On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 06:47:12PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
No, just hacking. Let's see...oh, I get it. I changed it so that it
ignored $RedirectOK if LWP was installed.
Thanks David. No comments here on what's right, only what works ;)
On Oct 26, 2004, at 10:00 AM, Geoffrey Young wrote:
that's not so bad, but it will affect users somewhat - I know that I
have
used it in at least one of my tests...
Bleh. Bad Geoff!
maybe keeping $RedirectOK but moving the perl-framework (and mod_perl)
over
to the new API would be a nice
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 11:37:11AM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 10:09:54PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
theory 2004/10/22 15:09:54
Modified:perl-framework/Apache-Test Changes
perl-framework/Apache-Test/lib/Apache TestRequest.pm
Log:
On Oct 25, 2004, at 4:33 PM, Geoffrey Young wrote:
let's give david a chance to investigate - either to fix or, if a
quick fix
isn't obvious, revert the behavior.
if david doesn't respond by, say, wednesday, we (you or I) should feel
free
to just revert the change. maybe david is on vacation
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 10:09:54PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
theory 2004/10/22 15:09:54
Modified:perl-framework/Apache-Test Changes
perl-framework/Apache-Test/lib/Apache TestRequest.pm
Log:
Redirect from POST fixes (or prevention, depending on how you lok
David Wheeler wrote:
On Jul 31, 2004, at 5:04 PM, Stas Bekman wrote:
I guess losing the skip message by making need_ functions that
replace the existing have_ functions is okay. It's most important
that tests continue to pass...
They will.
Then I say we go with need.
I kind of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
theory 2004/07/30 19:43:33
+ # Always allow redirection.
+ my $redir = have_lwp ? [qw(GET HEAD POST)] : 1;
+ Apache::TestRequest::user_agent(reset = 1,
+ requests_redirectable = $redir);
Using have_ macros for non-plan()
Using have_ macros for non-plan() usage should be avoided, since it
populates the SKIP messages array and if later the test is skipped, for
a different reason it'll misleadingly tell the user that LWP was also a
requirement for that test (which quite possibly could be what we want).
We need
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Using have_ macros for non-plan() usage should be avoided, since it
populates the SKIP messages array and if later the test is skipped, for
a different reason it'll misleadingly tell the user that LWP was also a
requirement for that test (which quite possibly could be what we
On Jul 31, 2004, at 1:14 AM, Stas Bekman wrote:
so, have_foo is intuitive to be used anywhere in the code, and plan
now will look like:
plan tests = 5, need_lwp, need_cgi, need_php;
I like this, but isn't it putting the onus of change on module owners
and introducing the likelihood of
David Wheeler wrote:
On Jul 31, 2004, at 1:14 AM, Stas Bekman wrote:
so, have_foo is intuitive to be used anywhere in the code, and plan
now will look like:
plan tests = 5, need_lwp, need_cgi, need_php;
I like this, but isn't it putting the onus of change on module owners
and introducing the
Sander Temme wrote:
on 7/10/03 12:56, Sander Temme at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
parameter to the request invocations in t/apache/acceptpathinfo.t. Neither
produces any result. Am I looking in the right place?
Breadcrumbing my way through Apache-Test/lib/Apache/TestRequest.pm by
liberally
on 7/10/03 18:00, Stas Bekman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this work?
else if ($redir) {
$RedirectOK = $redir;
}
It does. However, isn't this the same condition as in the top if clause?
Wouldn't you want to:
Index: Apache-Test/lib/Apache/TestRequest.pm
David Wheeler wrote:
On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 09:27 AM, Sander Temme wrote:
The above patch doesn't work. But this does:
Ehm... works for me. I think you're working in the mod_perl space and I'm
just concentrating on the Apache core. Maybe there are side effects
that I'm
not seeing?
Yes,
on 7/8/03 0:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
stas2003/07/08 00:28:28
Modified:perl-framework/Apache-Test/lib/Apache TestRequest.pm
Log:
Change the way the redirect_ok parameter works so that it affects only
_that call_ to the function. Afterward it should
on 7/10/03 12:56, Sander Temme at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
parameter to the request invocations in t/apache/acceptpathinfo.t. Neither
produces any result. Am I looking in the right place?
Breadcrumbing my way through Apache-Test/lib/Apache/TestRequest.pm by
liberally sprinkling print
16 matches
Mail list logo
