Can't think of any specific reason other than the fact that, there are other ways of achieving what you are asking already:
e.g. TSHttpTxnFollowRedirect(), TSHttpTxnRedirectUrlSet() If you really need to use Lua to modify the config, please open a jira to read/apply the setting at a later hook. Thanks, Sudheer On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 1:29 PM, Jeremy Payne <[email protected]> wrote: My goal is leave the option turned off via records.config. However based on certain conditions within the request, I would like to turn it on.. So I am doing this within a lua script. I see that the master(6.1.0) lua plugin supports redirection override, but it appears(per your response) as of this writing it must be done from a global scope instead of a per remap basis. I also tried using the config remap plugin per remap , and no luck there either. Is there a reason for only allowing this override so far up the transaction chain? It would seem more operator friendly if the override could be applied at least after entering the remap stage.. Unless this override is meant solely for forward proxy environments. I am currently running ATS in reverse proxy mode and relying heavily on per remap lua scripts to modify the request accordingly. Thanks! On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Sudheer Vinukonda <[email protected]> wrote: Which hook are you using to override? > > >The config is applied before READ_REQUEST_HDR hook, so, you will need to >override it in TXN_START hook. > > >Thanks, > > >Sudheer > > > > > >On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 10:12 AM, Jeremy Payne <[email protected]> >wrote: > > > > > >I see that master(6.1.0) now 'supports' redirection override. > >./trafficserver/proxy/http/HttpConfig.cc: >HttpEstablishStaticConfigByte(c.oride.redirection_enabled, >"proxy.config.http.redirection_enabled"); >./trafficserver/proxy/http/HttpConfig.cc: params->oride.redirection_enabled = >INT_TO_BOOL(m_master.oride.redirection_enabled); > > >In testing I see that the redirection value is changed per the over-ride >config(witnessed via debug output), yet I dont see the override value is >applied to the session/transaction. > > >Is the override code fully implemented? As it seems only the override code is >there but maybe the transaction code hasnt been updated to account for the >redirection override. > > >Thanks! > > > > > > >
