New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Resuming a resumable upload from GCS C++ client does not work: fake-gcs-server rejects “Content-Range: bytes */*” #1149
Comments
I spent some time reading about Content-Range and it does look like this is valid (though it's kinda equivalent to omitting the value?) Fixes #1149.
It helps in the sense that the request syntax is no longer rejected, but a resumable upload still fails. The same test succeeds against the real GCS server. I don’t have that test open sourced (it is in Google), but here is what happens. I begin writing to a new object with
I write the first piece, capture
But |
Gotcha, thanks for providing additional info. I'll try to create a reproducer. |
Here is a strace log of socket communication (of a similar but different run — this is a randomized test):
I am not familiar with the protocol so I am not sure what it should be there. No data were actually written because the length did not reach 256 KiB. Still it should resume starting from 0. I don’t have an easy comparison with a real GCS server because in that case the communication goes via https. |
I spent some time reading about Content-Range and it does look like this is valid (though it's kinda equivalent to omitting the value?) Fixes #1149.
I spent some time reading about Content-Range and it does look like this is valid (though it's kinda equivalent to omitting the value?) Related to #1149.
When resuming a resumable upload using
gcs::RestoreResumableUploadSession()
, the C++ client sendsContent-Range: bytes */*
:https://github.com/googleapis/google-cloud-cpp/blob/1178ef9bbb0257e940dc2d9af475802d8bb37038/google/cloud/storage/internal/rest_client.cc#L699
fake-gcs-server rejects this:
fake-gcs-server/fakestorage/upload.go
Line 594 in e2d2de1
AFAIK this syntax is valid.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: