Because if they get bundled, what are the actual benefits of using multiple files in functions folde
Because if they get bundled, what are the actual benefits of using multiple files in functions folder over a single _workers file?
HA file-based router, that you don't have to configure manually?
AThat does my framework already, I'm just trying to understand some pros/cons here
HYou can also use Functions plugins, without having to rewrite them to match whatever system your framework uses
HBut yeah, from the perspective of a Framework author, I would generally go with a
_worker.jsThanks! That helps a lot.
AWe @Astro would love to see those functions being seperate workers, but yeah maybe a dream for a future update
HIs this to get around size limits, or just to solidify the limits per file?
AMultiple reasons, size limits, custom config per page/route, separate api endpoints & frontend pages, better analytics, etc.
HI do actually have an idea for how that could work, but it might make Pages more expensive
GI am using pages functions where my frontend react app (made with pages) talks to the server side in the functions. Although, this is working, but it is throwing the following message.
"Your worker created multiple branches of a single stream (for instance, by calling
I am not calling
"Your worker created multiple branches of a single stream (for instance, by calling
response.clone() or request.clone()) but did not read the body of both branches. This is wasteful, as it forces the system to buffer the entire stream of data in memory, rather than streaming it through. This may cause your worker to be unexpectedly terminated for going over the memory limit. If you only meant to copy the request or response headers and metadata (e.g. in order to be able to modify them), use the appropriate constructors instead (for instance, new Response(response.body, response), new Request(request), etc)." I am not calling
response.clone() or request.clone(). Can someone please explain what needs to be done in this case?
GThank you! It worked!
Mgetting this error when trying to establish a logging session for a pages function on a preview deployment
TX-Forwarded-For gets appending when using functions:
I have a simple function attached to my page that runs fetch(). I use the request.headers.get("CF-Connecting-IP") to get the IP of the original requestor and get the 'X-Forwarded-For' header to that IP address. However, when the request goes out, the header is:
X-Forwarded-For: User-Ip, Cloudflare-IP
Where the IP of (I think) CF-Pages gets added to the X-Forwarded. This seems like odd behavior. While technically I believe the path is User -> CF Pages -> CF Function -> fetch-Request It seems this isn't really a double proxy with two Forwards as the CF Pages->CF Function I think should be transparent. In any case, is there a way to get a function in CF-Pages make a fetch with just the user's IP in the X-Forwarded-For header? If I don't manually add that header, CF sets the X-Forwarded-For header to just the Cloudfare-IP.
I have a simple function attached to my page that runs fetch(). I use the request.headers.get("CF-Connecting-IP") to get the IP of the original requestor and get the 'X-Forwarded-For' header to that IP address. However, when the request goes out, the header is:
X-Forwarded-For: User-Ip, Cloudflare-IP
Where the IP of (I think) CF-Pages gets added to the X-Forwarded. This seems like odd behavior. While technically I believe the path is User -> CF Pages -> CF Function -> fetch-Request It seems this isn't really a double proxy with two Forwards as the CF Pages->CF Function I think should be transparent. In any case, is there a way to get a function in CF-Pages make a fetch with just the user's IP in the X-Forwarded-For header? If I don't manually add that header, CF sets the X-Forwarded-For header to just the Cloudfare-IP.
RCreating a simple link shortener with D1 and pages functions. Is there a way to programmatically create a cache rule once a shortened link is created? So subsequent requests to /myfunction/:id will return the cached 301 result instead of having to hit my D1 db and worker?
HYes to number one, don’t have any Functions on the route for number two
IAre routes.json auto-constructed now?
II thought you used to need to use a routes.json
EThey are if you use /functions and have been for a long while (probably as long as theyve been a thing?)
You only need a custom one if youre doing something weird or are using a _worker.js
You only need a custom one if youre doing something weird or are using a _worker.js
PGreetings and salutations. I have a question about moving a Workers project in TypeScript over to Functions using advanced mode (with a _worker.js). I've written my application in the module syntax (as the docs instructed), but when I compile my TypeScript into _worker.js with tsc, in the output directory (which should be /build, as far as I can tell), the Pages project fails to deploy. I've tried using different options for "module" in the tsconfig.json as well, such as "amd" and "system", because "esnext" doesn't let me use the "outFile" option.
My question is: does all the code for a Function need to be compiled into a single _worker.js, or can each TypeScript file be compiled separately, and then the _worker.js will know to import from the other JavaScript files? Or would it be better to just give up on trying to migrate the Worker, and rebuild the application in the /functions folder instead?
My question is: does all the code for a Function need to be compiled into a single _worker.js, or can each TypeScript file be compiled separately, and then the _worker.js will know to import from the other JavaScript files? Or would it be better to just give up on trying to migrate the Worker, and rebuild the application in the /functions folder instead?
HYou can have a
_worker.jswranglerYou don't need to run
tscThank you for answering. So it would be as simple as copying over the /src folder and just adding a _worker.js with some minimal code that somehow exposes the Worker?
I'm not sure where I can find these steps in the docs, but the article about Advanced Mode said to compile all the TypeScript into a _worker.js, so I'm a little confused.
I'm not sure where I can find these steps in the docs, but the article about Advanced Mode said to compile all the TypeScript into a _worker.js, so I'm a little confused.
HThey added support a little while ago for
_worker.js_worker.jsOh, wow. Thank you! Going to give this a try.
P@Isaac McFadyen | YYZ01 basically I just want the worker to check if the user is allowed to be on the site or not
Pif yes, allow them to load into it, if not, don't
Pthe reason I want to do it with workers is because I don't want any site data/load to be sent before the user is verified
IWhat do you mean by sent?
IOh, as in, you want it to immediately block them without serving an HTML page?
Pyes
IYou should use SvelteKit middleware in this case, not _worker.js. SvelteKit already uses a _worker.js so you can't add your own.
ISorry, SvelteKit calls it Hooks not Middleware
IPOh. But I mostly wanted to make it using a worker since I want to use this in other projects as well, guess this will work though
IBasically, check their auth (cookie or header or whatever) and if it's invalid just don't call
resolveWould love to get some insights here: https://canary.discord.com/channels/595317990191398933/1174021841023664288
I'm currently trying to fix
I'm currently trying to fix
_routes.json
DI have question need your help: How to run local for pages project (example run react app and have function in it)
DWhen I deploy by command npm run pages: deploy, it work well,
DBut still not run app in locally
HNo
ZI would be very surprised if it isn't planned. This is an often-requested feature. It seems like there are just other features that are prioritised over it
ZYou can always deploy a worker with a cron trigger or use DO alarms.
HI’m guessing this is a why bother, it will work in convergence situation
DSo, is there a good way to prevent CSRF attacks on pages with forms? I figured that I could have javascript request a form from a worker after the webpage has been loaded, but I'm uncertain that would work.
