[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Change by Mark Lawrence : -- nosy: -BreamoreBoy ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://ma

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Rishi added the comment: One of my comments shot the wrapped line limit. Also changed the test in question to check the lengths of the expected and actual buffer to checking the contents of the respective buffers. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file37400/issue1610654_5.patch __

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Rishi added the comment: There is indeed a test failure that occurs without the patch. This is a new test I had added. The reason is that in the existing implementation, when a boundary does not exist, the implementation does not include the trailing CRLF, LF or for that matter CR as part of

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: New test fail with non-modified code. Either there is a bug in current code or tests are wrong. -- ___ Python tracker ___ _

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Changes by Serhiy Storchaka : -- assignee: -> serhiy.storchaka ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Rishi added the comment: Hi, I have created a new patch with a small design change. The change is that in situations where I don't find the boundary instead of keeping the last x bytes in the buffer I simply drain the whole data and call a readline(). This seems like the right thing to do also

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Rishi added the comment: Patch updated from review comments. Also added a few corner test cases. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file37128/issue1610654_2.patch ___ Python tracker ___

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Thanks for the updated patch. I'll take a look soon if no-one beats me to it. -- stage: needs patch -> patch review ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Rishi added the comment: I have recreated the patch(issue1610654_1.patch) and it performs more or less like the earlier patch Serhiy, I agree we cannot use handmade buffering here, without seeking ahead. I believe, we can make optimizations for streams which are buffered and non-seekable. Cgi

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Serhiy Storchaka added the comment: I doubt we can use io.BufferedReader or handmade buffering here. Current code doesn't read more bytes than necessary. Buffered reader will read ahead, and there is no way to return read bytes back to the stream in general case (an exception is seekable strea

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Rishi added the comment: Antoine, I will upload a patch that relies on BufferedReader. As you mentioned, it will get rid of supporting the buffer and reduce a lot of code. The only issue is that it helps me to know if the current buffer is at EOF (the documentation of peek does not mention gua

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Rishi, thanks for the patch. I was going to give a review but first I have to ask: is so much support code necessary for this? Another approach would be to wrap self.fp in a io.BufferedReader (if it's not already buffered) and then use the peek() method to fin

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Rishi added the comment: My observation is that a file with more than normal (exact numbers below) line-feed characters takes way too long. I tried porting the above patch to my default branch, but it has some boundary and CRLF/LF issues, but more importantly it relies on seeking the file-obj

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

R. David Murray added the comment: To move this issue along we need someone to convert it into our standard patch format (a unified diff against either the 3.4 or the default branch, preferrably produced via an 'hg diff' command without the --git option), with the test included as a unit test

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Chui Tey added the comment: Hi, I'm still available. There's a test case in the patch, would you like me to separate that to another file? Would that help with assessing it? Best, On 8 July 2014 22:05, Hynek Schlawack wrote: > > Hynek Schlawack added the comment: > > I would have long ago if

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Hynek Schlawack added the comment: I would have long ago if I had any domain knowlege on this topic, but alas…. -- ___ Python tracker ___ __

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Mark Lawrence added the comment: @Hynek could you port the patch as you've shown some interest in it? -- nosy: +BreamoreBoy ___ Python tracker ___ _

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Hynek Schlawack added the comment: It would be great if someone could port this patch to Python 3.4 and verify its effectiveness. -- keywords: +easy -patch stage: test needed -> needs patch versions: +Python 3.4 -Python 3.2, Python 3.3 ___ Python tra

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Changes by Atsuo Ishimoto : -- nosy: +ishimoto ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.py

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Changes by Antoine Pitrou : -- nosy: +orsenthil ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.p

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Florent Xicluna added the comment: It needs tests to demonstrate the issue in 3.x, and an updated patch. -- nosy: +hynek, pitrou stage: patch review -> test needed versions: +Python 3.3 ___ Python tracker __

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

R. David Murray added the comment: I don't think it was appropriate to close this issue. -- nosy: +r.david.murray -BreamoreBoy resolution: wont fix -> stage: unit test needed -> patch review status: closed -> open versions: +Python 3.2 -Python 2.7, Python 3.1 _

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Changes by Florent Xicluna : -- nosy: +flox ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.pytho

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Mark Lawrence added the comment: No reply to msg110090. -- resolution: -> wont fix status: open -> closed ___ Python tracker ___ _

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Mark Lawrence added the comment: Chui Tey does this issue still apply? If yes, could you please provide a patch according to the guidelines here. python.org/dev/patches -- nosy: +BreamoreBoy ___ Python tracker

[issue1610654] cgi.py multipart/form-data

Changes by Daniel Diniz : -- components: +Library (Lib) -Interpreter Core keywords: +patch stage: -> test needed type: -> performance versions: +Python 2.7, Python 3.1 ___ Python tracker ___