Don't pass along the Content-Length header #77
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Normalize the header names to the standard capitalization The Content-Length header causes issues in specs with a newer version of Puma
|
I think I tracked down why this is problematic. We are using |
|
👍 |
pcarranza
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 23, 2016
Don't pass along the Content-Length header
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
With the latest version of
Puma, this line is giving us problems from this commit. Specifically, we are setting aContent-Lengthwith a downcased header name. Before that commit inPuma, the normal cased version of theContent-Lengthheader would be the only thing that triggered the line, but now the downcased version will as well. This in turn causesPumato blow up. This is easily fixed by not passing along theContent-Lengthheader we stashed from RubyGems.org. I suspect the content length is somehow differing from what should be sent... maybe a different bug in our code, or a bug somewhere inPumawhen the content length is being sent. Regardless, this fixes the bug appearing in the specs.Additionally, this was causing a bug for @chriseckhardt where gems would download and appear to be corrupted. This fix in turn fixes that bug as well as the spec failures with the latest
Puma.