Skip to content

Sync from old repo 2025-12-03#52

Merged
Ethan-Arrowood merged 33 commits intomainfrom
sync-12032025
Dec 4, 2025
Merged

Sync from old repo 2025-12-03#52
Ethan-Arrowood merged 33 commits intomainfrom
sync-12032025

Conversation

@cap10morgan
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

kriszyp and others added 27 commits December 3, 2025 09:16
fix lockfile property spelling and prevent racecondition for applicat…
Fixes for cert verification integration tests only (no auth middleware…
…parated

Keep multiple set-cookie headers separate
Ensure HARPER_SET_CONFIG can override any other config source
Fix mergeHeaders, where set-cookie headers could get combined, and se…
Have deploy-component fail by default if a conflicting config entry exists (can be forced)
* Limit message size so we don't get messages rejected on the receiving side

* Add request body size limits

* Add test of too large of request body

* Respond to too large of request body more politely

* Update server/serverHelpers/contentTypes.ts

Co-authored-by: Chris Barber <chris@harperdb.io>

---------

Co-authored-by: Chris Barber <chris@harperdb.io>
Mostly just because my editor puts red squigglies underneath them haha
This will come back once we get the unit testing infrastructure ready in
this repo.
Copy link
Member

@Ethan-Arrowood Ethan-Arrowood left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

generally LGTM but lets get CI happy first

@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
# Format Commits
84de82b25fff81f7b28c1a83789d1a9247fa73b4
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't know if order matters, but I believe I've been appending to this file so far

@cap10morgan cap10morgan marked this pull request as ready for review December 3, 2025 22:51
@cap10morgan cap10morgan requested review from a team as code owners December 3, 2025 22:51
Comment on lines 35 to +36
"lint": "eslint .",
"lint:required": "eslint --no-config-lookup --quiet -c eslint.required.config.mjs .",
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is required referring to the no-undefined rule? Like why does this ruleset differ from the default one? When should I lint with lint vs lint:required?

We need those questions answered in contributing docs somewhere. Or we should be replacing the existing config with this one if we intend for it to be a check. My editor tells me about lint issues based on the default config, but doesn't pick this new one up. But we are using this new one for PR checks? It should be the one and only lint config then, right?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@cap10morgan cap10morgan Dec 4, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As this is a sync PR, this is all explained in the original PR from the old repo: https://github.com/HarperFast/harperdb/pull/3013

However, I'm happy to add some notes about it to the contributing docs in here.

The short version is that nothing else needs to change, this is just to allow us to gradually start enforcing some linter rules in CI over time (starting with no-undef). But we want the larger ruleset to continue applying in all other contexts. Eventually there should only be one ruleset that is enforced everywhere.

I plan to try to enable one of the disabled rules in the required config every week going forward (along with the necessary fixes to make it pass).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Proposed docs section added in e3da3da

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Unfortunately that original PR is not available for anyone but us. I know we don't exactly have public contributors yet, but I'm intentionally trying to force us to be transparent. Any information hidden in the old private repo that is relevant must be bubbled up.

And don't worry about adding to these sync PRs - thats the point of them. Its not just cherry-picking commits, but also making sure they all work with the OSS version. Additional commits is 100% okay and expected even if they have changes.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

And the info you added looks great. approving now! thank you for doing all of this.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Unfortunately that original PR is not available for anyone but us. I know we don't exactly have public contributors yet, but I'm intentionally trying to force us to be transparent. Any information hidden in the old private repo that is relevant must be bubbled up.

And don't worry about adding to these sync PRs - thats the point of them. Its not just cherry-picking commits, but also making sure they all work with the OSS version. Additional commits is 100% okay and expected even if they have changes.

Yeah, I'm 100% on board with all that. I just wasn't sure if you were asking for yourself or on behalf of the community, so was trying to cover both bases. :)

@socket-security
Copy link

socket-security bot commented Dec 4, 2025

Review the following changes in direct dependencies. Learn more about Socket for GitHub.

Diff Package Supply Chain
Security
Vulnerability Quality Maintenance License
Addedgraphql-http@​1.22.410010010084100

View full report

@Ethan-Arrowood Ethan-Arrowood merged commit ae82f1a into main Dec 4, 2025
22 checks passed
@Ethan-Arrowood Ethan-Arrowood deleted the sync-12032025 branch December 4, 2025 20:32
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants