On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 10:29 AM Daniel Gruno <humbedooh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2023-05-08 08:44, Eric Covener wrote:
> > On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 9:41 AM Frank Gingras <thumbs@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sebb,
> >>
> >> Are you sure about that? I would verify before we venture to clarify the docs.
> >
> > I think sebb is right, I've occasionally had to try to weirdly
> > propagate it or delay/combine it.
> >
> > In a rule or condition, the captures of the preceding condition is available
>
> Only if the next condition is a regex condition. A literal string
> comparison condition will not reset the previous captures. And yeah, you
> can use the teststring value to add back your captures from the previous
> condition:
>
> # Get key value into %1
> RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} "key=(.+)"
> # Append query string with %1, get key value back into %1, bar value into %2
> RewriteCond %1::%{QUERY_STRING} "^(.+)::.*bar=(.+)"
> # Literal comparison, doesn't change backrefs:
> RewriteCond %2 ="foo"
> RewriteRule .* http://foo.bar/%1/%2
Ah, cool and tricky to document in an "intro". Maybe we can make sure
the gory details are right elsewhere, and caution that it's more
complicated with multiple conditions in the intro example.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|