Re: svn commit: r1874545 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/filters/mod_brotli.c
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:39:02PM +0100, Marion & Christophe JAILLET wrote: > > Le 26/02/2020 à 18:47, gbec...@apache.org a écrit : > > Author: gbechis > > Date: Wed Feb 26 17:47:53 2020 > > New Revision: 1874545 > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1874545=rev > > Log: > > Avoid printing NULL strings in logs > > > > Modified: > > httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/filters/mod_brotli.c > > > > Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/filters/mod_brotli.c > > URL: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/filters/mod_brotli.c?rev=1874545=1874544=1874545=diff > > == > > --- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/filters/mod_brotli.c (original) > > +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/filters/mod_brotli.c Wed Feb 26 17:47:53 2020 > > @@ -419,7 +419,7 @@ static apr_status_t compress_filter(ap_f > > } > > q = ap_get_token(r->pool, , 1); > > ap_log_rerror(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_TRACE1, 0, r, > > - "token: '%s' - q: '%s'", token, q); > > + "token: '%s' - q: '%s'", token ?: "NULL", q); > > Is this syntax standard? This looks like a GNU extension. > > Shouldn't we use > token ? token : "NULL" > instead? > > A few google search make me think that it could be an issue with VS > (i.e. windows build) > > Just my 2c. > > CJ > you are right, committed thanks. Giovanni signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: svn commit: r1874545 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/filters/mod_brotli.c
Le 26/02/2020 à 18:47, gbec...@apache.org a écrit : Author: gbechis Date: Wed Feb 26 17:47:53 2020 New Revision: 1874545 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1874545=rev Log: Avoid printing NULL strings in logs Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/filters/mod_brotli.c Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/filters/mod_brotli.c URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/filters/mod_brotli.c?rev=1874545=1874544=1874545=diff == --- httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/filters/mod_brotli.c (original) +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/filters/mod_brotli.c Wed Feb 26 17:47:53 2020 @@ -419,7 +419,7 @@ static apr_status_t compress_filter(ap_f } q = ap_get_token(r->pool, , 1); ap_log_rerror(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_TRACE1, 0, r, - "token: '%s' - q: '%s'", token, q); + "token: '%s' - q: '%s'", token ?: "NULL", q); Is this syntax standard? This looks like a GNU extension. Shouldn't we use token ? token : "NULL" instead? A few google search make me think that it could be an issue with VS (i.e. windows build) Just my 2c. CJ } /* No acceptable token found or q=0 */
Re: error on fedora31 when configure --enable-maintainer-mode
On 26/02/2020 18:50, Giovanni Bechis wrote: On 2/26/20 5:07 PM, jean-frederic clere wrote: Hi, I have 2 errors when compile on fedora31 with configure --enable-maintainer-mod. Attached a possible patch, comments? Thanks, they are both fixed in trunk in 2 separate commits, see https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64178. Giovanni Proposed for back port ;-) -- Cheers Jean-Frederic
Re: error on fedora31 when configure --enable-maintainer-mode
On 2/26/20 5:07 PM, jean-frederic clere wrote: > Hi, > > I have 2 errors when compile on fedora31 with configure > --enable-maintainer-mod. Attached a possible patch, comments? > Thanks, they are both fixed in trunk in 2 separate commits, see https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64178. Giovanni
error on fedora31 when configure --enable-maintainer-mode
Hi, I have 2 errors when compile on fedora31 with configure --enable-maintainer-mod. Attached a possible patch, comments? -- Cheers Jean-Frederic Index: modules/filters/mod_brotli.c === --- modules/filters/mod_brotli.c(revision 1874543) +++ modules/filters/mod_brotli.c(working copy) @@ -419,7 +419,7 @@ } q = ap_get_token(r->pool, , 1); ap_log_rerror(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_TRACE1, 0, r, - "token: '%s' - q: '%s'", token, q); + "token: '%s' - q: '%s'", token ? token : "", q); } /* No acceptable token found or q=0 */ Index: modules/filters/mod_deflate.c === --- modules/filters/mod_deflate.c (revision 1874543) +++ modules/filters/mod_deflate.c (working copy) @@ -730,7 +730,7 @@ } q = ap_get_token(r->pool, , 1); ap_log_rerror(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_TRACE1, 0, r, - "token: '%s' - q: '%s'", token, q); + "token: '%s' - q: '%s'", token ? token : "", q); } /* No acceptable token found or q=0 */
Re: [PATCH 63628] Support specifying the http status codes to be considered by ProxyErrorOverride
Hi,
any remarks regarding the new patch?
Are the changes acceptable, or are there still some improvements required?
Regards
MGD
Martin Drößler schrieb am 03.02.2020 18:33 (GMT +01:00):
> I attached a new/improved patch to the bug-ticket:
> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63628
>
>
> Regards
> Martin Drößler
>
> Am 05.12.19 um 14:29 schrieb Eric Covener:
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 7:51 AM Martin Drößler
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> We're still in need of this feature.
>>> Is there anyone who can review the patch?
>>
>> I think the proxy_util.c additions need an ap_ prefix and need to be
>> declared like all of the other non-static functions with AP_DECLARE.
>>
>> The description and the manual seem to hide the use of this for
>> non-error codes while the diff seems to go out of its way to allow
>> non-error codes.
>> I think it should either be constrained in the diff or have some
>> notes/warnings/elaboration in the doc.
>>
>> I personally do not like the use of two directives and the intercept
>> and override terminology mixing. I prefer that ProxyErrorOverride is
>> extended to accept ON or a list of status codes.
>> Another personal nit -- the name of the two added functions is not so
>> clear to me.
>>
>>
>> +int is_proxy_error_intercept_code(proxy_dir_conf *conf, int code)
>> +{
>> +if (apr_is_empty_array(conf->error_intercept_codes))
>> +return 0;
>> +
>> +proxy_status_code *list = (proxy_status_code *)
>> conf->error_intercept_codes->elts;
>> +
>> +int i;
>> ^^ not c89
>>
>>
>> Also, is_proxy_error_intercept_code could be static (and not in
>> mod_proxy.h) or just part of the other method since it is only called
>> from the other method.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Martin Drößler
>>>
>>> Martin Drößler schrieb am 16.09.2019 17:40 (GMT +02:00):
>>>
Quick reminder.
Martin Drößler schrieb am 22.08.2019 10:25:
> From: https://httpd.apache.org/dev/patches.html
>> Post to the developers list pointing out your patch and why you feel it
>> is
>> important. Feel free to do this about once a week and continue until you
>> get
>> a
>> response.
>
> In this regard: the weekly friendly reminder.
>
>
> Regards
> Martin Drößler
>
> Martin Drößler schrieb am 13.08.2019 10:18:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> one and a half week ago I submitted a patch/bugreport for this feature.
>> See: https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63628
>>
>> And, as suggested by the how-to
>> (http://httpd.apache.org/dev/patches.html), I
>> wanted to ask about some feedback.
>>
>> It would definitely help me and my company to decide, if we can continue
>> with
>> our migration-project.
>>
>>
>> thanks,
>> Martin Drößler
>>
>
>>>
>>
>>
>
