[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KNOX-2095?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Larry McCay updated KNOX-2095:
------------------------------
    Resolution: Abandoned
        Status: Resolved  (was: Patch Available)

> Many errors (E.G. 504s) being masked as 500 errors
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: KNOX-2095
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KNOX-2095
>             Project: Apache Knox
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>    Affects Versions: 1.2.0, 1.3.0
>            Reporter: James Chen
>            Assignee: James Chen
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: easyfix
>             Fix For: 1.6.0
>
>         Attachments: KNOX-2095.patch, jamchen504patch.patch
>
>   Original Estimate: 168h
>          Time Spent: 2h 40m
>  Remaining Estimate: 165h 20m
>
> When errors occur while accessing the Knox gateway, errors are forcibly 
> overridden and represented as 500 errors, rather than whatever errors they 
> should be.
> For example, when the timeout value under gateway.httpclient.socketTimeout is 
> set to a very low timeout value (E.G. 1 ms) under gateway-site.xml, a socket 
> timeout exception is produced by the getHttpClient().execute( 
> outboundRequest) call. However, this is caught by the surrounding try-catch 
> block and thrown again as an IOException. This results in a generic 500 
> error, rather than a 504 error one would normally expect from this sort of 
> interaction.
>  
> For these sorts of scenarios, I believe it would be prudent to create a dummy 
> HttpResponse using a HttpResponseFactory object for the inboundResponse with 
> the corresponding error code (E.G. HttpStatus.SC_GATEWAY_TIMEOUT in the event 
> of a SocketTimeoutException) and return that instead to trigger the 
> appropriate 504 error. I suspect there are other sorts of potential error 
> code triggers that get this same IOException treatment that would be better 
> off receiving their own error codes.
>  
> Judging from the source code, this issue likely affects version 1.3.0, though 
> this has not been tested.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

Reply via email to