We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
I believe this line is causing the issue, which is basically that the base64 padding at the end of a string (==) is being removed from the value.
==
So (using bogus base64 value for point), you might expect ?data=DgxfQ== to produce {data: 'DgxfQ=='}, but instead it produces {data: 'DgxfQ'}.
?data=DgxfQ==
{data: 'DgxfQ=='}
{data: 'DgxfQ'}
Instead of pair.split('='), perhaps something like this would work more reliably, though I suspect it's a bit more expensive:
pair.split('=')
idx = pair.indexOf('='); key = pair.substr(0, idx); value = pair.substr(idx+1);
I'd hoped pair.split('=', 2) would do the trick, but that truncates the trailing == as well.
pair.split('=', 2)
...has anyone thanked you for your work recently? Either way, many thanks ;)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
I believe this line is causing the issue, which is basically that the base64 padding at the end of a string (
==
) is being removed from the value.So (using bogus base64 value for point), you might expect
?data=DgxfQ==
to produce{data: 'DgxfQ=='}
, but instead it produces{data: 'DgxfQ'}
.Instead of
pair.split('=')
, perhaps something like this would work more reliably, though I suspect it's a bit more expensive:I'd hoped
pair.split('=', 2)
would do the trick, but that truncates the trailing==
as well....has anyone thanked you for your work recently? Either way, many thanks ;)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: