Comic Fury Webcomic Hosting - Mass upload unfunctional

You are not logged in. Log in, Register, More info
Pages: [1]

"Mass upload unfunctional", 2nd Jan 2019, 11:31 AM #1
JuicyGrey
✖✖✖
User avatar
Posts: 1492
Registration date: 25th Jul 2015
Location: Inside you, gnawing...
Mass uploading not working, browser Opera 11.64, error message in console:
[29.3.1970 8:32:21] JavaScript - https://comicfury.com/managecomic.php?id=28191&action=massupload
Event thread: click
Uncaught exception: ReferenceError: Undefined variable: FormData
Error thrown at line 1, column 4991 in <anonymous function: comicfury.webcomicMassUpload.submitEventHandler>(e) in https://comicfury.com/scripts/min/comicfury-webcomic-massupload.min.js?as7:
    var n=new FormData(o[i]),d=t.querySelector(".progress-container");

Should really have non-JS version, because JS simply plain... sucks...

And I am really not gonna upload 45 pages one by one...

Nope, can't update browser on this machine. Too old...
_______________________
image
2nd Jan 2019, 7:46 PM #2
Kyo
🐊
User avatar
Posts: 18699
Registration date: 6th Jul 2008
Location: Germany
Yeah the problem is that your browser doesn't support FormData. I do provide fallbacks for most things on the site, but mass edit and mass upload are the two exceptions to that, because the non javascript variant would require you uploading 10 pages through a single http request, which tends to not actually work but instead take 30 minutes and then fail, depending on your file sizes and connection. It's also not great on the server, since it has to do a bunch of image processing at once.

If you can't update your browser, it's manual forms in this case, sorry, that's the non-js version.

The page I linked has a compatibility table, some of them go quite far back (for opera it's version 12 minimum, for FF it seems to be version 4) - it might be worth a shot just using another ancient browser if you can get your hands on one
_______________________
hello
2nd Jan 2019, 8:24 PM #3
Dodom
iiIIEEEHHEEEIIMM eeeeaaauuu hhYYYAaaaa
User avatar
Posts: 1722
Registration date: 6th Sep 2009
Location: Québec
I don't know if this is related, but when I tried to use mass upload, it returned something like "couldn't contact server". Sorry I don't remember the exact message I didn't take note at the time and just uploaded the pages one by one.
_______________________
image
2nd Jan 2019, 8:26 PM #4
Kyo
🐊
User avatar
Posts: 18699
Registration date: 6th Jul 2008
Location: Germany
does this happen to you every time? if so, can you hit F12 and see if there's any errors in the console? If you're using a reasonably modern browser it should work

if it happened only once it might also just have been a connection related blip. you can also resubmit the forms if there's an error on mass upload
_______________________
hello
3rd Jan 2019, 12:41 AM #5
JuicyGrey
✖✖✖
User avatar
Posts: 1492
Registration date: 25th Jul 2015
Location: Inside you, gnawing...
@Kyo

I never had problems with old upload. Never at once. My files are always rather small...

... But really, I am so pissed off now that I am really shaking and whats not good. Very pissed of for you now Kyo. You may as well make whole site as Edge only...

I can't update my programs at all. No OS support...

Can't update to new OS, too old machine...

Can't buy new machine for it, not enough money...

I actually think you are just lazing out for this...
_______________________
image
"That shouldn't be too hard to implement", 3rd Jan 2019, 9:43 AM #6
xwindows
ascii man
User avatar
Posts: 115
Registration date: 23rd Dec 2014
I use Opera 11.64 too, on my desktop machine. The error is the same.

Kyo:because the non javascript variant would require you uploading 10 pages through a single http request

That is actually how GMail classic (a.k.a. Basic HTML view) currently allows mass attachment without ever requiring JavaScript:

image

If that's going to trigger server timeout, maybe reducing it to x4/x5 form helps? And not everyone is going to upload 5 MiB on every page.

(Note that this implies that the JavaScript-based mass submission is going to run by default; the fallback route in question would only proceed when JavaScript is nonexistent or when the submit handler error out)
4th Jan 2019, 1:53 AM #7
Kyo
🐊
User avatar
Posts: 18699
Registration date: 6th Jul 2008
Location: Germany
problem is that every form on the upload page is a discrete form that gets submitted individually, one after another, to allow for error correction.

So you'd effectively have to generate the whole HTML again, except slightly different, for the noscript tag, and then do a custom handler for that noscript version of the form, and of course some people still will upload just way too much data using one form and it won't work, all of that while there is still another upload form that works perfectly without javascript made me decide just not to bother.

I understand it's not literally impossible, but that fallback, even in its best iteration, has spotty reliability with what a lot of users might reasonably do, is going to be used by almost no one, and I only got so much dev time to dedicate to the site.

for peeps interested in how the code works, i host unminified versions, plz don't judge me for my js skillz

cf main js
mass upload
_______________________
hello
7th Feb 2019, 3:59 PM #8
Dodom
iiIIEEEHHEEEIIMM eeeeaaauuu hhYYYAaaaa
User avatar
Posts: 1722
Registration date: 6th Sep 2009
Location: Québec
Bumping this because I used the mass upload yesterday and it worked perfectly! Whatever had happened the last time did not happen again.
_______________________
image
8th Feb 2019, 11:30 AM #9
eekee

User avatar
Posts: 39
Registration date: 15th Sep 2016
Location: burrowing in cyberspace
Hey JuicyGrey! I know that feeling from tech that just won't cooperate. Awful, isn't it? I have a suggestion though. :)

JuicyGrey:Should really have non-JS version, because JS simply plain... sucks...

And I am really not gonna upload 45 pages one by one...

Nope, can't update browser on this machine. Too old...


I'm pleasantly surprised you can use Opera 11, 9 or 10 are the last versions that work for me on the interesting old operating systems I like to tinker with. Having said that, I think you should now be able to get a computer for free which will run a newer browser — I mean a laptop or desktop someone else is throwing out because they think it's just too old. Look for one with 2GB RAM; you'll have to restrict how many tabs you have open on JavaScript-enabled pages, but current browsers should actually work.

I've bought a few second-hand Lenovo Thinkpads over the years, notably paying about £25 for a R400 a couple of years ago. (Older models should be cheaper, but you may want to look at non-Thinkpads; older Thinkpads are popular with techs. Just try to make sure it has at least 2GB memory.) I put a spare hard drive in one of my R400s, it had Windows 10 on the drive. I've just booted it up, and I can tell you it's running 64-bit Firefox 65 just fine; just updated. I'm testing with my mail site which is about the most script-bloated site I tolerate. It's perfectly responsive! I actually used this thing for a few weeks a while back; I remember not wanting to have more than a handful of tabs open, but you know that.

Operating system comparison: Windows 10 brings with it the fear of disappearing drivers. I thought I found reason to suspect Linux of doing that too, but now I'm not so sure. (I do get paranoid at times.) In any case, I've had reason to compare Linux with Windows 7 in extended use, and I think Linux is much more responsive when memory gets tight. (Linux is crazy-obsessed with performance in all sorts of ways.) I also ran FreeBSD on both 4GB and 2GB machines; it was somewhere in between in this regard, but I liked it anyway. I'm told FreeBSD gets more use on servers, other BSDs may better support personal use. OpenBSD puts security above everything else, which can be great, but can also mean your machine runs slower. BSDs tend to have fewer developer resources for developing and maintaining drivers.

Speaking of security, I found that if you run Linux or FreeBSD on a machine with Intel graphics, I had to use an ad-blocker if only to filter out Microsoft adverts. See Microsoft advert -> graphics slow until reboot; just enough to notice. I don't know if this is Microsoft's own work, or if it's because Intel are married to Microsoft but only flirting with Linux for popularity's sake. None of these companies are "nice people," not even many in the Linux world.

Kyo:the non javascript variant would require you uploading 10 pages through a single http request, which tends to not actually work but instead take 30 minutes and then fail, depending on your file sizes and connection. It's also not great on the server, since it has to do a bunch of image processing at once.


I wish so much the world wasn't obsessed with HTTP. I have a friend who's a bit of a historian. He's read archives of the www-dev mailing list, it's where http was designed in the 80s. He tells me they put the opinions of people with no experience on equal standing with those with decades of experience with computers and digital communication! JavaScript can sometimes work around some of the resultant problems, but it's a bit of a depressing situation all-round.

On the other hand, idiots like me and a younger Ryan Dahl can write web servers in scripting languages. :)

Kyo... I have to ask... *takes a deep breath* Is the server-side image processing the reason you don't allow ftp uploads? What processing does it do? I ask because I don't see any thumbnails or other evidence of server-side processing. If it's just getting the image size, I could probably provide much faster code to do that.

EDIT: Realized after I posted that while I could provide the actual code easily, integrating it into a modern web server is likely far beyond me. If the server is node.js it might be more reasonable, but I'm afraid of the pitfalls of javascript's number handling. I wrote my web server in 2009 thinking I could write and configure a server with less time and effort than it would take me to configure Apache 2. I still think I was almost right. :) I'm not recommending my server, its strength is configurability, not performance. I used my host's transparent caching proxy to make it good, but that doesn't help when you need instant response for forums and comments. My ideal case for this task is a CGI script in C, actually.
"I think doing FTP upload is quite... complicated for Comic Fury's arrangement", Two weeks ago, 11:37 AM #10
xwindows
ascii man
User avatar
Posts: 115
Registration date: 23rd Dec 2014
eekee:Kyo... I have to ask... *takes a deep breath* Is the server-side image processing the reason you don't allow ftp uploads?

This relies on an assumption that Comic Fury server being a VPS/co-located machine that @Kyo control. I don't think it is the case. (1)

When using FTP uploads with shared hosting, @Kyo might need to string together FTP tree(3), cron jobs(4), PHP scripts; and orchestrate them to propagate files uploads and update databases without conflict. Doing this is not a small task, and is not trivial to maintain.

With all the shenanigans involved, IMO, "Gmail Classic" style of mass upload looks simple in comparison.

Considering @Kyo is not running Comic Fury as his job (and he already balked at my "Gmail Classic" request), I don't think he would introduce such feature (5); and I won't hold these against him.

(1) I suspect (2) that Comic Fury is based on a normal, shared hosting; otherwise it's going to be really, really, costly for @Kyo.
(2) Guesstimated by how I see @Kyo handle custom domains.
(3) This relies on an assumption that Comic Fury's DreamHost account can create unlimited number of FTP accounts.
(4) This relies on an assumption that Comic Fury's DreamHost account has cron jobs quota.
(5) Unless my assumption (1) is incorrect that is.

P.S. So many footnotes, sorry.
Two weeks ago, 2:22 PM #11
Kyo
🐊
User avatar
Posts: 18699
Registration date: 6th Jul 2008
Location: Germany
it is a VPS but yeah I think the effort/benefit ratio of implementing something like this just wouldn't be worth it
_______________________
hello
Two weeks ago, 7:39 PM #12
TanteiSakana
New Member
User avatar
Posts: 644
Registration date: 29th Dec 2009
…while a number of solutions have been presented here, if the relevant feature works in Firefox 4 onwards… I can't help but feel using the site with an old version of Firefox instead of an old version of Opera is the quickest and most practical way to solve this problem?

This specific issue seems to be a problem with Opera 11 in particular, after all.
_______________________
Current project: Super Fuzzy Beach Dater
Other accounts: Patreon | Twitter | DeviantART | YouTube
"Not that simple, actually", 13 days ago, 5:19 AM #13
xwindows
ascii man
User avatar
Posts: 115
Registration date: 23rd Dec 2014
TanteiSakana:if the relevant feature works in Firefox 4 onwards... I can't help but feel using the site with an old version of Firefox instead of an old version of Opera is the quickest and most practical way to solve this problem?

It's not that simple, unfortunately. (1)

Opera 11.64 (circa 2012) has user-configurable TLS support, and even includes a somewhat-usable TLS 1.2 option; while the contemporary Firefox of its day doesn't. (2)

When hard-coded with TLS 1.0/1.1, you will get a "game over" screen as early as you enter `https://comicfury.com/` into your location bar. (3)

(1) This even assumes the OP uses Opera from a PC; and not some embedded/gaming platform.
(2) Even Firefox 11 still doesn't do, you would have travel forth in time to the day of Firefox 27 (circa 2014) where it was hard-coded to TLS 1.1/1.2 instead.
(3) Comic Fury's main site can be accessed via TLS 1.1 and 1.2 with SNI. But, if the browser also do TLS 1.0, the negotiation will fail nonetheless. SSL/TLS version negotiation is weird, and interoperability is fragile.
13 days ago, 11:34 PM #14
TanteiSakana
New Member
User avatar
Posts: 644
Registration date: 29th Dec 2009
Oh. Right. SSL/TLS stuff is kind of a mystery to me, so I forgot about that being a big obstacle to older browsers accessing the modern web.



Although… to look at it the other way around… that mainly means that Firefox 27 and above would be able to access ComicFury, right?

Despite being made two years later than their current browser, it seems possible Firefox 27 could work on OPs computer, although there could be something else I'm overlooking.
_______________________
Current project: Super Fuzzy Beach Dater
Other accounts: Patreon | Twitter | DeviantART | YouTube
12 days ago, 8:54 AM #15
eekee

User avatar
Posts: 39
Registration date: 15th Sep 2016
Location: burrowing in cyberspace
xwindows:(3) Comic Fury's main site can be accessed via TLS 1.1 and 1.2 with SNI. But, if the browser also do TLS 1.0, the negotiation will fail nonetheless. SSL/TLS version negotiation is weird, and interoperability is fragile.

This problem I'm aware of, so many servers do it, but I do NOT understand it! If one side refuses to do TLS 1.0, why does it matter if the other side supports it? To put it politely, I can't see the sense in it.
Pages: [1]