On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Ian Wadham <iandw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Ben,
Hi Ian, > > On 27/11/2014, at 8:05 AM, Ben Cooksley wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Ian Wadham <iandw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 26/11/2014, at 12:49 PM, Ian Wadham wrote: >>>> So far the log shows that my patch is definitely there, in the >>>> distribution, but >>>> Bugzilla still returns a 410 error, even though it has been given a token >>>> (as >>>> required for version 4.4.6 of Bugzilla software). >>> >>> I have a feeling that KDE software behind Dr Konqi, on Linux, is still >>> sending >>> cookies to bugs.kde.org via kio_http and maybe that confilcts with the later >>> sending of the token in the XML message-data. See attached log extract. >>> >>> I would not have a clue how to tackle that potential issue. It does not >>> happen >>> (for me) on Apple OS X, because KCookieJar is not working for me and >>> anyway my cookies are kept by Apple OS X in Safari or Firefox. >> >> Could the user who encountered this problem logout of Bugzilla in >> Konqueror, then try to reproduce the issue perhaps? > > 1. I could do that, but I think it would be quicker and more efficient if > someone > from the list here could set up a test on bugstest.kde.org and reproduce > the > problem in Linux, as you originally suggested. The bug would probably be > reproducible in KF5, with Hrvoje's patch, if developers are really > allergic to > KDE 4… :-) Note that to change database names, you have to edit Dr K > source > and re-compile, so then we could easily insert further logs and patches as > the investigation progresses. In my experience, getting users to do that > kind > of stuff is unreliable and time consuming, and anyway we surely do not > want > false or redundant crash reports going into the live Bugzilla database. > > 2. Should I attach the compressed log, which I sent you, to an email on this > list? > It is 11-12 Kb of bzip2. There are lots of other strange messages in it, > besides > the ones about cookies, also some warnings I cannot interprete. I don't think that will be necessary at this stage. What we need to do is run some actual tests using Dr Konqi and see why it is failing. > >> I took a look at the Bugzilla codebase and can't see anything >> immediately wrong which would cause a proper call to be blocked simply >> because cookies were present. > > Bang goes that hypothesis(?), I think this is going to be a hard one to > crack... The Bugzilla codebase is complex though, so I could have missed something subtle. Hence why we're after a manual test with Dr Konqi. > > Cheers, Ian W. > > Thanks, Ben
