Mechanize users - Mar 2008 - [PATCH] Get requests with non-html referers

Hey, Aaron.  Looks like that get with hash params patch you checked in  
had some side effects.  Specifically, you''re testing if a referer is a
Page (mechanize.rb:171), but the referer could also be a  
WWW::Mechanize::File.  Like if the last page loaded was xml.  Here''s a
patch that addresses the issue.

Thanks again,
Mat

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mechanize_get_with_file_as_referer.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1238 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/mechanize-users/attachments/20080315/a4157e46/attachment.obj
-------------- next part --------------

On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 09:54:54AM -0400, Mat Schaffer
wrote:
> Hey, Aaron.  Looks like that get with hash params patch you checked in had 
> some side effects.  Specifically, you''re testing if a referer is a
Page
> (mechanize.rb:171), but the referer could also be a WWW::Mechanize::File.  
> Like if the last page loaded was xml.  Here''s a patch that
addresses the
> issue.
Ya.  I was just looking at this last night.  Thanks for the patch! 
I''ve
applied it, and I will release now.

-- 
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/

On Mar 16, 2008, at 12:08 AM, Aaron Patterson wrote:
> Ya.  I was just looking at this last night.  Thanks for the patch!   
> I''ve
> applied it, and I will release now.
Cool!  I was also getting the impression that the whole referer  
section should be reworked to use the uri of current_page, rather than  
current_page directly.  Just side-step this whole thing.  But I didn''t
know what your plans were surrounding that "Huge hack" where so I  
stuck with the simple solution.

Thanks!
Mat

On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:29:41AM +0900, Mat Schaffer
wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2008, at 12:08 AM, Aaron Patterson wrote:
> > Ya.  I was just looking at this last night.  Thanks for the patch!   
> > I''ve
> > applied it, and I will release now.
> 
> Cool!  I was also getting the impression that the whole referer  
> section should be reworked to use the uri of current_page, rather than  
> current_page directly.  Just side-step this whole thing.  But I
didn''t
> know what your plans were surrounding that "Huge hack" where so I
> stuck with the simple solution.
Yes.  I headed down the direction of reworking the referer section to
use the URI rather than the current page.  Unfortunately I ran into a
problem....  IIRC, the problem was taking into account the HTML base
tag.  I think it won''t be too much work to factor out the base tag
stuff, I just wanted to get that change out quickly.

I''ll take another stab at refactoring that in a week or two. 
I''ve got a
cold, so I''m trying to take it easy for a bit.  :-)

-- 
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/

On Mar 17, 2008, at 11:49 PM, Aaron Patterson wrote:
> Yes.  I headed down the direction of reworking the referer section to
> use the URI rather than the current page.  Unfortunately I ran into a
> problem....  IIRC, the problem was taking into account the HTML base
> tag.  I think it won''t be too much work to factor out the base tag
> stuff, I just wanted to get that change out quickly.
Yeah that''s exactly the sort of thing I figured you had a better  
handle on than I.  Honestly I didn''t even discover the base tag till  
like last week.
> I''ll take another stab at refactoring that in a week or two. 
I''ve
> got a
> cold, so I''m trying to take it easy for a bit.  :-)
I hear you there.  Just came of a 3 day stomach flu myself.  Rest up  
and take it easy.
-Mat