Re: [go-nuts] is url->String->Parse != url a bug?

2022-03-04 Thread Jochen Voss
Hi Axel, You write "in general, there are multiple valid escaped forms of any URL". This would still allow for all escaped forms to result in the same URL object when parsed. What I hoped for is a way to go URL->string->URL and get back the same result. I understand that this is how is

Re: [go-nuts] is url->String->Parse != url a bug?

2022-03-04 Thread 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts
On Fri, Mar 4, 2022 at 2:12 PM Jochen Voss wrote: > If I convert an url.URL to a string and then parse the result, am I meant > to get back the original url? > I don't think so. String() returns an escaped URL and in general, there are multiple valid escaped forms of any URL. So, by necessity,

[go-nuts] Re: is url->String->Parse != url a bug?

2022-03-04 Thread Sean Liao
Expected, the percent encoded version produced by String() is semantically equivalent and safer than the raw space version, and also doesn't require storing the raw version. On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 1:10:22 PM UTC joche...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello, > > If I convert an url.URL to a string

[go-nuts] is url->String->Parse != url a bug?

2022-03-04 Thread Jochen Voss
Hello, If I convert an url.URL to a string and then parse the result, am I meant to get back the original url? While playing with the new fuzzer I found that in practise this is not the case, but I'm not sure whether this is due to bugs, or whether this is expected. The affected URLs are of

Re: [go-nuts] Improving on unit test styles

2022-03-04 Thread 'Dan Kortschak' via golang-nuts
On Thu, 2022-03-03 at 05:50 -0800, twp...@gmail.com wrote: > For debugging an individual test case, just skip over all but the > failing test case: > > for i, testCase := range testCases { > if i != 5 { // 5 is the index of the failing test, remove if > statement before committing >