Use correct key for Request.maxFormContentSize
#605
Merged
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
basil
added a commit
to basil/jenkins
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 6, 2023
basil
added a commit
to basil/bom
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 6, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Recent versions of Jetty, which we have been using since 2016 or so, use
org.eclipse.jetty.server.Request.maxFormContentSizerather thanorg.mortbay.jetty.Request.maxFormContentSizeto set the maximum form content size. While I was here I also updated this to use a constant rather than a hard-coded string to make this code easier to maintain going forward. I tested this in Jenkins core and BOM and it did not make anything worse. While I am not fully convinced this setting is still needed, I am also not fully convinced that this setting is not needed either. Making the code work as intended (rather than as it was working previously) seems to be at least a mildly positive step in the right direction in the sense of improving readability. If someone can clearly demonstrate with certainty that this code is not needed then it could be removed entirely in the future.