Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

esi: Implement <esi:include onerror="continue"/> #3767

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 21, 2022

Conversation

dridi
Copy link
Member

@dridi dridi commented Dec 31, 2021

This changes the default behavior of includes, matching the ESI language specification. The onerror attribute seems to only accept one value, so in its absence a failed ESI fragment delivery aborts the top request delivery.

In addition, it breaks the ESI object attribute format for persisted caches.


This is OK for trunk to change the default behavior and objattr format, but for the 6.0 LTS branch we would need to gate this behind a feature flag. I'm wondering whether this is fine to have such an esi_include_onerror flag in 6.0 that does not exist in trunk.

@nigoroll nigoroll self-requested a review January 3, 2022 14:30
@dridi
Copy link
Member Author

dridi commented Jan 3, 2022

bugwash: also gate this feature behind a feature flag in trunk.

@dridi
Copy link
Member Author

dridi commented Jan 3, 2022

Rebased against master, added a feature flag.

@dridi
Copy link
Member Author

dridi commented Jan 31, 2022

bugwash: OK once all markers are in the (HEX + offset) form.

This changes the default behavior of includes, matching the ESI language
specification. The onerror attribute seems to only accept one value, so
in its absence a failed ESI fragment delivery aborts the top request
delivery.

This new behavior requires the esi_include_onerror feature flag to be
raised to take effect.

In addition, it breaks the ESI object attribute format for persisted
caches.
@dridi dridi merged commit a8449fa into varnishcache:master Feb 21, 2022
@dridi dridi deleted the esi_onerror branch February 21, 2022 10:22
@dridi
Copy link
Member Author

dridi commented Jan 31, 2023

For reference: 582ded6

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants