Conversation
Signed-off-by: Nick <nick.nellis@weather.com>
| if (headers->Status() == nullptr || | ||
| !StringUtil::atoul(headers->Status()->value().c_str(), status) || status < 200 || | ||
| status >= 500) { | ||
| status >= 600) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks. What about the status < 200 clause and claim in error that the range 100-599?
Signed-off-by: Nick Nellis <nick.nellis@weather.com>
|
@htuch fixed lowerbound |
| if (headers->Status() == nullptr || | ||
| !StringUtil::atoul(headers->Status()->value().c_str(), status) || status < 200 || | ||
| status >= 500) { | ||
| !StringUtil::atoul(headers->Status()->value().c_str(), status) || status < 100 || |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Informational (1xx) status codes have special meaning and we should not allow a Lua script to send them, as they will confuse the connection manager, so that part was correct, but the error message below is wrong. But the other one was a bug. Thank you for fixing. We should have a test though. Do you mind changing one of the response tests to use a 5xx status code? If you don't want to bother I can fix this later today.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am leaving town this afternoon and will be off for a few days. Otherwise i would be able to fix it after i get back.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Either way. If you would like to contribute we can wait, otherwise I'm happy to fix it. If you want to go that route just close the PR and I will do another PR later today.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You can add the fix, i would rather come back to it merged than wait
|
Closing out in favor of #2034 |
Merge release-1.1 to master
Previous URL started returning a zip archive with a different checksum: bazelbuild/rules_android#43 Signed-off-by: JP Simard <jp@jpsim.com>
Previous URL started returning a zip archive with a different checksum: bazelbuild/rules_android#43 Signed-off-by: JP Simard <jp@jpsim.com>
4 participants
Description:
Risk Level: Low