-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
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 for https://github.com/fyne-io/fyne/issues/5207 #5215
Open
brucealthompson
wants to merge
3
commits into
fyne-io:release/v2.5.x
Choose a base branch
from
brucealthompson:release/v2.5.x
base: release/v2.5.x
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This assumes that a URI (not URL!) is a scheme followed by a path. This is only true for file URIs. Most contain a host and/or port portion as well.
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.
This variable is actually for a URI, not a URL. I will rename it and check to see if there are other components of the fyne URI with variable name "dir" that need to be included in this constructed URI.
I will create a separate branch for this fix based on your dev branch and resubmit. Give me a little time as I am working on something else right now.
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.
But why do you pursue the URI re-construction instead of looking into
storage.Child
? The parsing has all been done already and string manipulation is inherently less safe.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.
I did not write the code you are referring to. I was trying to do the simplest thing possible without rewriting a bunch of existing code.
Not sure why the original author did not choose to use storage.Child(). Was it not evailable when this was originally written?
In any case, I can check into that solution as well.
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.
I appreciate that, but sometimes when the existing code contains the bug we need to fix that directly instead of following the old pattern and working around it to minimise the change.
Well, when this only worked with file:// the assumptions held - because it does not (or did not) have any other URI elements like host or port. Those assumptions no longer hold.
Thanks for looking into it.