#2485 changed more files, is that needed here or not? Thinking of the parser line number changes and possible error messages (I have not checked myself)

Welcome to our contributors @LukaszMaslej 😄

Hi @dentarg

I did tests if error messages are still fine.

#<Puma::HttpParserError: HTTP element QUERY_STRING is longer than the 11111 allowed length (was 11385)>
#<Puma::HttpParserError: HTTP element QUERY_STRING is longer than the 1024*11 allowed length (was 11385)>
#<Puma::HttpParserError: HTTP element REQUEST_PATH is longer than the 9191 allowed length (was 11384)>
#<Puma::HttpParserError: HTTP element REQUEST_URI is longer than the (1024 * 12) allowed length (was 13431)>
#<Puma::HttpParserError: HTTP element REQUEST_URI is longer than the 12000 allowed length (was 13431)>

They look to be ok.
Whats about parser line number changes - if someone could double check this. Help here will be welcome ;).

@nateberkopec @dentarg Thank you for the quick reactions.
Is there any chance that this could get merged into master soon (and even better, a tag could get created)?

We have a client that is blocked by this.
If this couldn't get merged into master soon, we would create a fork based on Lukasz' branch. But that is obviously less ideal :).

Thanks already.

@woutdegeyter Yeah, no that not how open source works, we are not merging anything sooner than later just because your client needs it, maybe help out instead? Why was the parser changes done #2485?

@LukaszMaslej Not sure I understand your comment, what/how did you test? Why is there two lines each for QUERY_STRING and REQUEST_URI?

@dentarg I checked if error messages are formatted as they should be. It was discussed (comment) for #2485 PR. I wanted to be sure it is still fine when use my new flags.

I tested different ways how the flag could be set (that's why there are two samples), like for example bundle config build.puma "--with-cflags='-D PUMA_REQUEST_PATH_MAX_LENGTH=9191'" or bundle config build.puma "--with-cflags='-D PUMA_QUERY_STRING_MAX_LENGTH=1024*11'".

I made only these basic changes, but worth to check by some one more advanced in C to check parser files.

Why were the parser changes done #2485?

Referring to the changes in ext/puma_http11/http11_parser.c?

I don't think this changes that file (delete it, and run rake ragel). But, not sure about changes for JRuby?

@MSP-Greg Thanks, I removed ext/puma_http11/http11_parser.c and run rake ragel. Files are identical.

@dentarg To question about parser changes, ext/puma_http11/http11_parser.c does not need changes this time.

Hi @dentarg

#2485 changed more files, is that needed here or not? Thinking of the parser line number changes and possible error messages (I have not checked myself)

Replying here - I believe both points are satisfied. The parser lines don't need update now comment, the error messages are returned as expected (see my comment). Or there is something more I should check here?

@dentarg Thank you for merge to master. Kind question, do you plan new version release in some near future?

I don't do the releases! Sorry

Yes, my bad, sorry.
@nateberkopec just repeat my kind question for next release ;).
Do you plan it somehow in near future?