Skip to content
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

Additional percent-encode sets #837

Open
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

cryptoquick
Copy link

@cryptoquick cryptoquick commented May 7, 2023

I've added some additional constants that should be useful for others.

I'd also recommend adding #721.

I've also corrected some docs generation warnings.

Copy link
Collaborator

@lucacasonato lucacasonato left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These sets are duplicated across percent_encoding and url/src/parser.rs now.

Can you de-dupe?

@cryptoquick
Copy link
Author

Good point! Will do.

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jul 12, 2023

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 81.42%. Comparing base (11bb12f) to head (e2ebbf0).
Report is 3 commits behind head on master.

❗ Current head e2ebbf0 differs from pull request most recent head be685e1. Consider uploading reports for the commit be685e1 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #837      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   81.75%   81.42%   -0.33%     
==========================================
  Files          20       20              
  Lines        3551     3516      -35     
==========================================
- Hits         2903     2863      -40     
- Misses        648      653       +5     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@cryptoquick
Copy link
Author

Let me know if there's anything more I need to do in order to help get this in, thanks!

@cyqsimon
Copy link

Bump. Had to do some duplicate work in miniserve in lieu of this.

I see in UPGRADING.md that these sets were previously included but have since been removed, but I could not find a justification. Does someone know why this decision was made?

Regardless, I'm in favour of seeing these sets merged.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants