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 truncated basepath #3345
Merged
Merged
Fix truncated basepath #3345
Changes from 4 commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
71f2f46
Fix svelte-kit dev/preview when config.kit.paths.base is set
andrewsoutar d2e4aea
add test of truncated base
Rich-Harris 7ff5b81
changeset
Rich-Harris 0d6ef14
handle edge cases
Rich-Harris 700ad5f
actually i guess this belongs here
Rich-Harris 2980840
decode then check
Rich-Harris 291c4f6
fix newly failing test
Rich-Harris File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ | ||
--- | ||
'@sveltejs/kit': patch | ||
--- | ||
|
||
Handle requests for /basepath |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we need to decode first before checking this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In a couple of other places, it seems to be checked without decoding.
paths.base
doesn't seem to be documented one way or the other (whether it's encoded or decoded); on the other hand, the encoded form isn't canonical, so e.g. even with a "normal"-looking base of/foo
, someone visiting via/%66%6f%6f
might not match, even though it's the "same" URL. (The same issue, I would imagine, applies to the other places where it's checked as well - including probably in adapters - and behavior would vary depending on whether whatever is upstream canonicalizes the URL.) Honestly, not sure how much of a problem that is.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
updated the PR