it's a rack thing - here are the rack specs
Rack::Utils.parse_nested_query("foo=bar&foo=quux").
should.equal "foo" => "quux"
Rack::Utils.parse_nested_query("foo[]=1&foo[]=2").
should.equal "foo" => ["1", "2"]
so I'd need something like...
req.body = req.body.gsub('hub.verify=', 'hub.verify[]=') # Part 3 of
multivalue hack
or just pull them manually from the request.env
["rack.request.form_vars"]
I'll implement the latter or maybe alter rack slightly (locally) -- I
think there are actually a few places that this occurs in the python
spec.
Thanks again for the quick review,
Mike
On Jan 18, 12:39 pm, Michael Barinek <[email protected]> wrote:
> Correct, I believe that's the issue. I'll take a look as well when I get
> a chance.
>
> (for the other...I just needed to remove some load on the server/queue)
>
> Jeff Lindsay wrote:
> > Ohh, I see. Rack/Sinatra only supports single value params? Perhaps MY
> > multivalue hack (since http/net doesn't support sending multivalue
> > params) isn't working...
>
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Michael Barinek <[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> > Agreed, the first passes.
>
> > Although, the subscribe for 'Hub subscriber interface MUST ignore
> > verify keywords it does not understand' includes
> > ['sync','foobar','async']. I only receive one param in the rack
> > request and locally I'm getting 'foobar' -- hence the resultant
> > "Invalid values for hub.verify: foobar" or 400 response code.
>
> > Mike
>
> > Jeff Lindsay wrote:
>
> > The only thing specific to App Engine is a check to see if it is
> > a local dev environment for the reference hub, in which case it
> > triggers the task queue so it finishes its cycle needed for it
> > to pass the test.
> > I'm not sure how you see that or the need for a multivalue hack
> > based on the failed tests you shared.
>
> > The first is the result of your hub not fetching published
> > content after being pinged, and the second is just saying you
> > shouldn't allow a catch-all for verify values. I'm not terribly
> > sure why that's in the spec as a MUST, but it is.
>
> > -jeff
>
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:45 AM, [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>> <[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
>
> > Cool, looks like most of the tests pass (failed below). For
> > the first
> > I would also need to include a multivalue hack...and the
> > second seems
> > to require Google app engine.
>
> > I'll take a look/maybe implement the 'Not Yet Implemented' tests.
>
> > I've also considered moving the queue to sqs and model
> > objects to s3
> > -- or similar (basically Gnip's original architecture). If
> > anyone is
> > interested in lending a hand let me know.
>
> > 1)
> > 'Hub publisher interface sends an HTTP GET request to the
> > topic URL to
> > fetch content' FAILED
> > expected: "GET",
> > got: nil (using ==)
> > ./hub_spec.rb:59:
>
> > 2)
> > 'Hub subscriber interface MUST ignore verify keywords it does not
> > understand' FAILED
> > expected #<Net::HTTPBadRequest 400 Bad Request readbody=true>
> > to be a
> > kind of Net::HTTPSuccess
> > ./hub_spec.rb:91:
>
> > On Jan 18, 2:48 am, Jeff Lindsay <[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>
> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
> > > Also! Please use (and update if necessary) the hub
> > testsuite we
>
> >
> > made:http://code.google.com/p/pubsubhubbub/source/browse/trunk/testsuite/R...
>
> > > Luckily for you, it happens to be written in Ruby!
>
> > > -jeff
>
> > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Brett Slatkin
> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 4:48 PM, [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>
> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Is there any interest out there for a full Ruby
> > implementation? It's
> > > > > pretty much a straight port using Sinatra and Redis
> > including
> > a basic
> > > > > task queue. I'm currently testing the hub on AWS and
> > hoping
> > to open
> > > > > source the code on GitHub. (I've also ported most of the
> > python tests)
>
> > > > That'd be awesome!
>
> > > --
> > > Jeff Lindsayhttp://webhooks.org--Make the web more
> > programmablehttp://shdh.org--A party for hackers and
> > thinkershttp://tigdb.com--Discover indie
> > gameshttp://progrium.com--
> > More interesting things
>
> > --
> > Jeff Lindsay
> > http://webhooks.org-- Make the web more programmable
> > http://shdh.org-- A party for hackers and thinkers
> > http://tigdb.com-- Discover indie games
> > http://progrium.com-- More interesting things
>
> > --
> > Jeff Lindsay
> >http://webhooks.org-- Make the web more programmable
> >http://shdh.org-- A party for hackers and thinkers
> >http://tigdb.com-- Discover indie games
> >http://progrium.com-- More interesting things
