Just a small grammar change in the README.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/pages-server/pulls/297
Reviewed-by: crapStone <codeberg@crapstone.dev>
Co-authored-by: caelandb <bothacaelan@gmail.com>
Co-committed-by: caelandb <bothacaelan@gmail.com>
Hello 👋
since it affected my deployment of the pages server I started to look into the problem of the blank pages and think I found a solution for it:
1. There is no check if the file response is empty, neither in cache retrieval nor in writing of a cache. Also the provided method for checking for empty responses had a bug.
2. I identified the redirect response to be the issue here. There is a cache write with the full cache key (e. g. rawContent/user/repo|branch|route/index.html) happening in the handling of the redirect response. But the written body here is empty. In the triggered request from the redirect response the server then finds a cache item to the key and serves the empty body. A quick fix is the check for empty file responses mentioned in 1.
3. The decision to redirect the user comes quite far down in the upstream function. Before that happens a lot of stuff that may not be important since after the redirect response comes a new request anyway. Also, I suspect that this causes the caching problem because there is a request to the forge server and its error handling with some recursions happening before. I propose to move two of the redirects before "Preparing"
4. The recursion in the upstream function makes it difficult to understand what is actually happening. I added some more logging to have an easier time with that.
5. I changed the default behaviour to append a trailing slash to the path to true. In my tested scenarios it happened anyway. This way there is no recursion happening before the redirect.
I am not developing in go frequently and rarely contribute to open source -> so feedback of all kind is appreciated
closes#164
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/pages-server/pulls/292
Reviewed-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Reviewed-by: crapStone <codeberg@crapstone.dev>
Co-authored-by: Hoernschen <julian.hoernschemeyer@mailbox.org>
Co-committed-by: Hoernschen <julian.hoernschemeyer@mailbox.org>
A database bug in xorm.go prevents the pages-server from saving a
renewed certificate for a domain that already has one in the database.
Co-authored-by: crystal <crystal@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/pages-server/pulls/209
Reviewed-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: Crystal <crystal@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Crystal <crystal@noreply.codeberg.org>
I forgot to update the name of this function in the CI log so it looks like it's running the same test twice even though it's not.
Co-authored-by: crystal <crystal@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/pages-server/pulls/210
Reviewed-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: Crystal <crystal@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Crystal <crystal@noreply.codeberg.org>
- Currently if the canonical domain validations fails(either for
legitimate reasons or for bug reasons like the request to Gitea/Forgejo
failing) it will use main domain certificate, which in the case for
custom domains will warrant a security error as the certificate isn't
issued to the custom domain.
- This patch handles this situation more gracefully and instead only
disallow obtaining a certificate if the domain validation fails, so in
the case that a certificate still exists it can still be used even if
the canonical domain validation fails. There's a small side effect,
legitimate users that remove domains from `.domain` will still be able
to use the removed domain(as long as the DNS records exists) as long as
the certificate currently hold by pages-server isn't expired.
- Given the increased usage in custom domains that are resulting in
errors, I think it ways more than the side effect.
- In order to future-proof against future slowdowns of instances, add a retry mechanism to the domain validation function, such that it's more likely to succeed even if the instance is not responding.
- Refactor the code a bit and add some comments.
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/pages-server/pulls/160
Reviewed-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
