        yield return new TestCase
+        {
+            Id = "COMP-UPGRADE-HTTP10",
+            Description = "Upgrade header in HTTP/1.0 request must be ignored",
+            Category = TestCategory.Compliance,
+            RfcReference = "RFC 9110 §7.8",
+            PayloadFactory = ctx => MakeRequest(
+                $"GET / HTTP/1.0\r\nHost: {ctx.HostHeader}\r\nConnection: Upgrade\r\nUpgrade: websocket\r\nSec-WebSocket-Key: dGhlIHNhbXBsZSBub25jZQ==\r\nSec-WebSocket-Version: 13\r\n\r\n"),
+            Expected = new ExpectedBehavior
+            {
+                Description = "!101",
+                CustomValidator = (response, state) =>
+                {
+                    if (response is null)
+                        return state == ConnectionState.ClosedByServer ? TestVerdict.Pass : TestVerdict.Fail;
+                    if (response.StatusCode == 101)
+                        return TestVerdict.Fail;
+                    return TestVerdict.Pass;
+                }
+            }
+        };
+
         // ── RFC 9110 response semantics ──────────────────────────────
 
         yield return new TestCase