Closed
Bug 227267
Opened 21 years ago
Closed 21 years ago
Upload file doesn't work well. It just upload file with zero size. [ftp only?]
Categories
(Core Graveyard :: Networking: FTP, defect)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla1.6final
People
(Reporter: zhayupeng, Assigned: darin.moz)
References
Details
(Keywords: regression)
Attachments
(2 files)
1.58 KB,
text/html
|
Details | |
7.78 KB,
patch
|
dougt
:
review+
dveditz
:
superreview+
chofmann
:
approval1.6+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
I can't use necko to upload file on trunk. Files upload on server are zero size.
This worked fine on 1.4 branch but trunk has problem. I will upload a testcase soon.
Comment on attachment 136654 [details]
testcase for ftp upload
And please download this file to local and open it.
Updated•21 years ago
|
Severity: normal → major
Actually this also breaks the Webpage publish feature. The transfer process will
not stop when I upload file to ftp server using web publish.
Darin,
Do you have idea on this problem? Seems network changed a lot between 1.4 and 1.6.
Comment 4•21 years ago
|
||
Is this only ftp upload or also http upload? If the former, this wouldn't
prevent the review and check in of the roaming code.
http also have problem, file size will be zero on server.
yes, It's only block the function of roaming. I will make patch and go on the
review process of roaming. But I think this should be fix before we check in
roaming feature. Otherwise it will make confuse.
Comment 6•21 years ago
|
||
Http Upload works in my win2k trunk build. Tested uploading a gif to bug 224303
Comment 7•21 years ago
|
||
Matti, this is interesting, but does Editor's Publish function work for you,
too? This is much closer to the roaming code.
Matti,
Maybe it's different between upload file on webpage and upload file using http
channel. Did you try the testcase?
Comment 9•21 years ago
|
||
Uploading via publishing doesn't work for me...
Comment 10•21 years ago
|
||
This seems like a very bad regression. Is it too late to block 1.6? Do we know
approximately when this regression first appeared? Can we pin it on a
particular checkin?
Flags: blocking1.6?
Keywords: regression
Summary: Upload file doesn't work well. It just upload file with zero size. → Upload file doesn't work well. It just upload file with zero size. [ftp only?]
Comment 11•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 228286 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 12•21 years ago
|
||
It works with 1.5, but not 1.6a
(from duped bug)
Comment 13•21 years ago
|
||
If this should really be a regression in netwerk, here's a bonsai link
http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsquery.cgi?treeid=default&module=all&branch=HEAD&branchtype=match&dir=mozilla%2Fnetwerk&file=&filetype=match&who=&whotype=match&sortby=Date&hours=2&date=explicit&mindate=10%2F01%2F2003+05%3A00%3A00&maxdate=10%2F18%2F2003+05%3A00%3A00&cvsroot=%2Fcvsroot
I tracked down this regression to somwhere between 2003-10-01-05 and
2003-10-18-05 on trunk (i know that's not very exact but nightlies are missing
for that timeframe on my pc).
Comment 14•21 years ago
|
||
According to Frank Wein (comment 13) and what I see in bonsai, the regression
may be caused by the checkins for
- bug 210125 (need to be able to AsyncWait for closure only) on October 5
- bug 192284 (support nsIChannel::open for all protocols) on October 7
![]() |
||
Comment 15•21 years ago
|
||
Having a smaller regression window (or a test server that could be used by
someone else to narrow the regression window) would be nice.
Assignee | ||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.6final
Comment 16•21 years ago
|
||
Tracked down somewhat more: This regressed between 2003-10-05-05 and 2003-10-11-05
![]() |
||
Comment 17•21 years ago
|
||
Right, but per comment 14 what we need to know is whether builds from the 6th
are broken....
Comment 18•21 years ago
|
||
yes, builds from 2003-10-06-05 are already broken
Updated•21 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.6? → blocking1.6+
Assignee | ||
Comment 19•21 years ago
|
||
this is likely due to bug 210125... investigating.
Assignee | ||
Comment 20•21 years ago
|
||
i'm able to reproduce this using wu-ftpd on a linux box and TestUpload as the
client.
$ ./TestUpload ftp://user:pass@host/file.ext /path/to/file.ext
the result is a zero length file on the server named file.ext, and TestUpload
never seems to complete. i'm not sure if the fact that it never seems to
complete is related to this bug or not.
investigating...
Assignee | ||
Comment 21•21 years ago
|
||
this bug is FTP specific. i'm not sure it can be fixed with a trivial patch :(
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Component: Networking → Networking: FTP
Comment 22•21 years ago
|
||
Reporter says it's happening on HTTP as well. That's how he found it, I believe.
Assignee | ||
Comment 23•21 years ago
|
||
then the HTTP problem is unrelated to this bug.
Comment 24•21 years ago
|
||
Filed bug 228784 about HTTP.
Assignee | ||
Comment 25•21 years ago
|
||
ok, this works with my wu-ftpd testcase. if anyone else can test this with
other servers that would be most appreciated!
Assignee | ||
Comment 26•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 137582 [details] [diff] [review]
v1 patch
ok, here's the deal with this patch... instead of creating a input stream pump
in the STOR case and then tearing it down in R_stor, this patch makes it so
that we setup a async stream copier from the get go. the result, is that we
don't have to worry about tearing down the input stream pump and so we don't
have to deal with the wanky NS_ERROR_IGNORE_NOTIFICATION fubar.
note: nsIAsyncStreamCopier implements nsIRequest just like nsIInputStreamPump,
so this patch works without much need to change anything up-stream ;-)
Attachment #137582 -
Flags: superreview?(bz-vacation)
Attachment #137582 -
Flags: review?(dougt)
Comment 27•21 years ago
|
||
the patch also works for me with ProFTPD 1.2.8
I applied the patch to Nvu and it fixes the bug.
Thanks for the good work, Darin!
Comment 29•21 years ago
|
||
The patch fixes the problem for me, both proftpd-1.2.9_rc2 and the FTP server
that ftp.tripod.com uses.
![]() |
||
Comment 30•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 137582 [details] [diff] [review]
v1 patch
I won't be able to review this until probably Tuesday.
Comment 31•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 137582 [details] [diff] [review]
v1 patch
sr=dveditz
Attachment #137582 -
Flags: superreview?(bz-vacation) → superreview+
Comment 32•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 137582 [details] [diff] [review]
v1 patch
yes, this should work fine. Great work Darin.
Attachment #137582 -
Flags: review?(dougt) → review+
Assignee | ||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Attachment #137582 -
Flags: approval1.6?
Comment 33•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 137582 [details] [diff] [review]
v1 patch
a=chofmann for 1.6. thanks to all for the help in knocking this one out
quickly
Attachment #137582 -
Flags: approval1.6? → approval1.6+
Comment 34•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 137582 [details] [diff] [review]
v1 patch
Have you tested with OS2?
Assignee | ||
Comment 35•21 years ago
|
||
bbaetz: nope, i haven't tested this patch against an OS/2 FTP server. are you
concerned about something in particular?
Assignee | ||
Comment 36•21 years ago
|
||
fixed-on-trunk for 1.6 final
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 21 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Reporter | ||
Comment 37•21 years ago
|
||
This patch works fine for me on windows. Thanks darin!
-Pete
Comment 38•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 230192 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 39•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 230243 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 40•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 215164 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Updated•1 year ago
|
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•