Skip to content

Bug Reports

8 Topics 82 Posts View Original
Found a bug? Why not make a bug report here?
  • nodebb-plugin-link-preview not working after NodeBB updated to 4.14.4

    5
    0 Votes
    5 Posts
    0 Views
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    @jasonwch I blame AI for exposing DNS rebinding as a problem at all.
  • Bug in the nodebb-plugin-link-preview plugin

    8
    0 Votes
    8 Posts
    2 Views
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    @jasonwch is the plugin still active? ./nodebb plugins Also links to expand must be made on a separate line
  • 404 for /list

    8
    0 Votes
    8 Posts
    0 Views
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    <img class="not-responsive emoji" src="https://community.nodebb.org/assets/plugins/nodebb-plugin-emoji/emoji/android/1f606.png?v=b3bda0f1f23" title="" />
  • What happened to the latest update? Was it created by AI?

    7
    0 Votes
    7 Posts
    0 Views
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    @Moshe most likely you'll want to run ./nodebb build again, and watch the console output for errors.
  • Manage Open Social Web handles not consistent after disabled Federation

    13
    0 Votes
    13 Posts
    0 Views
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    @jasonwch try latest develop branch if you don't want to wait for 4.15
  • Markdown plugin bug

    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    0 Views
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    @jasonwch hi, can you try restarting your nodebb? Settings for the Markdown plugin need a restart before the new settings take effect.
  • NodeBB 4.13: activitypub/fetchPublicKey Rate limit exceeded errors.

    19
    0 Votes
    19 Posts
    5 Views
    julian@community.nodebb.orgJ
    @Kichae hmm if there was a rendering issue on their end it could be either end (sender or receiver). Can you share the post?
  • 0 Votes
    20 Posts
    7 Views
    amaarets@community.nodebb.orgA
    > @julian כתב: > > > @AMAARETS said: > > > > Just a quick question - I'm wondering what information I'm missing here > > Why maintain a list of aliases, and not do the comparison by checking in reverse whether mime.getExtension(application/x-zip-compressed) returns a valid extension like ZIP > > If you check in reverse, then you are relying on the sender to supply you with the information. That's untrustworthy data — you can't guarantee someone didn't mess around with the data in between, or pretend that they're upload a jpg when it's actually an exe, etc. How is this worse than the test that is being performed now? It also relies, among other things, on a comparison of the MIME coming from the user and the MIME checked on the server. I just suggest replacing the manual map you added with a function that will automatically generate it by grouping all types that return the same result in mime.getExtension