W dniu 13.05.2015 o 10:24, Tim Ruehsen pisze: > Hi Hubert, > > nice to see your work... it looks very good to me. > > Just from a quick first glimpse, there are a few small points: > > - please avoid abort() (found in time_to_rfc1123()). The function returns > RETROK on success but calls abort() on failure. This might end up in a > frustrating user experience. On error, you could fall back to not using if- > modified-since at all, fall back to using HEAD or fall back to use a time > value of 0 (corresponding to 1.1.1970 00:00:00). Or whatever you think is > appropriate. We could do that but I am not sure that it would be good solution. Are there any cases when gmtime would have a good reason to fail? I think that when a function like gmtime fails, it could mean that something is seriously wrong; and perhaps we should not do anything but crash in that case (just as we do in case of xmalloc, for example). What do you think?
> > - typo in Test-condget.py (usiong instead using) - have a look if your > IDE/editor supports spell checking. > > - it would be nice if your test case tests all variants of HTTP-date (= > rfc1123-date | rfc850-date | asctime-date) Do you mean to test the conversion Wget -> HTTP or HTTP -> Wget? In the former: Wget will currently issue dates exclusively in rfc1123 format. In the latter: I agree that it should be tested (although the function that handles this conversion is not part of these patches, it had already been present in http.c (http_atotm)). Especially that the tests for "-N" do not test formats other than rfc1123, either (as far as I can see). Thank you for the suggestions. Hubert
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
