Defect #11691
closed404 response when deleting a user from the edit page
0%
Description
Related issues
Updated by Etienne Massip over 12 years ago
- Status changed from Confirmed to Resolved
- Target version changed from Candidate for next minor release to 2.1.0
- Resolution set to Fixed
Updated by Etienne Massip about 12 years ago
Yes I think they should have because r1893 was committed on a "can't reproduce" basis and broke any possibilities to include a UTF-8 encoded parameter in the URL (was utf-8
RoR param in this case).
I don't see the point of pre-escaping a parameter which will be necessarily URL-escaped at the time the request is issued.
And I think that #1826 could have been fixed by using relative URLs which wouldn't have been processed by Apache mod_rewrite.
Could you please discuss them before reverting other people's commits?
It makes 2 times for reasons that could have been discussed before, it's rude, very frustrating and not really motivating.
Updated by Jean-Philippe Lang about 12 years ago
Etienne Massip wrote:
Yes I think they should have
Sure but changing a test just to make it pass is not the way to go either. Updating and getting an error when logging in is pretty frustrating too :-(
Updated by Jean-Philippe Lang about 12 years ago
- Subject changed from Redirected to user edit page after its deletion (404 error) to 404 response when deleting a user from the edit page
- Status changed from Resolved to Closed
- Assignee set to Jean-Philippe Lang
Updated by Jean-Philippe Lang about 12 years ago
Could you please discuss them before reverting other people's commits?
OK, sorry for that. Next time, let's discuss before actually starting to do the changes that should be discussed. Thanks for digging into this anyway Etienne.
Updated by Etienne Massip about 12 years ago
Jean-Philippe Lang wrote:
Sure but changing a test just to make it pass is not the way to go either. Updating and getting an error when logging in is pretty frustrating too :-(
I did not change the test just to make it pass but because it was part of r1893 which I reverted; the after-login redirect was then expected to work just as it did before r1893 (or a test failure) but as you discovered it was not the case and I'm really sorry I broke it :(
Next time, let's discuss before actually starting to do the changes that should be discussed.
I did not expect any side-effect but as I updated common code I still added you as a watcher and didn't merge anything to branches or closed the issue.
As a regression, shouldn't it be fixed in 1.4 and 2.0 branches as well?