Simple fix for error in IE when parsing AWS response #486
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Thanks for your contribution. Will review and merge this soon. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
IE is buggy when using
innerHTMLto access a node element's content, resulting inundefined. Furthermorechildrendoes not work consistently as well, again returningundefined. This two IE bugs cause uploads to fail when using AWS S3 Upload as the response from AWS cannot be parsed correctly.The workaround replaces all affected occurrences of
children[0]byfirstChild.firstChildinnerHTMLbytextContent(which is also more appropriate as we do not want to parse HTML and is thereby faster)Those two functions are very well supported across all browsers as
firstChildis part of the ancient DOM-Level 1 specification andtextContentis supported since IE9.This fixes #325 and probably makes PR #462 and #332 unnecessary.