On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 10:24 PM Martynas Jusevičius
wrote:
>
> Actually it does not seem to be the exit code. I tried checking and it
> looks like the exit code is 0:
>
> root@dc17c642d39a:/etc/varnish# varnishadm "ban req.url ~ /"
> 200
>
> root@dc17c642d39a:/etc/varnish# test $? -eq 0 || echo
Oh, 4.x is ancient, glad you made the upgrade!
On Sat, Oct 2, 2021, 15:54 Martynas Jusevičius
wrote:
> I thought that was a non-zero exit code but it's not :)
>
> We just noticed a change -- in the earlier version we used (not sure
> which now, I think 4.x) there was no output from
I thought that was a non-zero exit code but it's not :)
We just noticed a change -- in the earlier version we used (not sure
which now, I think 4.x) there was no output from varnishadm.
We'll just send the 200 to /dev/null then.
On Sun, Oct 3, 2021 at 12:39 AM Guillaume Quintard
wrote:
>
> 200
200 means the command passed to varnish, via varnishadm, succeeded. What
makes you think it failed?
On Sat, Oct 2, 2021, 15:24 Martynas Jusevičius
wrote:
> Actually it does not seem to be the exit code. I tried checking and it
> looks like the exit code is 0:
>
> root@dc17c642d39a:/etc/varnish#
Actually it does not seem to be the exit code. I tried checking and it
looks like the exit code is 0:
root@dc17c642d39a:/etc/varnish# varnishadm "ban req.url ~ /"
200
root@dc17c642d39a:/etc/varnish# test $? -eq 0 || echo "Error"
root@dc17c642d39a:/etc/varnish#
So where is that "200" coming
Hi,
We recently switched to the varnish:latest container and based an
unprivileged image on it (entrypoint runs as USER varnish):
https://github.com/AtomGraph/varnish/blob/official-image/Dockerfile
We noticed that our varnishadm commands started failing. More specifically:
