-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 166
resumable: clarify client behavior on 413 response #3312
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
mertalev
wants to merge
3
commits into
httpwg:main
Choose a base branch
from
mertalev:resumable/413-behavior
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+5
−3
Open
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should probably require 413 to carry an
Upload-Limitheader if it's from a resumable upload server. Upload creation can be attempted without knowledge of server support, and clients can't retry a non-resumable upload.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The issue is that a proxy might respond with 413 based on the request's Content-Length, so even if the server is resumable it can't add the header in this case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The OPTIONS request to learn the limits also doubles as a way to discover resumability. Maybe it should be emphasized here more, so as to avoid retrying without knowing about resumability.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As an implementor of a generic HTTP client, we can attempt resumable uploads for all uploads since it has little overhead and minimum risk, but we cannot perform an OPTIONS discovery step for all uploads that fail with 413. We need to know that the other side supports resumable uploads before doing something expensive.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The OPTIONS request wouldn't be a MUST - it's more that they MUST NOT retry if they don't know the server supports resumability. I suppose the only other way for a generic library to handle this proxy scenario would be to configure it to assume the server is resumable.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
SHOULD is a recommendation and means that we think it's a good idea. I don't think it's feasible for us since you know there are unupgradable printers that would crash when it receives an OPTIONS request. We have to be as safe as possible when discovering resumable upload support.
Yeah, this has to be an opt-in feature, although a more desirable opt-in behavior probably is to always send OPTIONS to detect Upload-Limit first instead of relying on 413.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That makes sense. To summarize:
Do those changes sound good?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, looks good. I believe the reason we didn't tackle upload creation originally was the complexity of its interaction with discovery. Upload appending can only be performed if the server support is confirmed so its behavior is easier to define.
Minor nit: we stopped using the phrase "prior knowledge" based on the feedback in #3215.