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

Update Rack to 1.6.1 #2175

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 15, 2015
Merged

Update Rack to 1.6.1 #2175

merged 1 commit into from May 15, 2015

Conversation

boffbowsh
Copy link
Contributor

This fixes a bug where all form fields in a request are counted against the multipart file limit:
rack/rack#814

This is an issue in production - some publications and organisations have a large number of dynamically added nested forms. When the form is submitted, a 500 is returned because the number of fields exceeds the limit. It only affects forms posted with multipart, e.g. ones that contain file fields.

Zendesk: https://govuk.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/1037587
Story: https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/94668330

@evilstreak
Copy link
Contributor

👍

@jamiecobbett
Copy link
Contributor

I think we should specify that we want 1.6.1 or higher in the Gemfile. It's far easier to track through git logs that way.

@boffbowsh
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ooh, I haven't had this debate here yet! Personally, I disagree. I think that's what the lockfile is for. But I see the other side of the argument too. Is there a consensus here on this?

This fixes a bug where all form fields in a request are counted against the multipart file limit:
rack/rack#814

This is an issue in production - some publications and organisations have a large number of dynamically added nested forms. When the form is submitted, a 500 is returned because the number of fields exceeds the limit. It only affects forms posted with multipart, e.g. ones that contain file fields.

Zendesk: https://govuk.zendesk.com/agent/tickets/1037587
Story: https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/94668330
@boffbowsh
Copy link
Contributor Author

After more thought - you're right. Added, plus comment.

@jamiecobbett
Copy link
Contributor

👍

boffbowsh added a commit that referenced this pull request May 15, 2015
@boffbowsh boffbowsh merged commit a141931 into master May 15, 2015
@boffbowsh boffbowsh deleted the update-rack branch May 15, 2015 15:57
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.

None yet

3 participants