Req.Body Truncated in Versions >= 1.6.0

[expressjs]

Req.Body Truncated in Versions >= 1.6.0

[dougwilson]

Yea. You need to either use {extended: false} or ask over at https://github.com/hapijs/qs/ to make the parametersLimit configurable and I can expose the configuration here.

It also seems like you're sending a really big object over urlencoded. Perhaps you just want to use JSON :)?

[dougwilson]

and in case you were wondering, the reason this changed in a non-major version is because using bodyParser.urlencoded({ extended: true }) with version < 1.6.0 expose the server to a really easy DoS attack.

[jackryon]

Thanks for the quick reply.
Using extended: false with 1.6.0 still yields incomplete data, though.

I'm about to try sending up application/json.

[dougwilson]

Using extended: false with 1.6.0 still yields incomplete data, though.

Ah, yes, I forgot Node.js core also has a default limit of 1,000 parameters (though it's limit is configurable): https://github.com/joyent/node/blob/v0.10.24/lib/querystring.js#L172

I'm going to talk with the qs guys to get theirs parameter limit configurable and I can expose the configuration, but yea, overall I think your use-case may be better served using JSON instead of urlencoded if you are not using a straight up HTML <form> to make the submission.

[jackryon]

Awesome. I appreciate your help.

[dougwilson]

So for the extended module, there is no way right now it can even handle > 1000 parameters. Feeding it 2000 parameters make it take ~1710ms on my machine, an eternity.

[dougwilson]

If you wish to keep using very large urlencoded payloads, you will be able to configure the limit in the upcoming 1.7.0:

app.use(bodyParser.urlencoded({ extended: true, parameterLimit: 5000 }))

[dougwilson]

In addition, the module will no longer give you weird truncated req.body and will instead completely reject the payload with a 415 if there are too many parameters so you are not accidentally processing an incomplete payload.

[jkrems]

Are the 1710ms a pathological example or is this really the expected runtime for parsing 2000 elements? It seems like a lot.

[dougwilson]

Are the 1710ms a pathological example or is this really the expected runtime for parsing 2000 elements? It seems like a lot.

It is a real example. qs has fixed this, though, so it only takes 80ms now for the same parse.

[jkrems]

Ah, thanks. Glad to hear that, got me nervous for a minute! :)