On 29.05.2017 10:31, Marc Strapetz wrote: > On 24.05.2017 19:59, Branko Čibej wrote: >> On 24.05.2017 19:37, Branko Čibej wrote: >>> On 24.05.2017 12:19, Marc Strapetz wrote: >>>> I have following Apache virtual host configuration which contains a >>>> redirect: >>>> >>>> RedirectMatch 301 ^/svntest/(.*)$ /svntests/$1 >>>> >>>> <Location /svntests> >>>> DAV svn >>>> SVNParentPath /misc/svntests >>>> ... >>>> </Location> >>>> >>>> When trying to access a redirected repository from command line, this >>>> works fine: >>>> >>>> $ svn ls https://host/svntest/test1 >>>> Redirecting to URL 'https://host/svntests/test1': >>>> project1/ >>>> >>>> When trying to access using JavaHL, a "Redirect cycle detected for >>>> URL" SubversionException is thrown. Code snippet: >>>> >>>> RemoteFactory remoteFactory = new RemoteFactory(); >>>> remoteFactory.openRemoteSession("https://host/svntest/test1";, 100); >>>> >>>> As the definition is not cyclic and retryAttempts=100 should be >>>> sufficient, it looks like there is a JavaHL problem related to >>>> redirects? >>> Could be a bug in the redirect detection logic in JavaHL. I'll take >>> a look. >> >> Can you try this patch, please? >> >> Index: subversion/bindings/javahl/native/RemoteSession.cpp >> =================================================================== >> --- subversion/bindings/javahl/native/RemoteSession.cpp (revision >> 1796083) >> +++ subversion/bindings/javahl/native/RemoteSession.cpp (working >> copy) >> @@ -214,8 +214,9 @@ RemoteSession::RemoteSession(int retryAttempts, >> cycle_detected = true; >> break; >> } >> - /* ### Shouldn't url be updated for the next attempt? >> - ### There is no real cycle if we just do the same thing >> twice? */ >> + >> + url = corrected_url; >> + corrected_url = NULL; >> } >> >> if (cycle_detected) > > Thanks, Brane! We have applied the patch to 1.9.x branch and I can > confirm that it's working.
Great, thanks for checking. > Will it be possible to backport the patch to 1.9.x branch in the > Subversion repository, too? Yes, since there's no API change, just an implementation bug fix. -- Brane
