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

Persistent lock timeout value is "Second-" when not specified. #33778

Open
PVince81 opened this issue Dec 5, 2018 · 7 comments
Open

Persistent lock timeout value is "Second-" when not specified. #33778

PVince81 opened this issue Dec 5, 2018 · 7 comments

Comments

@PVince81
Copy link
Contributor

PVince81 commented Dec 5, 2018

Steps

See steps from #33769.

Expected

<d:timeout>Infinite</d:timeout> or empty.

Actual

<d:timeout>Second-</d:timeout> or empty.

If we set the header "Timeout" to "Second-120" for example, the value appears as "Second-120" so the bug is only when no timeout is specified.

Version

master daa38db

Might be a Sabre bug, will raise there.

@DeepDiver1975 FYI

@DeepDiver1975
Copy link
Member

@PVince81
Copy link
Contributor Author

PVince81 commented Dec 5, 2018

Raised sabre-io/dav#1123

We might need to add a default timeout there.

I saw that the LockManager is already using some default timeout value but somehow it is not moved over to the lockInfo in the DAV layer. Should we set it there ?

@ownclouders
Copy link
Contributor

GitMate.io thinks possibly related issues are #4736 (Invalid default value even if no default is specified), #31651 (Adding persistent lock types to ILockingProvider), #24737 (File Locked), #26838 (File locking), and #159 (session timeout).

@DeepDiver1975
Copy link
Member

Upstream fix: sabre-io/dav#1125

@PVince81
Copy link
Contributor Author

So this will need a new release of sabre

@PVince81
Copy link
Contributor Author

PVince81 commented Jan 9, 2019

might become obsoleted by the fix of #33846 if we decide to never accept infinity for the locks

@PVince81
Copy link
Contributor Author

for now we won't accept infinite after #34100 is merged, we've set a maximum value that cannot be exceeded. This means we won't be sending the "Infinite" response, which lowers the priority for this fix here.

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants