On 29.05.2017 14:57, Branko Čibej wrote: > 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.
Fixed on trunk and proposed for 1.9.x. -- Brane
