Re: [mod_python] Anyone have an idea when mod_python will be available for Apache 2.2

2006-04-12 Thread Graham Dumpleton
Graham Dumpleton wrote ..
 What is interesting now is that when doing that, I note that on Mac OS
 X there are some worrying error messages which follow that:
 
 [Thu Apr 13 11:09:37 2006] [error] Internal error: pcfg_openfile() called
 with NULL filename
 [Thu Apr 13 11:09:37 2006] [error] [client 127.0.0.1] (9)Bad file descriptor:
 Could not open password file: (null)
 
 A bit of checking though suggests that that is from test_req_requires.
 
 I'll dig into these latter errors, maybe they might help to uncover
 something.

The reason for the above errors is that the req_requires configuration
is in practice probably wrong. The configuration for the test is:

c = VirtualHost(*,
ServerName(test_req_requires),
DocumentRoot(DOCUMENT_ROOT),
Directory(DOCUMENT_ROOT,
  SetHandler(mod_python),
  AuthName(blah),
  AuthType(basic),
  Require(valid-user),
  AuthBasicAuthoritative(Off),
  PythonAuthenHandler(tests::req_requires),
  PythonDebug(On)))

By saying:

  AuthType(basic),

you are literally saying that it should be passed to provider for Basic
authentication, but in doing that no AuthFile directive has been supplied
and so it is obviously going to fail. Apache 2.2 is probably at fault for
not giving better error messages.

To fix the problem, it should be set to anything but basic or digest.

  AuthType(dummy),

In your original email you said your problem was with the auth_type test.

  I've tested with and without the new importer on Windows XP SP2 +
  Python 2.4.2 + Apache 2.2.0 and everything works except the
  test_req_auth_type test, which signals a 500 error.

Are you sure it was the auth_type test and not the req_requires test
that immediately follows?

Graham


Re: [mod_python] Anyone have an idea when mod_python will be available for Apache 2.2

2006-04-12 Thread Graham Dumpleton
Nicolas

Can you check out latest code from trunk in subversion and retest to
see if problem has gone away. I have made the req_auth_type and
req_requires tests both a bit more exact/resilient whereas before
they left out things which otherwise might need to be present in
a properly crafted handler which made use of such features.

Let me know if things look better and I will back port req_requires
changes to 3.2.x branch.

Thanks.

Graham

Graham Dumpleton wrote ..
 Graham Dumpleton wrote ..
  What is interesting now is that when doing that, I note that on Mac OS
  X there are some worrying error messages which follow that:
  
  [Thu Apr 13 11:09:37 2006] [error] Internal error: pcfg_openfile() called
  with NULL filename
  [Thu Apr 13 11:09:37 2006] [error] [client 127.0.0.1] (9)Bad file 
  descriptor:
  Could not open password file: (null)
  
  A bit of checking though suggests that that is from test_req_requires.
  
  I'll dig into these latter errors, maybe they might help to uncover
  something.
 
 The reason for the above errors is that the req_requires configuration
 is in practice probably wrong. The configuration for the test is:
 
 c = VirtualHost(*,
 ServerName(test_req_requires),
 DocumentRoot(DOCUMENT_ROOT),
 Directory(DOCUMENT_ROOT,
   SetHandler(mod_python),
   AuthName(blah),
   AuthType(basic),
   Require(valid-user),
   AuthBasicAuthoritative(Off),
   PythonAuthenHandler(tests::req_requires),
   PythonDebug(On)))
 
 By saying:
 
   AuthType(basic),
 
 you are literally saying that it should be passed to provider for Basic
 authentication, but in doing that no AuthFile directive has been supplied
 and so it is obviously going to fail. Apache 2.2 is probably at fault for
 not giving better error messages.
 
 To fix the problem, it should be set to anything but basic or digest.
 
   AuthType(dummy),
 
 In your original email you said your problem was with the auth_type test.
 
   I've tested with and without the new importer on Windows XP SP2 +
   Python 2.4.2 + Apache 2.2.0 and everything works except the
   test_req_auth_type test, which signals a 500 error.
 
 Are you sure it was the auth_type test and not the req_requires test
 that immediately follows?
 
 Graham