fix: Prevent improper parsing on 'Uri.UserInfo' with exception

[OnedgeLee]

Changes

• Replace improper handling on invalid url with throwing exception

Related issue

• Resolves Account for multiple :s in Uri for IceServer #2058

[OnedgeLee]

First CI Test on ci/circleci: linux-netcore-test-fr-FR was failed, so I've reran the test, and it was terminated without failure.
I couldn't figure out the reason why the first test was failed, but in my opinion, it's not related with this PR.

[OnedgeLee]

Do I have to update CHANGES.md?

[OnedgeLee]

I'll try to track test failure case, and raise an issue if it's needed

[greymistcube]

libplanet/Libplanet.Net/IceServer.cs

Line 19 in 6146ed4

// FIXME: This doesn't account for multiple colons.

This comment should be removed. 😗

[greymistcube]

Do I have to update CHANGES.md?

Should be added under Bug fixes.

[OnedgeLee]

@greymistcube

1. Use single variable bool colonFound to check multiple colons and split username and credential
2. Add changelog to specify where in the API has "changed" 😄

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 25 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Extra Small
Size       : +17 -8
Percentile : 10%

Total files changed: 3

Change summary by file extension:
.md : +3 -0
.cs : +14 -8

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

• Fast and predictable releases to production:
  • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
    iterations.
  • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
• Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
  • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
  • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detetcted.
• Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
  • Small portions can be assimilated better.
• Better engineering practices are exercised:
  • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
  • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

• Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
  • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
  • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
• Change your engineering behaviors
  • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
    • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
    • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

• One line was added: +1 -0
• One line was deleted: +0 -1
• One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
  interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
• Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
  of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

---

Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.

[OnedgeLee]

Rebased onto main branch