Bug 1264559

Summary:	Tomcat Issue #53001 exists within Red Hat version
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6	Reporter:	Paul McLellan <paulmclellan_00>
Component:	tomcat6	Assignee:	Coty Sutherland <csutherl>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	tomcat-qe
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	6.7	CC:	csutherl, jkurik, jonderka, mbabacek, rwilliam, salmy
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	x86_64
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2018-10-26 12:45:18 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	1506690

Description Paul McLellan 2015-09-18 19:41:13 UTC

Description of problem:
Tomcat issue #53001 (https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53001) related to resolution of resources referenced by EL expressions exists within current Red Hat version. This bug was resolved in Tomcat 6.0.36. Is it possible to have this fix backported to the Red Hat version?

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
tomcat6-6.0.24-90.el6.x86_64

How reproducible:
Always

Actual results:
JspPropertyNotFoundException is thrown by the application and the affected webpage fails to render

Expected results:
Webpage is successfully rendered and missing resource is displayed in the form - '???<resource-key>???'

Comment 3 Coty Sutherland 2015-11-11 18:41:27 UTC

The fix that is required is http://svn.apache.org/r1343356. The class (ResourceBundleELResolver) is pretty different between the RHEL version (6.0.24) and 6.0.36, but I think that the change is small enough that it won't affect much other than fix the bug. I'd have to look into it further to verify that it won't break anything though.

Comment 4 Michal Karm Babacek 2015-12-15 19:58:13 UTC

 >  I'd have to look into it further to verify that it won't break anything though.

Dear Coty, any additional news here? Should I be worried about loads of regressions? If you didn't dig deeper, ping me and I will. THX

Comment 5 Coty Sutherland 2015-12-15 20:14:51 UTC

> Dear Coty, any additional news here? Should I be worried about loads of
> regressions? If you didn't dig deeper, ping me and I will. THX

I already incorporated the change (it's only about -4/+4 lines) and did some basic testing with it. I also looked back at the attached asf bz (53001) as well as the bz that introduced the behavior (asf bz 46915). As it turns out, the behavior that was added is not spec compliant, so adding it back is enforcing the spec.

I can't see how this could break anything else. Please take a quick look to see if you have any other concerns and let me know.

Comment 6 Michal Karm Babacek 2015-12-21 13:23:48 UTC

THX for an additional intel Coty. Acking.

Comment 10 Bogdan Sikora 2016-05-03 13:28:42 UTC

Output is not '???<resource-key>???', it is ""

Comment 12 fgoldefu 2016-05-04 15:05:35 UTC

The response did not follow pattern:
'???<resource-key>???'
when resource key is missing.