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
There have been several discussions over the years about how WSGI frameworks apply routing in the case of URL-encoded path components. Here's a comment that links to a few of the discussions:
The issue is that when using routing features, the URL /user/foo/edit appears to be indistinguishable from /user/foo%2Fedit, and in case of routing rules for /user/{username} and /user/{username}/edit, the URL /user/foo%2Fedit will match the second rule and not the first.
URIs that differ in the replacement of a reserved character with its corresponding percent-encoded octet are not equivalent.
But the routing mechanism in popular WSGI frameworks such as Flask and FastAPI are unable to differentiate the mentioned URLs, because the URI's percent-encoding is decoded before the routing happens.
I believe PEP-3333 needs to clarify the correct behaviour.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
hugovk
changed the title
PEP-3333, URL-decoding and routing
PEP 3333: URL-decoding and routing
Aug 16, 2023
There have been several discussions over the years about how WSGI frameworks apply routing in the case of URL-encoded path components. Here's a comment that links to a few of the discussions:
encode/starlette#1828 (comment)
The issue is that when using routing features, the URL
/user/foo/edit
appears to be indistinguishable from/user/foo%2Fedit
, and in case of routing rules for/user/{username}
and/user/{username}/edit
, the URL/user/foo%2Fedit
will match the second rule and not the first.This seems to me to be in conflict with RFC 3986 section 2.4 and RFC 3986 section 2.2. The latter states:
But the routing mechanism in popular WSGI frameworks such as Flask and FastAPI are unable to differentiate the mentioned URLs, because the URI's percent-encoding is decoded before the routing happens.
I believe PEP-3333 needs to clarify the correct behaviour.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: