2

I'm aware of the couple "searching for a wildcard tag gives you a blank page" bug reports here, but wanted to report that if you search for a wildcard tag, it now works, BUT if you try to add a second tag to that search, it fails miserably with a proper (non-blank) 400 error. This is particularly bad, given that you explicitly link to the pages that give the 400 error after a search for a wildcard tag.

To reproduce, merely click any of the "related tags" links below:

hxxp://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/python~

(and for some reason, the system won't auto-link that, and it thinks that my htmlifying of it means I'm posting two hyperlinks)

Improve this question
2
  • Just ran into the same problem with... stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/java~ Kind of surprised by Jeff Atwood's answer to this one. It's clearly broken, the application served the broken link. That seems strange to be "by design".
    – delux247
    Oct 15, 2009 at 3:23
  • Yeah I agree. It's an incorrect design, however intentional it may or may not be. "It's a feature, not a bug!"
    – Paul McMillan
    Oct 16, 2009 at 6:04

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
-5

Url too long; this is by design. Delete some tags or be more narrow in your wildcards.

Did you seriously expect to put 50+ tags in the URL and have it work?

Improve this answer
5
  • 2
    No, but you shouldn't have created links that were to long (did you seriously expect to put 50+ tags in the URL and have it work?)
    – deleted
    Aug 29, 2009 at 20:05
  • 4
    Uh, yeah... this answer would make more sense if the system wasn't generating the broken URLs.
    – Shog9
    Aug 29, 2009 at 21:11
  • users are generating broken wildcard searches. Python~ is too broad.
    – Jeff Atwood
    Aug 30, 2009 at 12:12
  • 6
    The system should then return a polite "be more specific" response. A broken link in the UI is NEVER ok if it was reached by using the UI as intended.
    – Paul McMillan
    Aug 30, 2009 at 14:50
  • 2
    The system returns 400 errors by design? That seems... technically incorrect at best...
    – Gabriel Hurley
    Sep 11, 2009 at 10:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .