Am 21.01.2016 um 19:08 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
That is with:
ProxyHCExpr foof2 {hc('body') !~ /domain is established/}
With
ProxyHCExpr foof2 {kept_body('body') !~ /domain is established/}
Can you provide a simple but somehow complete proxy_hcheck config
snippet? I'll set up a test and check what's wrong.
Regards,
Rainer
it works as expected.
Thx!
On Jan 21, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
I get:
AH00102: [Thu Jan 21 18:05:44 2016] file util_expr_eval.c, line 218, assertion
"data != ((void*)0)" failed
On Jan 21, 2016, at 12:50 PM, Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de> wrote:
Am 21.01.2016 um 17:55 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
even better!
sounds cool.
First impl done in r1726038.
I guess you have everything in place to do a quick test? That would be nice.
svn log is:
Implement expr lookup in mod_proxy_hcheck for
variables whose names start with "HC_" and for
the new function hc().
Currently only HC_BODY and hc(body) are supported.
Both return the saved body of the health check
response to be used in an expr that decides about
success of a check.
Regards,
Rainer
On Jan 21, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de> wrote:
Am 21.01.2016 um 17:03 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
Did you want me to work on it, or are you?
I just had some late lunch and started to think closer about it. Since kept_body was
previously only used for request bodies, wouldn't it be nicer to *not* expose the HC
response body under that name in the expression parser, and instead register an expr
extension from HC which handles a new function, say hc(), with a first supported argument
"body"? So hc(body) returns whatever HC wants to.
You could still use the kept_body field in your impl (or some other place now
or later) but we wouldn't expose this implementation detail to the outside
world.
I have already done an expr function extension in some custom module, it is
pretty easy to do (and httpd uses that feature e.g. in mod_ssl).
So yes, if you like I can do it. But do you like the idea?
Regards,
Rainer
On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:25 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
Sounds good to me!!
thx!
On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:23 AM, Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de> wrote:
I should have asked earlier: wouldn't it be more suitable to implement to
response body as a variable instead of a function?
When looking at server/util_expr_eval.c, I find request_var_names and
request_var_fn. The former is a list of variable names, and the latter
implements returning the values from parts of the request struct. Returning the
flattened kept_body should be a good fit there as well, without having users
wonder, why it is a function that requires an argument.
If we expect further response stuff coming, we could also clone
request_var_names and request_var_fn with new response_var_names and
response_var_fn and add the variable as the first and currently only one there.
The variable name could be KEPT_BODY.
WDYT? I can also do the little reorg, but which way do we prefer?
Regards,
Rainer
