On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:16 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Jacob Champion <champio...@gmail.com> > > wrote:+ > >> > >> > >> What's the case where this catches recursion that the previous logic in > >> r1773861 did not handle? I'm trying to write a test that fails on > r1773861 > >> and succeeds on r1773865, but I haven't figured it out yet. > > > > > > I'm confused by a different aspect. > > > > In trashing the body-in-flight, whose headers caused us to 500-reject > > the response, have we also trashed any and all correct error documents > > or built-in short 500 response explanation? > > No, I tried (quite hard, in a second time) to honor ErrorDocument by > calling ap_die() when check_headers() fails. > > That's only if/when that ErrorDocument is caught by check_headers that > we end up generating a minimal 500 response (with Server, Date, > Connection: close and empty body), to avoid infinite recursion. > I set up a test case of a constant text line and an html error doc, and can confirm that everything is working as expected/hoped for. Thank you for all the troubleshooting and coding on this effort!
