@abh3 commented on this pull request.
Like I said, I'm OK with this though I do have a question that may or may not lead to another change. So, if @amadio is OK with it so am I.
> @@ -1798,7 +1798,16 @@ XrdHttpReq::PostProcessChecksum(std::string &digest_header) {
if (convert_to_base64) {free(digest_value);}
return 0;
} else {
- prot->SendSimpleResp(500, NULL, NULL, "Underlying filesystem failed to calculate checksum.", 0, false);
+ // This is a result of the "Ugly" hack put in place to prevent a failing stat() on a
+ // non-manager server to fail a transfer.
+ // In the case a user issues a GET with a 'Want-Digest' header on a non-existing file, the non-failing
+ // stat() will result in a failed checksum query giving a 500 error back to the user.
+ // Here we just return a 404 instead. httpStatusCode and httpStatusText contain the right reason why the request failed.
+ if(xrderrcode != kXR_NotFound) {
I'm OK with the way it is but you could be a bit more discerning here. For instance, if the error is kXR_Unsupported then the status code should really be 501 with the text as returned by the server. Which leads to the question why override the server supplied error text with a generic one? Is the original error message lost somewhere? One would expect that the server's error message will better explain how to correct the problem.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/xrootd/xrootd/pull/2019#pullrequestreview-1451649108
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <[log in to unmask]>
########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
To unsubscribe from the XROOTD-DEV list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=XROOTD-DEV&A=1
