Apply increased json body limit to entity post endpoint #1123
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
|
||
| // use a default json limit except for URLs that explicitly need a larger limit. | ||
| const defaultJsonLimit = bodyParser.json({ type: 'application/json', limit: '250kb' }); | ||
| const largeJsonLimit = bodyParser.json({ type: 'application/json', limit: '100mb' }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's reasonable to hard-code 100mb here for now. Once we take a look at getodk/central#609, we should look into ways to keep this limit consistent across nginx, Backend, and Frontend (e.g., via an environment variable).
matthew-white
approved these changes
Apr 13, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Part of #1095
Adds custom middleware to use a higher JSON size limit for
bodyParsermiddleware for the specific entity bulk creation route.Uses
path-to-regexto match the route, because I think that is what express is using internally, so this dependency should technically already be included.What has been done to verify that this works as intended?
Why is this the best possible solution? Were any other approaches considered?
How does this change affect users? Describe intentional changes to behavior and behavior that could have accidentally been affected by code changes. In other words, what are the regression risks?
Does this change require updates to the API documentation? If so, please update docs/api.md as part of this PR.
Before submitting this PR, please make sure you have:
make testand confirmed all checks still pass OR confirm CircleCI build passes