Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update isemail from 2.x.x to 3.x.x #1229

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 24, 2017
Merged

Conversation

WesTyler
Copy link
Contributor

isemail v3.0.0 has been released, adding support for unicode emails and removing DNS lookups entirely.

@@ -561,7 +551,8 @@ describe('string', () => {
Helper.validate(schema, [
['joe@example.com', true],
['joe@www.example.com', true],
['joe@localhost', false, null, '"value" must be a valid email'],
['joe@localhost', true],
['joe@', false, null, '"value" must be a valid email'],
Copy link
Contributor

@DavidTPate DavidTPate Jun 22, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should we add a test here for a unicode address? êjness@something.com for example. We don't want to ensure the operation of isemail but I think it would be good to make sure we continue to support unicode going forward and throughout the Joi part of the code base.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure :)

@@ -414,16 +414,6 @@ describe('string', () => {
done();
});

it('throws when checkDNS option is enabled', (done) => {
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No harm in keeping this test.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Alright

@@ -561,7 +551,8 @@ describe('string', () => {
Helper.validate(schema, [
['joe@example.com', true],
['joe@www.example.com', true],
['joe@localhost', false, null, '"value" must be a valid email'],
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this an expected breaking change ? /cc @skeggse

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe so, extrapolating from the resolution of skeggse/isemail#154

Copy link

@skeggse skeggse Jun 23, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Assuming that test used to specify that joe@localhost was not a valid email, yes, this is an expected change. I'd actually like to see the same test, but true.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Makes me wonder if this should be a breaking change for joi or if it's considered a bugfix from your pov.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@WesTyler WesTyler Jun 23, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd actually like to see the same test, but true

I'm not sure why the Github UI is showing that line just taken out. I didn't remove it, I did just change the assertion to true :)

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It seems like a bugfix to me - users who do not desire this behavior can add localhost to their tldBlacklist.

@Marsup Marsup self-assigned this Jun 24, 2017
@Marsup Marsup added this to the 10.7.0 milestone Jun 24, 2017
@Marsup Marsup merged commit 1b3de5c into hapijs:master Jun 24, 2017
@Marsup Marsup added the breaking changes Change that can breaking existing code label Jun 30, 2017
@Marsup Marsup modified the milestones: 11.0.0, 10.7.0 Jun 30, 2017
@lock
Copy link

lock bot commented Jan 9, 2020

This thread has been automatically locked due to inactivity. Please open a new issue for related bugs or questions following the new issue template instructions.

@lock lock bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Jan 9, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
breaking changes Change that can breaking existing code dependency Update module dependency
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants