Allow square braces in URL validation

[BolajiOlajide]

What does this PR do

Allow square braces in URL validation

Description of Task to be completed

Update regex to accept square braces

How should this be manually tested

const Joi = require('./');

const schema = Joi.object().keys({
    url: Joi.string().uri()
});

const resOne = Joi.validate({url: 'https://example.com?abc[]=123&abc[]=456'}, schema);

the snippet above wouldn't result in error because it's a valid URL with query.

Any background context you want to add

Fixes Issue: 1461

Screenshots

[WesTyler]

Can you please add a test or two? Just to show the previous failing URI and that it is now passing. :)

[BolajiOlajide]

Done @WesTyler

[Marsup]

I don't think you can do it this way. Brackets need to go last and by pair, this PR is allowing any number of brackets anywhere, this looks invalid to me.

[BolajiOlajide]

I'll correct the PR to ensure the brackets come in pairs but isn't the point of the PR to also allow any number of paired brackets.

For example: https://example.com?abc[]=123&abc[]=456 contains two paired brackets.

[Marsup]

The point is to validate an URL is valid. Those brackets are clearly invalid regarding RFC3986, but since then we have the whatwg one (https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#query-state), and I'm not sure for example https://example.com?a]b[[[c]=123&]]]a[[b[c]]=456 should be considered valid, still reading and trying to make sense of it.

[elliotblackburn]

From what I can see of the RFC's it is clearly invalid state given by the URL producer, but it also says it should still be transformed and understood. As there is nothing about this particular case (as it's invalid), I feel like the best course of action would be to stay as strict as possible and later on become more lenient as/if required.

That's of course an opinion as this isn't something really by the specs (for obvious reasons).

Really appreciate that someone picked this up before I had a chance, thanks for the work being done to write and review it!

[Marsup]

I'm going to allow it as an option defaulting to false. This kind of URI is very common nowadays, but I still want to adhere to RFC3986 by default.

[lock]

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.