Benjamin Copeland <ben.copel...@linaro.org> writes:
> My rather crude patch:
>
> diff --git a/patchwork/views/xmlrpc.py b/patchwork/views/xmlrpc.py
> index 93f6035..220826a 100644
> --- a/patchwork/views/xmlrpc.py
> +++ b/patchwork/views/xmlrpc.py
> @@ -672,7 +672,8 @@ def patch_get_mbox(patch_id):
> """
> try:
> patch = Patch.objects.get(id=patch_id)
> - return patch_to_mbox(patch)
> + s = patch_to_mbox(patch)
> + return s.replace("\x0c", "")
> except Patch.DoesNotExist:
> return ''
>
> On 17 January 2018 at 22:52, Benjamin Copeland <ben.copel...@linaro.org>
> wrote:
>> On 17 January 2018 at 19:13, Stephen Finucane <step...@that.guru> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 11:46 +0000, Benjamin Copeland wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> Been trying to get a patch but been unable due to:
>>>>
>>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>>> File "pwclient", line 827, in <module>
>>>> main()
>>>> File "pwclient", line 780, in main
>>>> action_get(rpc, patch_id)
>>>> File "pwclient", line 301, in action_get
>>>> s = rpc.patch_get_mbox(patch_id)
>>>> File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/xmlrpclib.py", line 1243, in __call__
>>>> return self.__send(self.__name, args)
>>>> File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/xmlrpclib.py", line 1602, in __request
>>>> verbose=self.__verbose
>>>> File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/xmlrpclib.py", line 1283, in request
>>>> return self.single_request(host, handler, request_body, verbose)
>>>> File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/xmlrpclib.py", line 1316, in
>>>> single_request
>>>> return self.parse_response(response)
>>>> File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/xmlrpclib.py", line 1487, in
>>>> parse_response
>>>> p.feed(data)
>>>> File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/xmlrpclib.py", line 558, in feed
>>>> self._parser.Parse(data, 0)
>>>> xml.parsers.expat.ExpatError: not well-formed (invalid token): line
>>>> 283, column 1
>>>>
>>>> After going quite a bit of debugging I noticed the patch has a ^L
>>>> (FF) in the diff. After deleting this out of the diff pwclient was
>>>> able to get the patch.
>>>>
>>>> This bug was present on Python3/2.
>>>
>>> Have you got a link to the offending patch? This will allow me to fix
>>> the issue and put together a fix to prevent regressions.
>>
>> https://patches-gcc.linaro.org/patch/411/
We saw this on another GCC related patch (binutils I think) last year,
when I was at OzLabs - a form feed character in a header. We didn't come
up with a good solution then.
Your proposed fix is - as you said - really quite a hack, and I'm
particularly uncomfortable with the idea that the diff you get from
pwclient != the diff patchwork stores.
The conclusion - which sadly was never documented - was that we should
just live with it for now and put our time into a REST API pwclient.
Fixing it properly is *hard* as it requires an encoding system, which
requires a patch to the server to encode and patch to pwclient to
decode. To avoid breaking existing pwclients, we would also need a new
endpoint. And XMLRPC is awful.
If it's a big problem, we'll come up with a fix proper, otherwise a
documentation fix and some better error handling might be the best we
can do.
Regards,
Daniel
>>
>>>
>>> Stephen
> _______________________________________________
> Patchwork mailing list
> Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
_______________________________________________
Patchwork mailing list
Patchwork@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/patchwork
