Closed
Bug 226027
Opened 21 years ago
Closed 21 years ago
Make Bugzilla use CGI.pm to send Cookie headers
Categories
(Bugzilla :: Bugzilla-General, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Bugzilla 2.18
People
(Reporter: justdave, Assigned: justdave)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 2 obsolete files)
2.76 KB,
patch
|
bbaetz
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
This is needed for mod_perl. There's an XXX - mod_perl comment on our existing Cookie code which describes this. Patch coming momentarily.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•21 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 135767 [details] [diff] [review] Patch This fixes the situation by stashing the cookies (as the comment indicates it should have been) instead of printing them, and then overriding the CGI->header() method to add the cookie parameter containing our cookie list before calling the real CGI->header.
Attachment #135767 -
Flags: review?(bbaetz)
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 135767 [details] [diff] [review] Patch After further testing, this is broken. Replacement patch coming up shortly
Attachment #135767 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #135767 -
Flags: review?(bbaetz)
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•21 years ago
|
||
Previous iteration didn't take into account that the caller might have passed a non-qualified content-type as a parameter (like the new js buglist which does $cgi->header("text/javascript"); ). This one fixes that and also only adds the Cookie part if there's cookies to add, instead of passing an empty array of cookies.
Assignee | ||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Attachment #135775 -
Flags: review?(bbaetz)
Comment 5•21 years ago
|
||
If we're storing a Content-Type in it, is Bugzilla_cookie_list still an appropriate name?
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•21 years ago
|
||
We store nothing but cookies in Bugzilla_cookie_list. The content-type is being passed in, not being read from Bugzilla_cookie_list.
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•21 years ago
|
||
Oops, cookies didn't work in buglist.cgi. Fixed that with this rev.
Attachment #135775 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Attachment #135775 -
Flags: review?(bbaetz)
Assignee | ||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Attachment #136093 -
Flags: review?(bbaetz)
Comment 8•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 136093 [details] [diff] [review] Patch v3 I guess. How about fixing multipart_start via an upstream patch? r=bbaetz anyway - given the limited requirements we have for multipart_start, this is OK
Attachment #136093 -
Flags: review?(bbaetz) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•21 years ago
|
||
Checking in Bugzilla/CGI.pm; /cvsroot/mozilla/webtools/bugzilla/Bugzilla/CGI.pm,v <-- CGI.pm new revision: 1.7; previous revision: 1.6 done
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 21 years ago
Flags: approval+
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Assignee | ||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Target Milestone: --- → Bugzilla 2.18
Updated•12 years ago
|
QA Contact: matty_is_a_geek → default-qa
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•