Mark, t_pkgsend.py, line 377:Can you please use the urlparse module for constructing the file-based URL? Generally, concatenating strings for creating URLs is not portable across platforms. The urlparse module will also do the right encoding for spaces in filenames, etc.
I see that this file also uses the same form of URL construction in other tests, so if you want to consider this a different bug, that would be fine too.
Using /bin/ls as a file to transmit will also be problematic on Windows. We aren't currently able to run the CLI tests on Windows, so if you want to consider that a separate bug, that is fine too.
Thanks. Tom Mark J. Nelson wrote:
Ok, I think I have addressed all concerns (and that Danek's questions were mosty answered by Shawn.) Here are the new and incremental webrevs: http://cr.opensolaris.org/~mjnelson/webrev.pkg-index-control.2/ http://cr.opensolaris.org/~mjnelson/webrev.pkg-index-control.1-2/ Some notes on testing: I did almost exactly as Shawn suggested, with two primary differences: 1. I have independently verified that index suppression is working completely as intended for the following two cases: A. No depot server running, using pkgsend only with a file uri B. Depot server running, using pkgsend only with a http uri I have further verified that, when you are running a depot server but publishing to the same repo via a file uri, the open and add pkgsend subcommands trigger a silent index refresh. So whatever was previously published, but not indexed, will magically be indexed, even though the currently open transaction will not be. This led me on a merry chase to figure out why my test searches were returning results unexpectedly, and eventually led to a slight reordering of test operations. (Checking for search failure on the http-published package prior to publishing via file transaction.) 2. If you publish an empty package, a "pkg search pkg:::" will always fail, even after refreshing the search indices. So I added a file action to each of my test packages. I'm inclined to treat difference (1) as "not part of this wad." Is this expected behavior? If not, I can collect info and file a bug. Since the tests were not previously reviewed, I welcome comments on them. --Mark On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:59:55PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:Danek Duvall wrote:We currently don't send back 5xx error codes because that causes Apache to think that the backend has stopped working and it will refuse requests.Mark J. Nelson wrote:http://cr.opensolaris.org/~mjnelson/webrev.pkg-index-control/depot.py: - line 729: I forget -- is there a reason we can't send back a 5xx error code? (This may be more of a question for Shawn.) Alternatively, why can't both error returns be NOT_FOUND? See file_0().We don't send 404 for most of the failed operations because versioned_urlopen will interpret that to mean that the server doesn't support this operation as opposed to the operation failing. This comes back to us not having upgraded to the newest version of cherrypy yet, which would allow us to have custom status messages (i.e. 404 No write permissions on search indices.).Cheers, -- Shawn Walker_______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
<<attachment: Tom_Mueller.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
