How do I pass variables across subroutines?
I have following default.vcl:
vcl 4.0;
sub vcl_recv {
set req.http.x-tracking-first-request = "true";
}
sub vcl_deliver {
if (resp.http.x-tracking-first-request) {
# do something
}
}
Currently I have to handle the parameter in my backend, i.e. something like response.add_header("x-tracking-first-request", response.get_header("x-tracking-first-request")). This implies that every client has to implement this "reflection" logic.
Why? Uppon first request I want to generate a uuid to later identify different users. Therefore I have to somehow save the uuid across all request/response cycles.
You simply need to use the req object during vcl_deliver:
vcl 4.0;
sub vcl_recv {
set req.http.x-tracking-first-request = "true";
}
sub vcl_deliver {
if (req.http.x-tracking-first-request) {
# do something
}
}
Related
Got a device with some common code in DML 1.4 where I want to verify a parameter is properly set on all fields of all registers by using and in each statement:
dml 1.4;
//import "each-bank.dml";
template stop_template {
param stop default true;
}
template dont_stop is stop_template{
param stop = false;
}
in each bank {
in each register {
in each field {
is stop_template;
#if (this.stop)
{
error "Stop here";
}
}
}
}
For a device in dml 1.2 my error statements triggers on d.o even if I add the template or parameter myself:
dml 1.2;
device each_device;
import "each-import.dml"
bank a {
register x size 4 #0x0 {
field alpha #[2:0] {
is dont_stop;
}
}
}
bank d {
register o size 4 #0x0 is stop_template;
}
DML-DEP each-device.dmldep
DEP each-device-dml.d
DMLC each-device-dml.c
Using the Simics 5 API for test-device module
/modules/test-device/each-device.dml:15:5: In d.o
/modules/test-device/each-import.dml:18:17: error: Stop here
...
gmake: *** [test-device] Error 2
Running the same code with an 1.4 device works as intended. Does the in each statement does not work with mixed devices?
Your issue is that in dml 1.2 registers with no declared fields get one whole-register-covering field implicitly defined by the compilator. This is then picked up by your each-statement, correctly.
To work around this, you need your template to check if it is actually being applied to an explicit field (part of the unfortunate pain that comes with writing common-code for both 1.2 and 1.4).
To do this: use the 1.2 parameter 'explicit' which is set by the compiler, which is 'true' for declared fields only. This parameter is however not present in 1.4, so you need to additionally guard this check with a check on the 'dml_1_2' parameter.
Something along the lines of:
in each bank {
in each register {
in each field {
// We cannot put this inside the hashif, despite wanting to,
// because DML does not (yet) allow conditional templating on
// parameters
is stop_template;
// This _does_ mean we can check this.stop first, saving us
// a little bit of code
#if (this.stop) {
// It is generally considered good practice to keep
// dml_1_2 checks in their own #if branch, so that they
// can be removed wholesale once 1.2 is no longer supported
#if (dml_1_2) {
#if (explicit) {
error "Stop here";
}
} #else {
error "Stop here";
}
}
}
}
}
In your case, the problematic code is a consistency check that's not strictly necessary for the device to function, so one option is to just skip this check for DML 1.2, assuming that most remaining DML 1.2 devices are legacy things where not much development is happening. So you can just put the problematic definitions inside #if (!dml_1_2) { } and it will compile again. Note that the compiler has a special case for the dml_1_2 parameter, which allows a top-level #if to contain any kind of top-level statement, including template definitions and typedefs.
I have two sites with different domains and url building (one of them using subdomain in url and other convert subdomain to path) and I want to make varnish one varnish cache for this two urls? Is it possible?
Yep, the default VCL defines the hash of content as:
sub vcl_hash {
hash_data(req.url);
if (req.http.host) {
hash_data(req.http.host);
} else {
hash_data(server.ip);
}
return (lookup);
}
Which includes the Host header. Redefining the vcl_hash function to something like the following will make it share objects across diffrent hosts.
sub vcl_hash {
hash_data(req.url);
return (lookup);
}
Some optimizations/algorithms make code considerably less readable, so it's useful to keep the ability to disable the complex-and-unwieldily functionality within a file/module so any errors introduced when modifying this code can be quickly tested against the simple code.
Currently using const USE_SOME_FEATURE: bool = true; seems a reasonable way, but makes the code read a little strangely, since USE_SOME_FEATURE is being used like an ifdef in C.
For instance, clippy wants you to write:
if foo {
{ ..other code.. }
} else {
// final case
if USE_SOME_FEATURE {
{ ..fancy_code.. }
} else {
{ ..simple_code.. }
}
}
As:
if foo {
{ ..other code.. }
} else if USE_SOME_FEATURE {
// final case
{ ..fancy_code.. }
} else {
// final case
{ ..simple_code.. }
}
Which IMHO hurts readability, and can be ignored - but is caused by using a boolean where a feature might make more sense.
Is there a way to expose a feature within a file without having it listed in the crate?(since this is only for internal debugging and testing changes to code).
You can use a build script to create new cfg conditions. Use println!("cargo:rustc-cfg=whatever") in the build script, and then you can use #[cfg(whatever)] on your functions and statements.
In routes I have
Router::connect('/opauth-complete/*', array('controller' => 'app_users', 'action' => 'opauth_complete'));
If I change pointer to controller app_users with anything else and create controller everything works with no error. But I need it to work with AppUsersController.
AppUsersController looks like this
App::uses('UsersController', 'Users.Controller');
class AppUsersController extends UsersController {
public function beforeFilter() {
parent::beforeFilter();
$this->User = ClassRegistry::init('AppUser');
}
// ...
// ...
public function opauth_complete() {
die(1);
}
// ...
// ...
}
So, plugin is CakeDC Users and another plugin that goes to /example/callback after /example/auth/facebook is Opauth plugin.
Error message looks like this
The request has been black-holed
Error: The requested address '/example/opauth-complete' was not found on this server.
This is perfectly possible to make these two plugins work together; when browser points to /example/auth/facebook, it redirects to /example/auth/callback and somehow it needs opauth-complete route to link to specific method.
All works if not pointed to app_users that extends plugin, uses plugin. Does not work only with this case. How can users of these two plugins get around such situation.
I solved it by disabling Security component on Opauth action in my AppUsersController. Thing is that Opauth transfers data using POST and you should either change a method of it (ie: use Sessions, GET) or disable Security component.
For a method change use this in your bootstrap.php or core.php
Configure::write('Opauth.callback_transport', 'session'); // you can try 'get' too
To follow my approach add this to a controller where error occurs and where you place your opauth_complete method
public function beforeFilter() {
// ...
if (isset($this->Security) && $this->action == 'opauth_complete') {
$this->Security->validatePost = false;
$this->Security->csrfCheck = false;
}
// ...
}
P.S. Changing method to Sessions has its drawbacks, you can take a look at comments here at Github Opauth issue #16
I have an existing application that sends a Request with a parameter named 'filters'. The 'filters' parameter contains a string that is JSON encoded. Example:
[{"dataIndex":"fieldName", "value":"fieldValue"}, {"dataIndex":"field2", "value":"value2"}].
Using ServiceStack, I would like to bind this as a property on a C# object (class Grid). Is there a preferred method to handle this? Here are the options I can think of. I don't think either 'feel' correct.
Option 1:
I do have a 'ServiceModel' project and this would create a dependency on it which I don't really like.
In AppHost.Configure() method add
RequestBinders[typeof(Grid)] => httpReq => {
return new Grid() {
Filters = new ServiceStack.Text.JsonSerializer<IList<Filter>>().DeserializeFromString(httpReq.QueryString["filters"])
}
}
Option 2:
Seems kind of 'hacky'
public class Grid
{
private string _filters;
public dynamic Filters {
get
{
ServiceStack.Text.JsonSerializer<IList<Filter().DeserializeFromString(_filters);
}
set
{
_filters = value;
}
}
}
You can send Complex objects in ServiceStack using the JSV Format.
If you want to send JSON via the QueryString you can access it from inside your Service of Request filters with something like:
public object Any(Request req) {
var filters = base.Request.QueryString["Filters"].FromJson<List<Filter>>();
}
Note: Interfaces on DTOs are bad practice.