-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.2k
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
Fix routing for parameters with dots #1109
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1109 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 81.14% 81.22% +0.07%
==========================================
Files 25 25
Lines 1899 1907 +8
==========================================
+ Hits 1541 1549 +8
Misses 250 250
Partials 108 108
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
/cc @Carpetsmoker @ansel1 There are couple of issues report since #1101, I don't want to overload |
Personally I think using dots in variable values never makes sense, as it's near-universally used for file extensions, even more so than Without my previous PR supporting I don't know if this PR really improves things. It seems rather complex (and potentially surprising) to me. what will happen with How do other routers solve this problem? |
If I understand the issue correct, then I think the problem is that people have this:
with a param value of:
I think that is the "real bug" that needs to be fixed; we only want to drop on dots in the param name, so we don't end up with |
My thoughts:
|
I think it's also worth noting that #1101 conflicts with rfc3986 section 2.3
Unless I'm interpreting the spec wrong it seems a |
RFC says nothing about routing, much less how variables in paths are treated. |
Sorry, I guess I did interpret it wrong then. Just thought it might be relevant and worth mentioning. :) Either way, I'm in favor of having the change reverted as well. |
Closing as #1101 is reverted |
See issue #1108