You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If someone tries to upload a very large file, say 400MB, then the uploader will fail during proto serialization. This is because the file will exceed the maximum array length in Javascript which is 2^32 - 1 (4,294,967,295).
Currently best alternative is to use a Fast API endpoint to handle the upload and probably a custom web component to handle the upload to the Fast API endpoint.
In terms of fixes for this, could it be possible to implement some kind of chunked upload to handler larger file sizes? Or could there be a way to avoid using protos in this case? Or could there be another way to workaround the maximum array length issue here?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think avoiding protos and having a separate route handler would make sense (to avoid the overhead & limitations of protos), but tbh I find this to be a somewhat niche use case.
once you go down the route of large file uploads, then it opens the door to things like resumable uploads, etc.
I think the current suggestion of using FastAPI (or whatever framework) w/ web component SGTM. For example, if a user is uploading something that large, they will probably want some kind of progress indicator (e.g. 30% uploaded).
If someone tries to upload a very large file, say 400MB, then the uploader will fail during proto serialization. This is because the file will exceed the maximum array length in Javascript which is 2^32 - 1 (4,294,967,295).
Currently best alternative is to use a Fast API endpoint to handle the upload and probably a custom web component to handle the upload to the Fast API endpoint.
In terms of fixes for this, could it be possible to implement some kind of chunked upload to handler larger file sizes? Or could there be a way to avoid using protos in this case? Or could there be another way to workaround the maximum array length issue here?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: