On Sat, 22 Nov 2014, Darshit Shah wrote:
Multiple challenges in a single header are allowed. I had to hack a
workaround in the Test suite explicitly to support this behaviour.
Going down this route, you might enjoy this:
http://greenbytes.de/tech/tc/httpauth/
--
/ daniel.haxx.se
Am Samstag, 22. November 2014, 23:53:58 schrieb Darshit Shah:
> Multiple challenges in a single header are allowed. I had to hack a
> workaround in the Test suite explicitly to support this behaviour.
>
> I quote RFC 2616, sec. 14.47
>
> The WWW-Authenticate response-header field MUST be included
Multiple challenges in a single header are allowed. I had to hack a
workaround in the Test suite explicitly to support this behaviour.
I quote RFC 2616, sec. 14.47
The WWW-Authenticate response-header field MUST be included in 401
(Unauthorized) response messages. The field value consists of at l
Am Samstag, 22. November 2014, 18:56:43 schrieb Tim Rühsen:
> But the HTTP test server offers both (Digest,Basic) within a single WWW-
> Authenticate line. The ABNF in RFC2616 does not allow this:
Sorry, I meant RFC2617.
And found in RFC2616 4.2
Multiple message-header fields with the same fi
Am Samstag, 22. November 2014, 16:24:18 schrieb Darshit Shah:
> Another reason why I never got around to implementing this feature is that
> it is required by almost no one. The issue at hand is that when a Server
> responds with two possible authentication methods, the client is expected
> to choo
On 11/22, Tim Rühsen wrote:
Am Freitag, 21. November 2014, 21:13:45 schrieb Darshit Shah:
Thanking You,
Darshit Shah
Sent from mobile device. Please excuse my brevity
On 21-Nov-2014 8:45 pm, "Tim Ruehsen" wrote:
> I had two issues with the above mentioned test.
>
> 1. XFAIL is not common to pe
Am Freitag, 21. November 2014, 21:13:45 schrieb Darshit Shah:
> Thanking You,
> Darshit Shah
> Sent from mobile device. Please excuse my brevity
>
> On 21-Nov-2014 8:45 pm, "Tim Ruehsen" wrote:
> > I had two issues with the above mentioned test.
> >
> > 1. XFAIL is not common to people - we had
Thanking You,
Darshit Shah
Sent from mobile device. Please excuse my brevity
On 21-Nov-2014 8:45 pm, "Tim Ruehsen" wrote:
>
> I had two issues with the above mentioned test.
>
> 1. XFAIL is not common to people - we had some confusion on the mailing
list.
Xfail is standard parlance for expected f
I had two issues with the above mentioned test.
1. XFAIL is not common to people - we had some confusion on the mailing list.
2. XFAIL is true for a test even if it fails out of *any* reason.
Example: When testing on a virtual machine without python3, 'make check' still
happily reports XFAIL: 1 in
