Feature #11797

Try to strip ETags from downloads in DAVE

Added by Anonymous 2016-09-15 01:53:06 . Updated 2018-04-27 07:37:14 .

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Target version:
Start date:
2016-09-15
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Feature Branch:
Type of work:
Code
Blueprint:

Starter:
Affected tool:
Verification Extension
Deliverable for:

Description

If we resume from another mirror (which can only happen if the initially picked mirror has been removed from the pool between the time when the download was paused, and the time it’s resumed; since by default we resume using the same mirror): we do that by patching the download object to change the target URL, and then it might be that previous ETag headers cached for this download could easily be dropped by DAVE; this might be as simple as adding one single line similar to the one that modifies the URL.

If we manage to do this, we could drop the requirement for mirror operators to disable ETags on their servers.

Subtasks

History

#1 Updated by intrigeri 2016-09-15 04:19:06

  • Status changed from New to Confirmed

#2 Updated by Anonymous 2017-06-14 13:23:28

  • Assignee set to anonym

Reassigning to anonym. There is no urgency in this, but it might be useful to do at some point.

#3 Updated by intrigeri 2017-11-18 10:55:42

  • Affected tool changed from Download and Verification Extension to Verification Extension

I guess this won’t be relevant anymore with the new extension?

#4 Updated by anonym 2017-12-14 14:31:37

  • Assignee changed from anonym to sajolida

#5 Updated by sajolida 2018-01-15 16:08:37

#6 Updated by sajolida 2018-01-17 18:51:21

  • Assignee deleted (sajolida)
  • QA Check set to Info Needed

Actually, I need u’s advice on this…

#7 Updated by Anonymous 2018-01-18 18:44:22

  • Assignee set to sajolida
  • QA Check deleted (Info Needed)

@sajolida: in DAVE2, when resuming a download, we will always resume the download from the same mirror, correct? And DAVE2 does not handle the download itself either. If this is true, then this ticket is superfluous and we can close it. :)

AND then we don’t have to ask mirror operators anymore to strip ETags -> we should probably remove this from the documentation and tell them.

#8 Updated by sajolida 2018-01-31 15:28:37

  • Assignee deleted (sajolida)
  • QA Check set to Ready for QA

Can you review doc/11797-dont-require-etags?

Then I’ll notify all admin with:

grep '@' mirrors.json | sed -r 's/        "email": "//;s/",?//'

#9 Updated by sajolida 2018-02-01 04:53:10

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress

Applied in changeset commit:a9760bb6f50f6f6962e5a82b97e47d94f98af175.

#10 Updated by Anonymous 2018-02-13 10:32:25

  • Assignee set to sajolida
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass

LGTM! -> I let you merge it and notify the admins.

#11 Updated by sajolida 2018-03-02 17:16:35

  • Assignee deleted (sajolida)
  • QA Check changed from Pass to Ready for QA

I merged doc/11797-dont-require-etags and notify the admins.

I forgot earlier that we also have to adapt check-mirrors.rb. I did that with 87e0494 in the check-mirror repo (tails@git.tails.boum.org:check-mirrors.git). Can you have a look?

#12 Updated by sajolida 2018-03-04 08:37:56

  • Priority changed from Low to Normal

Otherwise I’ll ask anonym.

#13 Updated by intrigeri 2018-03-06 14:56:22

sajolida, we still have a contrib/11797-drop-etag-requirement branch that builds on Jenkins. If it’s not needed anymore, please delete it :)

#14 Updated by sajolida 2018-03-19 22:27:16

  • Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
  • Assignee deleted ()
  • QA Check deleted (Ready for QA)

This is simple enough that I can consider it closed. If my patch doesn’t work for some reason, I’ll be the first one to be bitten anyway…

#15 Updated by intrigeri 2018-04-27 07:37:14

sajolida wrote:
> I merged doc/11797-dont-require-etags and notify the admins.
>
> I forgot earlier that we also have to adapt check-mirrors.rb. I did that with 87e0494 in the check-mirror repo (tails@git.tails.boum.org:check-mirrors.git). Can you have a look?

Looks good to me.