Adding it to "Excluded Resource Paths" works correctly here for me:

https://asciinema.org/a/RFi1kQyk4TCoaCoz5d1ss0o7b

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 7:28 AM Cris Rockwell <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks for the reply, but the suggestion does not work. After repeatedly
> testing various values and configurations, I have found neither
> sling.content.disposition.excluded.paths or sling.content.disposition.paths
> do anything. Perhaps they won't work when
> sling.content.disposition.all.paths is true?
>
> The link was not useful as documentation since it points to the source,
> which define the configuration attribute names and descriptions. The names
> and descriptions are already obvious when opening the config via
> /system/console/configMgr
>
> Has anyone else successfully set either
> sling.content.disposition.excluded.paths or sling.content.disposition.paths
> in org.apache.sling.security version 1.1.12?
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 2019, at 4:55 PM, Andres Bott <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Chris
> >
> > I think defining an extension as part of the path would cause this not
> to work,
> > since the extension is not part of the requests path (your examples)
> >
> > as fas as I can remember, this should look more like:
> >
> > "/content/path/*:text/plain" this means apply the filter for every path
> bellow content/path except for requests to mime/type text requests.
> >
> > if you need to pinpoint to the robots txt, you could try:
> "/content/path/robots:text/plain"
> >
> > unfortunately the best documentation i found back when I had to deal
> with this was:
> https://github.com/apache/sling-org-apache-sling-security/blob/master/src/main/java/org/apache/sling/security/impl/ContentDispositionFilterConfiguration.java
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > Andres
> >
> >
> > El 2019-02-18 22:00, Cris Rockwell escribió:
> >> Hello Sling Users
> >> I am working on an upgrade and have found the changes to
> >> org.apache.sling.security.impl.ContentDispositionFilter present
> >> problems with rendering robots.txt (text/plain) from a location
> >> managed under the dam. After the upgrade it has the header
> >> Content-Disposition: attachment. As a result we have started seeing
> >> our testing URL’s in search results, which indicates the search-bots
> >> are not opening and reading
> >> org.apache.sling.security version 1.1.2      ContentDispositionFilter
> had a
> >> ranking of -2500 (txt file renders)
> >> org.apache.sling.security version 1.1.12     ContentDispositionFilter
> had
> >> a ranking of 25000 (txt file downloads)
> >> My attempts to configure Apache Sling Content Disposition Filter have
> >> failed. Adding the fully qualified path to "Excluded Resource Paths"
> >> does not work. My question related to the section titled "Included
> >> Resource Paths & Content Types.” There is a cryptic instruction copied
> >> below. What does this mean? Please provide en example specifying the
> >> path, excluded content types
> >>> These resource paths are covered by the filter. Each entry is of the
> form '<path> [ : <excluded content type> {,<excluded content type>} ]'.
> Invalid entries are logged and ignored. <path> must be an absolute path and
> may contain a wildcard ('*') at the end, to match every resource path with
> the given path prefix. (sling.content.disposition.paths)
> >> I have guessed at different entries, but they do not take affect.
> >> /content/path/robots.txt[text/plain]
> >> /content/path/robots.txt [text/plain]
> >> /content/path/robots.txt:text/plain
> >> If I uncheck "Enable For All Resource Paths” in the Apache Sling
> >> Content Disposition Filter, then the header Content-Disposition:
> >> attachment goes away and it renders as expected. But seems like an
> >> extreme solution especially given the fact that Content Disposition
> >> Filter was used and worked at the previous version mentioned. Please
> >> note that although I have provided some context about the a specific
> >> problem, my question is about how to configure "Included Resource
> >> Paths & Content Types” using path and mime types.
> >> Thanks!
> >> Cris
>
>

Reply via email to