Completes code comment for redirect configs

[d2r]

While looking into other changes planned for the 8.x release, I found a simple inconsistency in a code comment.

I wanted to fix this in a separate PR first, so that if something happens to other unrelated changes, this simple correction can remain separate. That is why it is requested to be back-ported to 8.x.

[d2r]

Note to reviewers: This text was taken from HttpConfig.cc.

[maskit]

Shouldn't we remove either of them? Keeping two leaves a risk of inconsistency. I'd rather refer one from the other.

[d2r]

Shouldn't we remove either of them? Keeping two leaves a risk of inconsistency. I'd rather refer one from the other.

@maskit I want to be sure I understand. I am adding what looks like a missing code comment and renumbering the sequence.

It seemed to me that a new config variable was added at some point in the past, but the code comment for this config was not added above the group of definitions. This is adding the missing code comment and renumbering the sequence so it corresponds to the definitions, in the order that their declarations appear.

Here is the complete section after the proposed change:

  //#
  //# Redirection
  //#
  //# 1. number_of_redirections: The maximum number of redirections TS permits. Disabled if set to 0 (default)
  //# 2. proxy.config.http.redirect_use_orig_cache_key: Location Header if set to 0 (default), else use original request cache key
  //# 3. redirection_host_no_port: do not include default port in host header during redirection
  //# 4. post_copy_size: The maximum POST data size TS permits to copy
  //#
  //##############################################################################
  {RECT_CONFIG, "proxy.config.http.number_of_redirections", RECD_INT, "0", RECU_DYNAMIC, RR_NULL, RECC_NULL, nullptr, RECA_NULL}
  ,
  {RECT_CONFIG, "proxy.config.http.redirect_use_orig_cache_key", RECD_INT, "0", RECU_DYNAMIC, RR_NULL, RECC_NULL, nullptr, RECA_NULL}
  ,
  {RECT_CONFIG, "proxy.config.http.redirect_host_no_port", RECD_INT, "1", RECU_DYNAMIC, RR_NULL, RECC_NULL, nullptr, RECA_NULL}
  ,
  {RECT_CONFIG, "proxy.config.http.post_copy_size", RECD_INT, "2048", RECU_DYNAMIC, RR_NULL, RECC_NULL, nullptr, RECA_NULL}
,

Are you saying we should remove some of the code comments here?

[maskit]

Are you saying we should remove some of the code comments here?

Yes, if the two comment blocks are exactly the same.

[d2r]

Yes, if the two comment blocks are exactly the same.

Ah I see! From what I remember, they are not exactly the same, but I agree we should not duplicate comments unnecessarily. Let me check on it.

[d2r]

@maskit @SolidWallOfCode
Updated this PR to de-duplicate the code comments as well.

1. I chose to keep the comments in RecordsConfig rather than HttpConfig, since the defaults and other attributes are defined in the former. I did not think it was better to refer to default settings that were defined in another file. So I pointed HttpConfig at RecordsConfig.
2. Where there were differences in comments, I prefered the ones in RecordsConfig. I did not see much of a substantial difference in meaning, so I opted to keep the existing comments the same where I could.

[maskit]

Thanks for the update.