The error is reported by GAE Launcher, the test app you use before deploying
to GAE. Hence the OS X path. Nothing else seems wrong; the app's pages
render correctly etc.
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Jonathan Lundell <jlund...@pobox.com>wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Michael Ellis wrote:
> >
> > Not sure if this is related; apologies if not.
> > I have web2py/routes.py containing
> >
> > """
> > routes_in = (
> > ('/favicon.ico', '/init/static/favicon.ico'),
> > ('/robots.txt', '/init/static/robots.txt'),
> > )
> > routes_out = ()
> > """
> >
> > and app.yaml containing
> >
> > """
> > - url: /(?P<a>.+?)/static/(?P<b>.+)
> > static_files: applications/\1/static/\2
> > upload: applications/(.+?)/static/(.+)
> > secure: optional
> > expiration: "90d"
> > """
> >
> > GAE Launcher at startup is saying:
> >
> > WARNING 2010-09-15 21:43:18,429 dev_appserver.py:1175] Blocking
> > access to static file "/Users/mellis/web2py/applications/init/static/
> > favicon.ico"
> >
> > and thereafter issuing 403's for attempts to get favicon.ico.
> >
> > What else do I need to do? I'm still using version 184.0.
>
> I've never used GAE. Aside from the warning and the 403's, does anything
> else look wrong? Is the path what you would expect? (It looks like an OS X
> path; is that normal for GAE?)
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > On Sep 15, 9:25 am, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote:
> >> please check trunk in 5 minutes.
> >>
> >> On Sep 14, 9:56 am, Jonathan Lundell <jlund...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Massimo, here's a patch. In rewrite.py, change this:
> >>
> >>> exec routesfp.read() in symbols
> >>
> >>> to this:
> >>
> >>> exec routesfp.read().translate(None, '\r') in symbols
> >>
> >>> (and test)
> >>
> >>> I notice that there's something like this elsewhere:
> >>
> >>> def compile2(code,layer):
> >>> """
> >>> The +'\n' is necessary else compile fails when code ends in a
> comment.
> >>> """
> >>> return compile(code.rstrip().replace('\r\n','\n')+'\n', layer,
> 'exec')
> >>
> >>> ...though in the case of the rewrite exec call, there doesn't seem to
> be a need for a terminal newline, even if I put a comment on the last line.
>
>
>
