Re: bugzilla weirdness

> On Jan 16, 2008 12:14 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au> wrote:
>> Yeah, Pawel and i noticed this a few days ago.
>>
>> Could you look at the headers that bugzilla is returning and make
>> sure its properly setting invalidation stuff?
>
> Here are the request:
> GET /bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=2193 HTTP/1.1
> Host: www.squid-cache.org
>
> The response when first accessing the bug (with no attachments).
> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:08:21 GMT
> Server: Apache/2.2.6 (FreeBSD) mod_ssl/2.2.6 OpenSSL/0.9.7e-p1 DAV/2
> PHP/5.2.5 with Suhosin-Patch
> Cache-Control: max-age=86400
> Expires: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:08:21 GMT
> Keep-Alive: timeout=5, max=100
> Connection: Keep-Alive
> Transfer-Encoding: chunked
> Content-Type: text/html
>
> The second response (when accessing the bug that has an attachment)
>
> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:09:19 GMT
> Server: Apache/2.2.6 (FreeBSD) mod_ssl/2.2.6 OpenSSL/0.9.7e-p1 DAV/2
> PHP/5.2.5 with Suhosin-Patch
> Cache-Control: max-age=86400
> Expires: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:09:19 GMT
> Keep-Alive: timeout=5, max=100
> Connection: Keep-Alive
> Transfer-Encoding: chunked
> Content-Type: text/html
>
> wireshark showed that the second response do list the attachment, but
> Firefox did not show it.
>
> Seems that firefox shows an expired entity when it's age is less than
> 'max-age'.
>
> Am I right?
>

It seemed to me that it started happening here when I moved from the
old "cache deny QUERY" config to the new refresh_patterns ones Adrian
brought in for better dealing with dynamic content.
If thats right, its an old bug just uncovered by the new handling method.

Amos
Received on Wed Jan 16 2008 - 13:47:33 MST