Oddities around 6653 character limit? (Re: Oops! We ran into some problems.)

xoa

Ars Legatus Legionis
12,432
Subscriptor
So the other day I had a curious experience trying to post a reply in the Ach, where it kept giving me the "Oops! We ran into some problems. Please try again later." error, not just on posting but also on attempt to Preview. But I couldn't see anything unusual about the comment, no external links, no significant formatting. At first I thought it was just a browser thing, a network thing, or a computer thing, but posting here worked fine. Eventually I tried the old bisecting, and that previewed ok, but not just the first half the second half too. Only the whole thing wouldn't preview. So I kept bisecting, and in the end it I found a hard line between what would preview/post and what wouldn't at 6653 characters. Which is kind of a strange number. I did try removing all bbcode tags, on the theory that maybe somehow it was only triggering on content between the tags and ignoring those and that'd be a rounder number, but it doesn't seem to make any difference. Even just plain text fails at that point. Also it seems sometimes line breaks are treated differently than ascii? I didn't play around with Unicode multipoint characters to try investigating if there is something there.

Anyway, just kind of odd. I can see why there'd be some round 10k limit or the like, just as a sanity anti-spam/anti-accident thing, but kind of curious why 6653 (or whatever underlying bits or the like)? If it is intentional for whatever reason, I'd suggest having a character count option in the box, or at least some "post too long" that appears because the current error is confusing. Thank you!
 

xoa

Ars Legatus Legionis
12,432
Subscriptor
Very strange, maybe ran into some really weird edge case, or race condition or something? I tried just doing "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" up to the limit and it had no issue. Per what you said I also went ahead and took it over 20k and it gave the clear expected error of Please enter a message with no more than 20000 characters.. So that seems fine?

Yet I just rechecked: the post in question does still trigger the same error. I just tried taking that post, hitting edit so I could copy/paste the raw code, then added random asdfasdf to bring it back up again, and it triggers the error on Preview. dal20402 said they experienced an issue trying to reply too (!?) until they shortened it. Anyway, most odd!

Edit: I wrote the post entirely in the forum box, not pasting from another program, but just to be safe I pulled into BBEdit and vim and looked to see if any weird invisible characters had somehow ended up there. Don't see anything though.
 

AbidingArs

Ars Praetorian
1,155
Subscriptor++
I can reproduce the issue - I quoted the post, removed the quote tags, then added the following to make the message longer (since I could preview it with no issue):
the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogthe quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog
Not sure how many of those are needed; I reproduced that on previewing the post, I got the error. I then updated the following sentence (second to the last sentence in the second paragraph):
Yet Apple has rendered them very hard to use on a modern system (and did so long ago), and there is no equivalent replacement!
to
Yet Apple has rendered them very hard to use on a modern system and did so long ago, and there is no equivalent replacement!
and could preview the message with no issue. I added another line of the quick brown fox to check if shortening the message had fixed the issue but I was able to preview it with no problems, so it seems like somehow the "system (whatever)" issue makes the message length allowed shorter? It is beyond my ken but hopefully that helps.

I'm on Edge Version 148.0.3967.54 (Official build) (64-bit) if that matters.
 

xoa

Ars Legatus Legionis
12,432
Subscriptor
Ah of course, nice sleuthing. I now super vaguely remember encountering this before somehow, but it's been a minute and took me off guard at that point as well. I wonder what the logos of that particular anti-scripting was, given how hardened browsers have gotten and all of this should be pretty input sanitized output is public web pages vs some service. Or maybe it's an artifact of some problem of the day? I guess I wish the error was clearer, this doesn't seem like a case where anything is really gained by obscurity, but if it's rare enough to encounter whatever. Thanks for clearing up the mystery!
 

Aurich

Director of Many Things
41,342
Ars Staff
Ah of course, nice sleuthing. I now super vaguely remember encountering this before somehow, but it's been a minute and took me off guard at that point as well. I wonder what the logos of that particular anti-scripting was, given how hardened browsers have gotten and all of this should be pretty input sanitized output is public web pages vs some service. Or maybe it's an artifact of some problem of the day? I guess I wish the error was clearer, this doesn't seem like a case where anything is really gained by obscurity, but if it's rare enough to encounter whatever. Thanks for clearing up the mystery!
I believe when we researched it that's actually tied to AWS somehow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xoa