Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Generic Body Parser implemented #282

Closed
wants to merge 22 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

sdellysse
Copy link

Discussion in #281 led to this PR. This PR refactors all existing parsers, extracting common parsing functionality into a generic-parser, which the parser are built on top of. This makes adding and maintaining new parsers relatively trivial.

All tests pass.

PR #281 was referencing issue #278 and issue #42. Issue #22 was suggest as a whole fix. This PR implements #22's solution, but also lets you supply your own parser to both json and urlencoded parsers because the setup (even with the generic parser extracted) is non trivial.

@sdellysse
Copy link
Author

Due to the scope of this change, the diff isn't very helpful. It's probably best to just read the individual files themselves.

@sdellysse sdellysse changed the title Generic Generic Body Parser implemented Nov 22, 2017
@dougwilson dougwilson self-assigned this Dec 3, 2017
@dougwilson
Copy link
Contributor

This is super great! I took a quick look through it the other day, and will take a closer look tomorrow with the intent to land as soon as possible 👍 . The CI is failing on Node.js 0.8 right now. I haven't looked yet as to why that is, but I can land that in 2.0 since that won't support Node.js 0.8 anyway.

@sdellysse
Copy link
Author

Thanks Doug! Yeah, I noticed that CI check failing, it looks like the object-assign module doesn't work on that version of node, which is a trivial bit that can be re-written if need be.

Obviously, the biggest worry with this is breaking backwards compatibility, but it appears to be a non-issue if the test suites are to be trusted. If we can feel confident that we won't break the world this might even be able to be merged with only a minor version bump.

Looking back over this the one thing that needs to still be done that I overlooked is documentation for the genericParser, as in how to implement one.

@chemarhs
Copy link

chemarhs commented Feb 5, 2018

Lo necesitó , Gracias.

@bdharrington7
Copy link

Hi, Is there an ETA on when this can be published? This is great @shawndellysse! The timing couldn't be better :)

@dougwilson
Copy link
Contributor

Unless it is updated to pass the current CI, it has to wait until 2.0 to be published.

@stevebeem
Copy link

@shawndellysse Any idea when this will land? Looking forward to using this with json-bigint as soon as possible.
Thank you for taking the time to implement this!

@sdellysse
Copy link
Author

@dougwilson I know it's been a while but is this something that is still of usefulness? This came up in a conversation I was having and I came back to check on it to find it's still open.

Obviously, it would have to updated to the current codebase, but I was just wanting to make sure that it's something that would be useful to the project if I took the time to do that.

@dougwilson
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, it is still useful. In the coming days I am going to get the 2.0 branch up to date on master as well, so if you wanted to rebase this onto current master that would be a huuuuge help :)

This is because I assumed that since I never heard back about making it pass CI you wanted to hold this for 2.0

@sdellysse
Copy link
Author

Ok, I rebased my branch on to current master, updated the code to satisfy the current tests and linters.

I removed the dependency on object-assign, which didn't support node versions < 0.10.

I had to add a suppress-global-leak flag to the npm test command, due to it being babel's expected behaviour (source: babel/babel-loader#152) on older versions of node.

@sdellysse
Copy link
Author

@dougwilson is there anything else I need to do to get this added?

@dougwilson
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @sdellysse ; I saw your pushes over the weekend, but haven't gotten back to take a look around. So AFAIK I don't think so, but don't hold me to that :) I just need to take a second look. If anything does need changed, I can also help make the changes as well if needed.

@EdgBuc
Copy link

EdgBuc commented May 19, 2020

Hello,
thank you @sdellysse for nice effort!
Is this planned to be merged in the near future? :)

@dougwilson
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, that is absolutely the plan.

@andidev
Copy link

andidev commented Nov 22, 2020

@dougwilson it has been a while. Any plans on merging this soon?

@dougwilson
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @andidev yes, indeed. It kind of fell to the way side, but I just don't want to land it as-is, as it does at least three different things within the single PR: adds a generic parser, adds a parser option for json parser, and adds a parser option for urlencoded parser. I started work to split this into those three so I can last the first of the three, but never completed it. I may try to finish that over this holiday weekend that is coming up (in the US). The two parser options do not seem very useful and, especially in the case of urlencoded, are not ergonomic (depending on the value of one option provided, others may be ignored, for example). The parser on the json one seems fine, but when I looked at the implementation it just adds complication to the existing json parser when it seems just as easy to use the generic parser directly.

@dougwilson
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry, and I forgot to add (after pulling up my notes) that the PR is missing documentation and tests around the added bodyParser.generic as well, so I was going to help create those; we don't want to land functionality without tests/docs, of course :) Without docs it may as well not even be there, as no one will know how to use it, haha.

@tlaukkan
Copy link

Looking forward to this getting merged. It would be useful to be able to pass bigint through body-parser.

@sdellysse
Copy link
Author

@dougwilson is there any interest in getting this up to date and merged in? I have some free time so I thought to come back to this and see if it was still in pr-hell haha. Is the basic concept something that is agreeable to the project?

@dougwilson
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, very interested. Right ar this moment the Express project is focusing on some other items so may still be some time until it is looked at again, but if you would like to bring it up to date that would be a huge help for when we circle back around to it.

@sdellysse
Copy link
Author

closed; successor PR is #524

@sdellysse sdellysse closed this Jun 3, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants