Re: [PATCH] flood & verify_200

[Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 05:38:30PM +0200, Jacek Prucia wrote:
> 
> I think current flood (tried HEAD) have problems with veryfing
> responses. In particular it marks 200 OK responses as 'FAIL' if they are
> sent with HTTP/1.0 rather than expected 'HTTP/1.1'. Looks like problem
> is with memcpy verification in function verify_200. To work around that
> problem i just wrote a little patch just to make things work, which i'm
> sending here for verification/blessing/commit. It might turn out that
> the patch is a piece of crap -- mostly because I'm really new both to
> apr and flood (i'm not sure if that change in profile_event_handlers is
> wise thing to do...). However it solves serious (at least for me)
> problem, and if patch is wrong -- it has to be done other way.

I will take a look at this patch and apply in the next few hours.

> Besides that, flood is a very useful tool, and i'm using it to do
> regression tests for over-sized web application. Looks like flood could
> use some more patches to be more suited for this task. In particular, it
> would be cool if flood could stop if particular url (or any url as an
> option) returns FALSE. This is what i'm going to work on in near future.

Thanks! Patches are appreciated, especially if you're also working on
boated webapps. ;)

> One more thing... looks like flood build system is slightly broken. You
> can build it, but there's no way to install it in a target directory
> (make install fails). Is this a known problem?

The install target just hasn't been implemented because at the moment
we only have one file that would need to be installed. If it would be
useful, I'm sure it could be implemented quickly (actually, I was
thinking about this just the other day).

-aaron

Things to do with flood WAS [PATCH] flood & verify_200

[Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 10:44:44AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> On the technical side, some of the things that remain to be done are:

An addition:
  - Rewrite the client library to use serf.

But, that requires serf to be written first.  =)  -- justin

Re: [PATCH] flood & verify_200

[Jacek Prucia <ja...@7bulls.com>]

On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:44:44 -0700
Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org> wrote:

[...]
> I agree that working toward a beta might be a good plan. Right now
> I think the main obstacle to simple usability is the interface. For
> obvious reasons we haven't tried to make a polished interface, and
> IMHO that tends to impose unnecessary skill requirements on potential
> users. Ideally someone will come along and write a nice gui frontend
> that spits out XML directly in to flood.

Yeah, gtk frontend would be nice -- especially when creating complex
POST payloads...

> On the technical side, some of the things that remain to be done are:
>  - better modularity of the optional routines (possibly a runtime
>    dynamic linking feature if warranted)

Agreed.

>  - a way to run multiple verification tasks on the same response
>    (we have been looking to incorporate something similiar to httpd
>    2.0's
>     filters to accomplish this, but that is a lot of work and possibly
>     a redesign for this more general case)

Sure -- I've been thinking about more verify_resp functions. In
particular: verify_custom_header(), where we could verify response by
custom HTTP header, like -- X-Flood: OrderPlaced; $orderid=123 -- with
no need to regexp whole HTML body and verify_body() which could test if
responseteamplate has matched successfuly (even for general cases like
PHP warnings/errors and JSP backtraces). Without that filter-like
facility each of those functions probably schould include logic from
verify_status_code or verify_200.

>  - more optional routines (better verification routines, etc...)
>  - other features: 
>    - basic authentiation
>    - etc...

Ok. You just got yoursef a voulnteer :)

-- 
Jacek Prucia
7bulls.com S.A.
http://www.7bulls.com/

Re: [PATCH] flood & verify_200

[Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>]

On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 06:56:36PM +0200, Jacek Prucia wrote:
> > > I think current flood (tried HEAD) have problems with veryfing
> > > responses.
> [... cut ...] 
> > I will take a look at this patch and apply in the next few hours.
> 
> Just a reminder :)

committed, thanks for the reminder and for the patch! :)

> Yeah, but I have to get more familiar with flood source code. There are
> a few places that IMO need a rethinking. On the other hand -- I might be
> plain wrong, so let me just play a bit more with the code.

Your input would be appreciated, and we welcome the patches.

> Flood needs more testers/developers. This list is too quiet, while
> dev@httpd (where I'm lurking) has a lot of people participating.
> Building a functional beta release will probably help that. Besides
> flood binary we could install FAQ and example configuration files as
> documentation. It look's like flood needs (just like every nice system
> stand-alone binary) a plain man page. I'll try to prepare one, just when
> get some more free time :)

I agree that working toward a beta might be a good plan. Right now
I think the main obstacle to simple usability is the interface. For
obvious reasons we haven't tried to make a polished interface, and
IMHO that tends to impose unnecessary skill requirements on potential
users. Ideally someone will come along and write a nice gui frontend
that spits out XML directly in to flood.

On the technical side, some of the things that remain to be done are:
 - better modularity of the optional routines (possibly a runtime
   dynamic linking feature if warranted)
 - a way to run multiple verification tasks on the same response
   (we have been looking to incorporate something similiar to httpd 2.0's
    filters to accomplish this, but that is a lot of work and possibly
    a redesign for this more general case)
 - more optional routines (better verification routines, etc...)
 - other features: 
   - basic authentiation
   - etc...

-aaron

Re: [PATCH] flood & verify_200

[Jacek Prucia <ja...@7bulls.com>]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 08:21:53 -0700
Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 05:38:30PM +0200, Jacek Prucia wrote:
> > 
> > I think current flood (tried HEAD) have problems with veryfing
> > responses.
[... cut ...] 
> I will take a look at this patch and apply in the next few hours.

Just a reminder :)

[.. cut ..]
> > This is what i'm going to work on in near future.
> 
> Thanks! Patches are appreciated, especially if you're also working on
> boated webapps. ;)

Yeah, but I have to get more familiar with flood source code. There are
a few places that IMO need a rethinking. On the other hand -- I might be
plain wrong, so let me just play a bit more with the code.

> > One more thing... looks like flood build system is slightly broken.
> > You can build it, but there's no way to install it in a target
> > directory(make install fails). Is this a known problem?
> 
> The install target just hasn't been implemented because at the moment
> we only have one file that would need to be installed. If it would be
> useful, I'm sure it could be implemented quickly (actually, I was
> thinking about this just the other day).

Flood needs more testers/developers. This list is too quiet, while
dev@httpd (where I'm lurking) has a lot of people participating.
Building a functional beta release will probably help that. Besides
flood binary we could install FAQ and example configuration files as
documentation. It look's like flood needs (just like every nice system
stand-alone binary) a plain man page. I'll try to prepare one, just when
get some more free time :)

regards,
-- 
Jacek Prucia
7bulls.com S.A.
http://www.7bulls.com/