Hangs when there is no part

[ghost]

If the browser posts a multi-part POST request with no parts, then the http server hangs until the 2 minute timeout and then finishes properly. I tested every browser and they all will send this request out. I'm pretty sure it is a legal multi-part format.

I'm running node 0.4.1 and a recent version of Formidable with the patch to fix the problem where you cannot submit multiple fields with the same name.

[felixge]

with the patch to fix the problem where you cannot submit multiple fields with the same name

There is no such problem, if you listen to the 'file' events directly.

If the browser posts a multi-part POST request with no parts

How would this happen? By submitting a form without any fields in it?

--fg

[ghost]

Yes, no fields. I have a section of a page where the presence of the fields is dependent on app state. I had to add a dummy hidden field to work around this problem. It would not have been a big deal if I had not spent a full day chasing it down. Maybe this post can save another person the same trouble.

I do appreciate your efforts and the usefulness of Formidable. However, I will argue one last time about the feature that provides the fields in an object. This feature loses data and is broken. You should either pull the feature or fix it.

You can stubbornly argue that since one can work around this bug that it is not a bug. You are free to do this. I am also stubborn and I do not want to learn how to code listeners in Formidable. I was able to quickly install Formidable and start using it without even realizing it had events. The friendly patch that you refuse to pull solves my problem nicely.

You mentioned "purity" in a recent post. This feature bug is definitely impure. My coding event listeners would be an impure kludge.

That's it. I'll shut up now and quit sowing FUD.

Mark Hahn
Website Manager
mark@boutiquing.com

[felixge]

Thanks for the bug report, I'll look into it.

You can stubbornly argue that since one can work around this bug that it is not a bug.

I think as the author of the module, I get to define the expected behavior of it. What you are calling a bug, is a leaky abstraction. I will certainly address it in a future release, but please note the difference between this problem, and the actual bug you discovered and reported in this ticket. One is the result of a conscious choice of mine that didn't find popular appeal, the other is a defect in the Software that I had no awareness of having introduced.

--fg

[ghost]

I apologize for mixing the two together. I was originally just trying to state in some way what version I was running. Then I got carried away (as usual) in the follow-up discussion.

Thanx for the great sw.

[felixge]

No harm done, and thanks again for the bug report, I hope to fix this ASAP : )