I'm trying to encode text of biography for Instagram change biography on profile and it doesnt accept my biography.
I used:
let bio = "111X#%(!#)!$(*!Gram)"
let biography = encodeURIComponent(bio)
and it failing. Need help please
Java equivalent to JavaScript's encodeURIComponent that produces identical output?
I need this but for NodeJS, so it generate same encoding as Java one.
There are some distinctions between Java's URI encoding and the JS encodeURIComponent functions. Spaces will translate to + in Java but they will translate to %20 in Javascript. The JS function uses UTF-8 by default, but Java could be using a different format for encoding (depending on your code editor). Take a look at this stack overflow post for more information: https://stackoverflow.com/a/25298843/9571755
Hope that helps and happy coding :)
Related
I am using the GitHub API to download a file from GitHub. I have been able to successfully authenticate as well as get a response from github, and see a base64 encoded string representing the file contents.
Unfortunately, I get an unusual error (string length is not a multiple of 4) when decoding the base64 string.
The HTTP request is illustrated below:
GET /repos/:owner/:repo/contents/:path
The (partial) response is illustrated below:
{
"name":....,
"download_url":...",
"type":"file",
"content":"ewogICAgInN3YWdnZXIiOiAiM...
}
The issue I am encountering is that the length of the string is 15263 bytes, and I get an error in decoding the string (string length is not a multiple of 4). I am using node.js and the 'base64-js' npm module to decode the string. Code to execute the decoding is illustrated below:
var base64 = require('base64-js');
var contents = base64.toByteArray(fileContent);
The decoding causes an exception:
Error: Invalid string. Length must be a multiple of 4
at placeHoldersCount (.../node_modules/base64-js/index.js:23:11)
at Object.toByteArray (...node_modules/base64-js/index.js:42:18)
:
:
I would think that the GitHub API is sending me the correct data, so I figure that is not the issue.
Am I performing the decoding improperly or is there another problem I am overlooking?
Any help is appreciated.
I experimented a bit and found a solution by using a different base64 decoding library as follows:
var base64 = require('js-base64').Base64;
var contents = base64.decode(res.content);
I am not sure if it is mandatory to have an encoded string length divisible by 4 (clearly my 15263 character length string is not divisible by 4) but the alternate library decoded the string properly.
A second solution which I also found to work is specific to how to use the GitHub API. By adding the following to the GitHub API call header, I was also able to get the decoded file contents:
'accept': 'application/vnd.github.VERSION.raw'
After much experimenting, I think I nailed down the difference between the working and broken base64 decoding.
It appears GitHub Base-64 encodes with:
UTF-8 charset
Base 64 MIME encoder (RFC2045)
As opposed to a "basic" (RFC4648) Base64 encoder. Several languages seem to default to the basic encoder (including Java, which I was using). When I switched to a MIME encoder, I got the full contents of the file un-garbled. This would explain why switching libraries in some cases fixed the issue.
I will note the contents field contained newline characters - decoders are supposed to ignore them, but not all do, so if you still get errors, you may need to try removing them.
The media-type header will do the job better, however in my case I am trying to use the API via a GitHub App - at time of writing, GitHub requires a specific media type be used when doing that, and it returns the JSON response.
For some reason the Github APIs base64 encoded content doesn't decode properly at all the online base64 decoders I've tried from the front page of google.
Python works however:
import base64
base64.b64decode("ewogICAgInN3YWdnZXIiOiAiM...")
Hi Im fairly new to base64 code and could do with some info/help etc. I have recently used it while converting my photos into code as part of an experiment regarding my sculptures, I converted a photo into 152 pages of base 64 using an online converter, just to get started. I was wondering how I can reverse this, and also if I edited out some code would the image change or would it not convert at all!? Like I said I am interested in using this to help my experiments. thanks for any info .
Base64 decode functions will decode it. If you remove some of the base64 code it may not translate back into a valid image or translate into valid base64 code at all depending on how much you remove. Depending on how the image was originally compressed, it MAY give you something, but the results will be incredibly unpredictable... So you'll never know what the result of the change will be on the final product. Part of the base64 standard involves a padded width (which is why some strings end in up to 2 = signs).
Within Node.js, I am using querystring.stringify() to encode an object into a query string for usage in a URL. Values that have spaces are encoded as %20.
I'm working with a particularly finicky web service that will only accept spaces encoded as +, as used to be commonly done prior to RFC3986.
Is there a way to set an option for querystring so that it encodes spaces as +?
Currently I am simply doing a .replace() to replace all instances of %20 with +, but this is a bit tedious if there is an option I can set ahead of time.
If anyone still facing this issue, "qs" npm package has feature to encode spaces as +
qs.stringify({ a: 'b c' }, { format : 'RFC1738' })
I can't think of any library doing that by default, and unfortunately, I'd say your implementation may be the more efficient way to do this, since any other option would probably either do what you're already doing, or will use slower non-compiled pure JavaScript code.
What about asking the web service provider to follow the RFC?
https://github.com/kvz/phpjs is a node.js package that provides all the php functions. The http_build_query implementation at the time of writing this only supports urlencode (the query string includes + instead of spaces), but hopefully soon will include the enc_type parameter / rawurlencode (%20's for spaces).
See http://php.net/http_build_query.
RFC1738 (+'s) will be the default enc_type either way, so you can use it immediately for your purposes.
I am looking for a url encoding method that is most efficient in terms of space. Raw binary (base2) could be represented in base16 which is smaller and is url safe, but base64 is even more efficient. However, the usual base64 encoding isn't url safe....
So what is the smallest encoding method that is also safe for URLS?
This is what the Base64 URL encoding variant is for.
It uses the same standard Base64 Alphabet except that + is changed to - and / is changed to _.
Most modern Base64 implementations will support this alternate encoding. If yours doesn't, it's usually just a matter of doing a search/replace on the Base64 input prior to decoding, or on the output prior to sending it to a browser.
You can use a 62 character representation instead of the usual base 64. This will give you URLs like the youtube ones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JD55e5h5JM
You can use the PHP functions provided in this page if you need to map strings to a database numerical ID:
http://bsd-noobz.com/blog/how-to-create-url-shortening-service-using-simple-php
Or this one if you need to directly convert a numerical ID to a short URL string:
http://kevin.vanzonneveld.net/techblog/article/create_short_ids_with_php_like_youtube_or_tinyurl/
"base66" (theoretical, according to spec)
As far as I can tell, the optimal encoding for URLs is a "base66" encoding into the following alphabet:
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
0123456789-_.~
These are all the "Unreserved characters" according the URI specification RFC 3986 (section 2.3), so they will appear as-is in the URL. Using this "base66" encoding could give a URL like:
https://example.org/articles/.3Ja~jkWe
The question is then if you want . and ~ in your URLs?
On some older servers (ancient by now, I guess) ~joe would mean the "www directory" of the user joe on this server. And thus a user might be confused as to what the ~ character is doing in the middle of your URL.
This is common for academic websites, especially CS professors (e.g. Donald Knuth's website https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/)
"base80" (in practice, but not battle-tested)
However, in my own testing the following 14 other symbols also do not get
percent-encoded (in Chrome 95 and Firefox 93):
!$'()*+,:;=#[]
(see also this StackOverflow answer)
leaving a "base80" URL encoding possible. Some of these (notably + and =) would not work in the query string part of the URL, only in the path part. All in all, this ends up giving you beautiful, hyper-compressed URLs like:
https://example.org/articles/1OWG,HmpkySCbBy#RG6_,
https://example.org/articles/21Cq-b6Ud)txMEW$,hc4K
https://example.org/articles/:3Tx**U9X'd;tl~rR]q+
There's a plethora of reasons why you might not want all of those symbols in your URLs. One example is that StackOverflow's own "linkifier" won't include that ending comma in the link it generates (I've manually made it a part of the link here).
Also the percent encoding seems to be quite finicky. In some cases Firefox would initially percent-encode ' and ~] but on later requests would not.
I need to convert a string to JSON (in javascript). I have a plain string with correctly formatted JSON in it, like this:
var convert = '{"name":nick,"age":19}';
I need to convert it to just the json (e.g., minus the '' quotes). I have done some testing and found this to be the reason I'm having problems. There must be a way to convert it on the fly, right?
Help very much appreciated,
Nick
You need to use a JSON library; nearly all modern browsers have a native one available to them, however, to ensure compatibility with IE7 and below you will need to pull in Douglas Crockford's JSON2 library.
Once you have a JSON library, just issue:
var result = JSON.parse('{"name":nick,"age":19}');
JSON.parse(convert)
Crockford's json2.js will give you JSON.parse for browsers that don't already have it (modern browsers have it natively).