Message183781
| Author |
terry.reedy |
| Recipients |
georg.brandl, keakon, spookylukey, terry.reedy |
| Date |
2013年03月09日.01:23:15 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1362792196.56.0.596314423788.issue17340@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Code behaving as documented is not a bug for tracker purposes. Adding a parameter to allow new behavior is an enhancement for a future release.
Who is responsible for the invalid cookie. Pardon my ignorance, but if tornado re-sets the cookie, why cannot it read it the next time?
If the existing test suite tests for CookieError for invalid cookies, writing tests for strict=False (return instead of CookieError) would be trivial. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2013年03月09日 01:23:16 | terry.reedy | set | recipients:
+ terry.reedy, georg.brandl, spookylukey, keakon |
| 2013年03月09日 01:23:16 | terry.reedy | set | messageid: <1362792196.56.0.596314423788.issue17340@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2013年03月09日 01:23:16 | terry.reedy | link | issue17340 messages |
| 2013年03月09日 01:23:15 | terry.reedy | create |
|