Fix upnpsoap.c inconsistencies after 1.3.0 update#22
Merged
Conversation
Owner
|
There merge to v1.3.0 was a real pita. However, I did a diff compare between my v1.3 and the upstream 1.3 after and the changes all looked correct. So I'll take a look at this patch, maybe a IF/ELSE group was off and I missed it. Thanks |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hello,
After the 1.3.0 update (2a1619c), I tried to do a experimental build and it resulted in most of my clients being unable to browse any directories. Some still worked, but with some weird behavior such as duplicated or missing entries.
As far as I investigated, the changes to
upnpsoap.cseemed to be the culprit. So I made a diff of its version from 1.2.1P with the current one from upstream and did a manual merge. This PR is the result, as far as I could test all my clients returned to working properly after this change, but it would be best if someone with more familiarity with this portion of the code could verify to check if its logic is still sound.