You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Can't handle URLs with @ character in userinfo section #328
So, something I think we may want to re-review prior to 1.0 is which internal URL parsing implementation is really our best option. This issue (and perhaps also #858, although maybe that's exclusively an issue on our side?) currently means that we're a little less robust on URL parsing than the wonderfully battle hardened urllib3, which is something we ought to resolve.
Making a change here wouldn't have any affect on our public API. That's tied down and looks that way we want. But this could potentially change which dependancies we choose to ship with.
Some options here are...
Stick with rfc3986. Because we're doing just fine really. Let's just make sure we're contributing our time to helping getting this issue resolved.
Consider irl.
Switch to the urllib3 implementation, possibly by vendoring just the URL parsing into a (properly licensed and credited) slimline stand-alone package that just implements plain functions for url_parse and url_join, that only deal with super plain named-tuple-like arguments.
Of those three options, the last seems like it'd be the most robust approach, since urllib3 have been doing this for years. Having said that, I don't really have enough context about which of these three options the urllib3 team themselves would consider to be most suitable.
No doubt @sigmavirus24 and @sethmlarson both have far more insight into this, tho I don't want to push for anyone's time here.
Activity
cansarigol commentedon Sep 9, 2019
Hi @sethmlarson I've pushed a PR about this topic. Could your review it?
lovelydinosaur commentedon Jul 27, 2020
So, something I think we may want to re-review prior to 1.0 is which internal URL parsing implementation is really our best option. This issue (and perhaps also #858, although maybe that's exclusively an issue on our side?) currently means that we're a little less robust on URL parsing than the wonderfully battle hardened
urllib3, which is something we ought to resolve.Making a change here wouldn't have any affect on our public API. That's tied down and looks that way we want. But this could potentially change which dependancies we choose to ship with.
Some options here are...
rfc3986. Because we're doing just fine really. Let's just make sure we're contributing our time to helping getting this issue resolved.irl.urllib3implementation, possibly by vendoring just the URL parsing into a (properly licensed and credited) slimline stand-alone package that just implements plain functions forurl_parseandurl_join, that only deal with super plain named-tuple-like arguments.Of those three options, the last seems like it'd be the most robust approach, since
urllib3have been doing this for years. Having said that, I don't really have enough context about which of these three options theurllib3team themselves would consider to be most suitable.No doubt @sigmavirus24 and @sethmlarson both have far more insight into this, tho I don't want to push for anyone's time here.