Skip to content
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

[WFLY-12135] Error deploying web service without http-listener (only https-listener) #12788

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

iweiss
Copy link
Contributor

@iweiss iweiss commented Nov 7, 2019

@wildfly-ci wildfly-ci added the deps-ok Dependencies have been checked, and there are no significant changes label Nov 7, 2019
@bstansberry
Copy link
Contributor

The org.wildfly.undertow capability is private:

https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-capabilities/blob/master/org/wildfly/undertow/capability.adoc

That's because UndertowService is a really poor contract for use outside the subsystem; it exposes all sorts of stuff, including start/stop, that should not be visible external to the extension module.

The WS subsystem already has code like this, and it has no choice because it uses what the undertow subsystem has historically exposed. So doing more of the same isn't a problem that should prevent merging a fix like this. But @fl4via it would be good to get a cleaner contract sometime during the next couple WF releases.

@iweiss
Copy link
Contributor Author

iweiss commented Nov 8, 2019

The org.wildfly.undertow capability is private:

https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-capabilities/blob/master/org/wildfly/undertow/capability.adoc

That's because UndertowService is a really poor contract for use outside the subsystem; it exposes all sorts of stuff, including start/stop, that should not be visible external to the extension module.

I completely agree, but I couldn't find a different way to find an instance's configured listeners.

The WS subsystem already has code like this, and it has no choice because it uses what the undertow subsystem has historically exposed. So doing more of the same isn't a problem that should prevent merging a fix like this. But @fl4via it would be good to get a cleaner contract sometime during the next couple WF releases.

@darranl
Copy link
Contributor

darranl commented Dec 19, 2019

@iweiss I see a forced push, does that address the comments Brian had?

A problem with the GitHub UI is stale reviews are not cleared so an issue sits in the queue looking like no changes have been made.

@darranl
Copy link
Contributor

darranl commented Apr 30, 2020

@iweiss This one has now been stalled since last year but we have a big backlog of PRs in the queue making it hard to see the ones that should be given attention - can we close this one for now and pick it up again once you are ready to address the discussion points so far?

@iweiss
Copy link
Contributor Author

iweiss commented Apr 30, 2020

@darranl I think it's fair, but I would like to do a last push on this if you don't mind.

I'll try to wrap this up in 1 week.

CC @jimma @bstansberry

@@ -68,6 +74,8 @@ public void deploy(final DeploymentPhaseContext phaseContext) throws DeploymentU
WSLogger.ROOT_LOGGER.tracef("%s start: %s", aspect, unit.getName());
ClassLoader origClassLoader = WildFlySecurityManager.getCurrentContextClassLoaderPrivileged();
try {
dep.setProperty("isHttpsOnly", isHttpsOnly(phaseContext, unit));

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@bstansberry @darranl As suggested by @jimma, I replaced the boolean attachment with a property. Looks cleaner and better.

@iweiss
Copy link
Contributor Author

iweiss commented May 21, 2020

jbossws/jbossws-common#19 has been merged

@iweiss
Copy link
Contributor Author

iweiss commented Sep 18, 2020

retest please

@iweiss
Copy link
Contributor Author

iweiss commented Sep 18, 2020

jbossws/jbossws-common#19 is now part of WildFly, #13552, so this PR is now ready to be merged.

@darranl
Copy link
Contributor

darranl commented Apr 19, 2021

/retest

@darranl
Copy link
Contributor

darranl commented Apr 19, 2021

@jimma / @fl4via Are we able to give this one a review so we can see if it can be merged?

@darranl
Copy link
Contributor

darranl commented Apr 23, 2021

@iweiss I have just kicked off some of the failed CI jobs again but TBH the failures do look related.

@darranl
Copy link
Contributor

darranl commented Jan 7, 2022

FYI the "Linux - Elytron - JDK 8" job is an old job that can be ignored.

@fjuma
Copy link
Contributor

fjuma commented Jun 20, 2022

@iweiss Is this PR still relevant? There haven't been any updates on it in a long time.

@iweiss
Copy link
Contributor Author

iweiss commented Jun 21, 2022

@fjuma no idea. I would say no, since I haven't heard about it in a while, but I'm not really sure.

@fjuma
Copy link
Contributor

fjuma commented Jun 21, 2022

Thanks @iweiss. Looking closer, the test failures do seem to be related to the changes. Might be best to close this for now.

@iweiss
Copy link
Contributor Author

iweiss commented Jun 22, 2022

Agreed

@iweiss iweiss closed this Jun 22, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
deps-ok Dependencies have been checked, and there are no significant changes
Projects
None yet
5 participants