Re: [PATCH] REGTEST: lua: check socket functionality from a lua-task

2018-11-30 Thread Willy Tarreau
Hi Pieter, On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:16:33PM +0100, PiBa-NL wrote: > Attached the same reg-test as send previously, this time as a .patch . Much appreciated, thank you! Now applied. Willy

[PATCH] REGTEST: lua: check socket functionality from a lua-task

2018-11-30 Thread PiBa-NL
Hi List, Willy, Frederic, Adis, Attached the same reg-test as send previously, this time as a .patch . Created after the issue was reported here: https://www.mail-archive.com/haproxy@formilux.org/msg31924.html but should be part of the general tests when running regression-checks. It can be

Re: BUG: Lua tasks can't use client sockets after bf89ff3d

2018-11-30 Thread Frederic Lecaille
On 11/30/18 2:42 AM, PiBa-NL wrote: Hi Frederic, Adis, Hi Pieter, Op 29-11-2018 om 14:53 schreef Frederic Lecaille: Hi Adis, On 11/29/18 10:03 AM, Adis Nezirovic wrote: On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 09:03:34AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: OK thanks, I'll take a look at it once I've flushed my

Re: reg-test failure for /connection/b00000.vtc after commit 3e1f68b

2018-11-30 Thread cognet
Hi Pieter, On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:52:29PM +0100, PiBa-NL wrote: > Hi Olivier, List, > > It seems one of the reg-tests /connection/b0.vtc is failing after this > recent commit. > > http://git.haproxy.org/?p=haproxy.git;a=commit;h=3e1f68bcf9adfcd30e3316b0822c2626cc2a6a84 > > Using

Re: 1.7.11 with gzip compression serves incomplete files

2018-11-30 Thread Christopher Faulet
Le 28/11/2018 à 04:37, Willy Tarreau a écrit : Hi Veiko, On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 07:59:50PM +, Veiko Kukk wrote: Hi! There is not much to add, just that it's been broken before in 1.7.9 and is again broken in 1.7.11. Works with 1.7.10. When applying patch provided here

Re: [PATCH] REGTEST/MINOR: script: add run-regtests.sh script

2018-11-30 Thread Frederic Lecaille
On 11/29/18 10:04 PM, Frederic Lecaille wrote: On 11/29/18 5:36 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote: Hi guys, On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:17:22AM +0100, Frederic Lecaille wrote: Perhaps we should "chmod +x" this script. Good point, done here. However I'm now seeing this when starting it :