Attachment problem with 3.2RC2 - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Attachment problem with 3.2RC2 - Mozilla ; I'm working on getting my first Bugzilla install up and running, to evaluate as a replacement for our current tracking system. I'm having a problem with attachments. Text attachments seem to work fine, but when I upload anything else, viewing ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Attachment problem with 3.2RC2

  1. Attachment problem with 3.2RC2

    I'm working on getting my first Bugzilla install up and running, to
    evaluate as a replacement for our current tracking system. I'm having
    a problem with attachments. Text attachments seem to work fine, but
    when I upload anything else, viewing the attachment either usually
    gives me "The image 'http://[mydomain]/attachment.cgi?id=7' cannot be
    displayed, because it contains errors." This seems to happen when I
    try to view the attachment directly and it appears in the iframe when
    I go to the attachment's Detail page. I've experienced this with file
    types bmp, png, gif, tif, jpg, and pdf. Plain text attachments work
    fine.

    I don't have this problem at the landfill.bugzilla.org test install,
    so I'm guessing it's a problem with my local configuration. I'm
    currently running on Windows XP, using Apache 2.2 and Bugzilla 3.2RC2.

    When I grab the XML version of the bug and manually decode the base64
    encoded text, the attachments come out fine, so the problem isn't with
    the attachments themselves.

    Can anyone shed some light on my problem?

  2. Re: Attachment problem with 3.2RC2

    On Nov 13, 2:47*pm, Max Kanat-Alexander wrote:
    > * * * * Have you looked at the raw output of your attachment.cgi?Maybe
    > something is appending some text to the beginning or end of the file or
    > something, or modifying the output.


    I did as you suggested, and the output of attachment.cgi is different
    in the decoded file and the original. Not completely different,
    though. When I test with a .gif file, the "GIF89a" header and the next
    four bytes are intact.

    I just put up a parallel install of 3.0.6 and the problem does not
    reoccur with the same test attachments. The contents of the
    attach_data table for one attachment (the only one I checked) appear
    to be the same in my 3.0.6 and my 3.2rc2 installs.

    There were significant changes made to attachment.cgi between the two
    versions, but it's all Greek to me.

    I can't get this to repeat on landfill.bugzilla.org, but I notice that
    reports it's running version 3.2rc2+, while mine just says 3.2rc2.
    Does that mean it's running a version more recent than the publically
    released rc2 version?

  3. Re: Attachment problem with 3.2RC2

    I have installed Bugzilla 3.2 release on Windows 2008 Server x64 with
    Perl 5.8.8 x32 (there is no MySQL driver for Perl x64 version) and
    have the same problem with attachments. As I researched, server sends
    xC2 symbol after HTTP headers and x0Dx0A and before the body of
    attachment. If I redirect this output to the file (after modification
    attachment.cgi), there is no xC2 symbol. Also, attachment data in
    database is not corrupted.

    I don't know who sends this xC2. Any ideas? Did you solve this
    problem?

    p.s. Bugzilla v.3.0.4 is working fine with the same environment and
    settings.

  4. Re: Attachment problem with 3.2RC2

    I have installed Bugzilla 3.2 release on Windows 2008 Server x64 with
    Perl 5.8.8 x32 (there is no

    MySQL driver for Perl x64 version) and have the same problem with
    attachments. As I researched,

    server sends xC2 symbol after HTTP headers and x0Dx0A and before the
    body of attachment. If I

    redirect this output to the file (after modification attachment.cgi),
    there is no xC2 symbol. Also,

    attachment data in database is not corrupted.

    I don't know who sends this xC2. Any ideas? Did you solve this
    problem?

    p.s. Bugzilla v.3.0.4 is working fine with the same environment and
    settings.

  5. Re: Attachment problem with 3.2RC2

    I have installed Bugzilla 3.2 release on Windows 2008 Server x64 with
    Perl 5.8.8 x32 (there is no

    MySQL driver for Perl x64 version) and have the same problem with
    attachments. As I researched,

    server sends xC2 symbol after HTTP headers and x0Dx0A and before the
    body of attachment. If I

    redirect this output to the file (after modification attachment.cgi),
    there is no xC2 symbol. Also,

    attachment data in database is not corrupted.

    I don't know who sends this xC2. Any ideas? Did you solve this
    problem?

    p.s. Bugzilla v.3.0.4 is working fine with the same environment and
    settings.

  6. Re: Attachment problem with 3.2RC2

    Oh, sorry for triple posting

  7. Re: Attachment problem with 3.2RC2

    In file Bugzilla/Util.pm I have changed the function "disable_utf8":

    sub disable_utf8 {
    if (Bugzilla->params->{'utf8'}) {
    binmode STDOUT, ':bytes'; # Turn off UTF8 encoding.
    }
    }

    ":row" was changed by ":bytes" and problem was solved. Hovewer, when
    I'm creating a new bug with atachment, I'm getting an error: The bug
    was created successfully, but attachment creation failed. Please add
    your attachment by clicking the "Create a New Attachment" link below.

    How to solve this dilemma?

  8. Re: Attachment problem with 3.2RC2

    On Dec 2 2008, 8:02*am, DizelGenerator
    wrote:
    > In file Bugzilla/Util.pm I have changed the function "disable_utf8":
    >
    > sub disable_utf8 {
    > * * if (Bugzilla->params->{'utf8'}) {
    > * * * * binmode STDOUT, ':bytes'; # Turn off UTF8 encoding.
    > * * }
    >
    > }
    >
    > ":row" was changed by ":bytes" and problem was solved. Hovewer, when
    > I'm creating a new bug with atachment, I'm getting an error: The bug
    > was created successfully, but attachment creation failed. Please add
    > your attachment by clicking the "Create a New Attachment" link below.
    >
    > How to solve this dilemma?


    Were you able to resolve this issue?

+ Reply to Thread