On 8 August 2016 at 17:50, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Tempest devs, > > Let me please draw your attention to a LP bug that may not seem > particularly high priority, but I believe could be resolved easily with a > patch already proposed. > > LP bug 1536251 [1] accurately states that Tempest is actively verifying > that an OpenStack API call violates RFC 7230. > > When a 204 No Content is received, the Content-Length header MUST NOT be > present. > > However, Swift returns a Content-Length header and also an HTTP response > code of 204 for a request to list containers of a new user (that has no > containers). > > Tempest has been validating this behaviour even though it is a violation > of RFC 7230: > > https://github.com/openstack/tempest/blob/master/tempest/api > /object_storage/test_account_services.py#L81 > > RadosGW provides a proxy API that attempts to match the OpenStack Object > Storage API, backed by Ceph object storage. In order for RadosGW to pass > RefStack's burden of compatibility, it must pass the Tempest OpenStack > Object Storage API tests. It currently cannot do so because RadosGW does > not violate RFC 7230. > > The RadosGW developer community does not wish to argue about whether or > not to make Swift's API comply with RFC 7230. At the same time, they do not > want to add a configuration option to RadosGW to force the proxy service to > violate RFC 7230 just to satisfy the RefStack/Tempest API tests. > > Therefore, Radoslaw (cc'd) has proposed a patch to Tempest that would > allow RadosGW's proxy API to meet the RefStack compatibility tests while > also not violating RFC 7230 and not requiring any change of Swift: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/272062 > > I ask Tempest devs to re-review the above patch and consider merging it > for the sake of collaboration between the OpenStack and Ceph developer > communities. > > Thanks very much! > -jay > > [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/tempest/+bug/1536251
These sorts of issues aren't just theoretical and following policy for the sake of it.. Glance had 3 x areas where 200 responses that also included a Location header (against RFC-2616 ยง14.30) which totally broke glance when deployed behind apache+fcgid+flup (the presence of Location, that stack rewrote it to a 302). Fun bug btw: https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/1299095 -- Kind Regards, Dave Walker
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev