Hello, so is this patch okay for inclusion to uwsgi or is it completely wrong? My tests shows that it certainly helps when file is not present, but I am not sure if I am missing something else.
Also I was wondering about how that static-safe option is supposed to be working. Regards, Zdenek 2017-04-09 15:53 GMT+02:00 zd nex <[email protected]>: > Hello, > so here is patch to fix issue with router_static, which is not able to > server response when file is not present. Hopefully it is okay, it compiles > and fixes issue with empty response. With patch when file is missing > request is sent to app - maybe now break action would work. I am not sure > if it breaks something (settings is in previous email). Also I am wondering > how static-safe option should work? As to get symlink working I had to > remove these checks and compile it again. > > > diff -r 0a150315584e plugins/router_static/router_static.c > --- a/plugins/router_static/router_static.c Sun Apr 09 15:29:02 2017 > +0200 > +++ b/plugins/router_static/router_static.c Sun Apr 09 15:37:01 2017 > +0200 > @@ -30,8 +30,12 @@ > struct uwsgi_buffer *ub = uwsgi_routing_translate(wsgi_req, ur, > *subject, *subject_len, ur->data, ur->data_len); > if (!ub) return UWSGI_ROUTE_BREAK; > > - uwsgi_file_serve(wsgi_req, ub->buf, ub->pos, NULL, 0, 1); > + int file_serve_ret; > + file_serve_ret = uwsgi_file_serve(wsgi_req, ub->buf, ub->pos, NULL, 0, > 1); > uwsgi_buffer_destroy(ub); > + if(file_serve_ret == -1){ > + return UWSGI_ROUTE_NEXT; > + } > if (ur->custom == 1) > return UWSGI_ROUTE_NEXT; > return UWSGI_ROUTE_BREAK; > > >
_______________________________________________ uWSGI mailing list [email protected] http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi
