On Sun, 2016-12-04 at 20:05 -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> Actually, in this case, If-None-Match matched (i.e., "no one matched"
> is
> true). And this is exactly why we can ignore that conditional header
> field and treat the request as an unconditional hit. All these
> conditional headers have the
On 12/04/2016 08:57 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 5/12/2016 4:05 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> All these
>> conditional headers have the same overall logic: If the answer to the
>> "If" question asked by the header field name is "yes", then the header
>> field is essentially ignored.
> FWIW; I fin
On 5/12/2016 4:05 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
>
> If you have not done so, please do check _all_ TCP_IMS_HIT occurrences
> (at least) to make sure the surrounding code is still valid after
> splitting TCP_IMS_HIT into two values.
>
Just to be clear, Garri, I am awaiting your response to that befo
On 5/12/2016 4:05 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 11/30/2016 08:12 AM, Garri Djavadyan wrote:
>
>> I've attached fixed version.
>
>> +// If-None-Match did not match; treat as an unconditional hit
>> +return false;
>
> Actually, in this case, If-None-Match matched (i.e., "no one m
On 11/30/2016 08:12 AM, Garri Djavadyan wrote:
> I've attached fixed version.
> +// If-None-Match did not match; treat as an unconditional hit
> +return false;
Actually, in this case, If-None-Match matched (i.e., "no one matched" is
true). And this is exactly why we can ignore th
On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 07:44 -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 11/30/2016 04:44 AM, Garri Djavadyan wrote:
> >
> > * If-Modified-Since header is ignored if If-None-Match header
> > exists
> > (RFC7232 compliance)
>
> >
> > if (r.header.has(Http::HdrType::IF_NONE_MATCH)) {
> > +if (e-
On 11/30/2016 04:44 AM, Garri Djavadyan wrote:
> * If-Modified-Since header is ignored if If-None-Match header exists
> (RFC7232 compliance)
> if (r.header.has(Http::HdrType::IF_NONE_MATCH)) {
> +if (e->hasIfNoneMatchEtag(r)) {
> +// RFC 7232: If-None-Match recipient MUST
On 1/12/2016 12:44 a.m., Garri Djavadyan wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-11-29 at 15:42 -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> On 11/29/2016 02:23 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30/11/2016 1:47 a.m., Garri Djavadyan wrote:
On Tue, 2016-11-29 at 14:51 +0500, Garri Djavadyan wrote:
>
> Hello,
>>
On Tue, 2016-11-29 at 15:42 -0700, Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 11/29/2016 02:23 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> >
> > On 30/11/2016 1:47 a.m., Garri Djavadyan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2016-11-29 at 14:51 +0500, Garri Djavadyan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > Please review the attached
On 11/29/2016 02:23 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 30/11/2016 1:47 a.m., Garri Djavadyan wrote:
>> On Tue, 2016-11-29 at 14:51 +0500, Garri Djavadyan wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Please review the attached patch prepared for r14958, it fixes the
>>> If-
>>> None-Match processing (incorrect logging [1])
On 30/11/2016 1:47 a.m., Garri Djavadyan wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-11-29 at 14:51 +0500, Garri Djavadyan wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Please review the attached patch prepared for r14958, it fixes the
>> If-
>> None-Match processing (incorrect logging [1]) and the bug [2] report
>> 4169 depending on the inco
On Tue, 2016-11-29 at 14:51 +0500, Garri Djavadyan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Please review the attached patch prepared for r14958, it fixes the
> If-
> None-Match processing (incorrect logging [1]) and the bug [2] report
> 4169 depending on the incorrect (IMO) behavior.
>
> An If-None-Match request for
Hello,
Please review the attached patch prepared for r14958, it fixes the If-
None-Match processing (incorrect logging [1]) and the bug [2] report
4169 depending on the incorrect (IMO) behavior.
An If-None-Match request for a non-matched (ETag) but cached object
should be processed as normal HIT.
13 matches
Mail list logo
