Merge lp:~mterry/duplicity/webdav-fixes into lp:~duplicity-team/duplicity/0.7-series
Status: | Merged |
---|---|
Merged at revision: | 992 |
Proposed branch: | lp:~mterry/duplicity/webdav-fixes |
Merge into: | lp:~duplicity-team/duplicity/0.7-series |
Diff against target: |
78 lines (+6/-6) 3 files modified
duplicity/backend.py (+1/-1) duplicity/backends/webdavbackend.py (+4/-5) testing/manual/backendtest (+1/-0) |
To merge this branch: | bzr merge lp:~mterry/duplicity/webdav-fixes |
Related bugs: |
Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
---|---|---|---|
duplicity-team | Pending | ||
Review via email: mp+223183@code.launchpad.net |
Description of the change
This branch fixes two issues I saw when testing the webdav backend:
1) Errors like the following: "Attempt 1 failed. BackendException: File /tmp/duplicity-
These were caused by the _get() method not calling setdata() on the local path object, so the rest of the code thought it didn't exist.
2) Some odd issues from stale responses/data. We have a couple places in webdavbackend.py where we close the connection before making a request because of this problem. But I've changed it to do it every time, more reliably, by putting a _close() call inside the request() method.
With this, the webdav backend seems fine to me.
On 15.06.2014 22:26, Michael Terry wrote:
> 2) Some odd issues from stale responses/data. We have a couple places in webdavbackend.py where we close the connection before making a request because of this problem. But I've changed it to do it every time, more reliably, by putting a _close() call inside the request() method.
>
> With this, the webdav backend seems fine to me.
sure you can do that. but it seems to me that the original author had a web background and didn't do it on purpose to reuse the already setup connection for performance reasons.
i would bet that now every request needs to be re-authenticated now. not sure that's a good idea.
..ede
PS: i wonder why the backend suddenly needs this other way to write the request data. any clue?