Re: [meeting] Notes and log 1004-10-12

On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 07:13, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> >We were planning to add a link to 
> >bugzilla from this error message, but thought of something a bit more 
> >sophisticated, such as a cgi recording relevant data about the browser, 
> >referer, query etc. The catch is that in order to do so, we will have 
> >to switch off CGI::Carp (perl cgi error handler).
> Only if we want this for both Apache-level and CGI::Carp level fatal
> errors and a simple way to share code between these two.

IMHO, having two "levels" of fatal errors is a bug.  Anyway, it might be
possible to keep CGI::Carp, the need for nuking it was my hunch which I
couldn't (and still cannot) remember the details for, will post more
info to list later once I get around to look into it.

>  How common
> are Apache-level fatal errors on

Dunno.  I peeked at the logs (which I found only available from
yesterday onwards), and did not find a single "500" there.

The problem is of course that some errors, like the malformed POST one,
cannot be debugged further with the information we currently get in

People seem to be somewhat attached to CGI::Carp, is it due to the
"fatalsToBrowser" functionality, or the error logging part?

Received on Friday, 15 October 2004 09:31:29 UTC