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

Strange Last-Modified Header Response #99

Closed
GoogleCodeExporter opened this Issue Apr 6, 2015 · 10 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
1 participant
@GoogleCodeExporter

GoogleCodeExporter commented Apr 6, 2015

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Check header responses for rewritten image URL.
2. ???
3. Profit.

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

Expected output: "Last-Modified: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 02:15:22 GMT"
What I see: "Last-Modified: Thu Nov 18 02:15:22 2010 GMT"

Note the URL is at the end, right before "GMT", and there's no comma, and the 
date is after the month. I believe this is ANSI C's asctime() format and not 
RFC 822. I'm not sure if this is intended, recommended or a bug.

What version of the product are you using (please check X-Mod-Pagespeed
header)?

0.9.8.1-215

On what operating system?

Ubuntu

Which version of Apache?

2.2.16

Which MPM?

Not sure.

Please provide any additional information below, especially a URL or an
HTML file that exhibits the problem.

http://redbot.org/?uri=http://blurayview.com/images/cover/ce.1df04afd9c7daf92b19
f6e544dcfa531.B002ZG981E,j.jpg

Original issue reported on code.google.com by suj...@gmail.com on 18 Nov 2010 at 3:31

@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

GoogleCodeExporter commented Apr 6, 2015

Just to get this sorted into priority order; does this cause problems in any 
browsers?  Or is it just flagged by this tool?

Original comment by jmara...@google.com on 18 Nov 2010 at 1:10

@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

GoogleCodeExporter commented Apr 6, 2015

As far as I know it doesn't seem to be causing any problems. Not sure how 
effective it is being either.

Original comment by suj...@gmail.com on 18 Nov 2010 at 4:03

@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

GoogleCodeExporter commented Apr 6, 2015

Our warm-cache performance tests were done using IE8, and the results indicate 
that it is effective.

The code that parses the cache-control directive in mod_pagespeed is the same 
code that is used in Chrome and Firefox, so we're pretty sure that path works, 
because in our tests we use that code to parse what we generate.

However, we should conform to the RFC so we will fix this.

Original comment by jmara...@google.com on 18 Nov 2010 at 4:11

@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

GoogleCodeExporter commented Apr 6, 2015

Fixed in http://code.google.com/p/modpagespeed/source/detail?r=231

Original comment by jmara...@google.com on 18 Nov 2010 at 10:52

  • Changed state: Fixed
@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

GoogleCodeExporter commented Apr 6, 2015

Was the date conformance fix pushed to 0.9.8.1-250? I updated and it's still 
giving me similar results. The test URL above still applies.

Original comment by suj...@gmail.com on 24 Nov 2010 at 1:57

@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

GoogleCodeExporter commented Apr 6, 2015

Looks like your cache needs to be flushed.

If you look at an html page, you'll see it's fixed: eg: 
http://redbot.org/?uri=http://blurayview.com/

You can flush your cache by stopping your server, rm -rf the contents of the 
cache/ folder and restarting the server. (We're working on an easier way to do 
this)

Original comment by sligocki@google.com on 24 Nov 2010 at 3:04

@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

GoogleCodeExporter commented Apr 6, 2015

I've flushed my cache (double-checked), rebooted Apache, but I'm still getting 
the same date types (Expires and Last-Modified) for the static resources, the 
rewritten URLs for Images and CSS. HTML seem fine like you said.

Original comment by suj...@gmail.com on 24 Nov 2010 at 3:33

@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

GoogleCodeExporter commented Apr 6, 2015

This was my error: I misread the spec and omitted the comma.  Fortunately most 
clients seem to work anyway.  Thanks for catching this.  We'll fix this I swear!

Original comment by jmara...@google.com on 24 Nov 2010 at 8:58

  • Changed state: Accepted
@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

GoogleCodeExporter commented Apr 6, 2015

No problem! It should be Date Month Year Time too. It's currently Month Date 
Time Year.

Original comment by suj...@gmail.com on 24 Nov 2010 at 9:33

@GoogleCodeExporter

This comment has been minimized.

GoogleCodeExporter commented Apr 6, 2015

Fixed in HEAD.  Will be in next release.

Original comment by jmaes...@google.com on 2 Dec 2010 at 4:30

  • Changed state: Fixed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment