Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Always send lowlevel_error response to client #2731
Always send lowlevel_error response to client #2731
Changes from 7 commits
9e8eaac
a5d83c3
def464a
7d53fef
9a96822
9020b01
40c72f9
3bb0ace
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why did this have to change? Looks like something isn't working now? This is the failure without this change:
If I make the assert fail on master it looks like
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess it is coming from this code and the fact that
@leak_stack_on_error
is true in test and developmentpuma/lib/puma/server.rb
Lines 543 to 548 in 7812f1b
Maybe it has "always" been like this... but the start with
HTTP/1.0 200 OK\r\n
looks strange?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not entirely sure, but the spec send a HTTP 1.0 request so I think it makes sense it gets a HTTP 1.0 response back. Maybe something was off before :) ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, it was hard coded before: https://github.com/baelter/puma/blob/a2bcda414377ee3f5855a66ed83aa41ce6f0a29d/lib/puma/const.rb#L139
But now we use the correct version.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There's been a change though, this tests triggers an exception in
str_headers
and if we look atstr_headers
it has already populated the buffer with a 200 response, that is also included when we try write the error response withwrite_response
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, nice catch