This is really the same as #98 but that issue has been locked. The original rational for not adding the ability to pass configuration parameters to qs was that package was abandoned. That is no longer the case and qs is now actively maintained. As such, I wonder if we might be able to revisit the original request and decision as that ability would be really useful.
Also released is #203 requesting support for custom parsers. That issue is perhaps less important since qs is maintained again?
The reason I'd like to see this, is that if I submit something like l-2[].dp-1 then the parameter in req.body is always l-2 regardless of what follows the []. (I think the same applies with just a .) due to the lack of support being able to set allowDots in qs.
This is really the same as #98 but that issue has been locked. The original rational for not adding the ability to pass configuration parameters to
qswas that package was abandoned. That is no longer the case andqsis now actively maintained. As such, I wonder if we might be able to revisit the original request and decision as that ability would be really useful.Also released is #203 requesting support for custom parsers. That issue is perhaps less important since
qsis maintained again?The reason I'd like to see this, is that if I submit something like
l-2[].dp-1then the parameter inreq.bodyis alwaysl-2regardless of what follows the[].(I think the same applies with just a.) due to the lack of support being able to setallowDotsinqs.