Author r.david.murray
Recipients Keegan.Carruthers-Smith, benjamin.peterson, jjlee, merwok, ndim, orsenthil, pitrou, r.david.murray, sergiomb2, tlocke
Date 2010-04-17.20:44:50
SpamBayes Score 6.866e-10
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1271537093.15.0.408520449645.issue2987@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
I don't know how deep you want to get into detecting invalid URIs, but with the new patch this one causes a parsing error that is probably worth dealing with:

  http://abc[xyz]jkl

Maybe a reasonable set of checks would be (in hostname) that if the part of the netloc after the @ contains a ']' or a '[', then it must start with a [ and either end with a ] or contain a ']:'.

I can also mess up your new checks with something like this:

  http://foo[bar@baz]

or even:

  http://foo[bar@baz:33]

although those don't fail, they just faithfully produce the nonsensical results implicit in the invalid urls.  I think the above check logic in hostname would catch them, but it wouldn't catch this one:

  http://foo[bar@[bar]:33]

That may be OK, though, since as you noted earlier we aren't doing full URI validation.

Oh, and I notice that your test only covers the 'fast' path code, it doesn't exercise the general URI logic.

(Sorry I didn't review this issue earlier.)
History
Date User Action Args
2010-04-17 20:44:53r.david.murraysetrecipients: + r.david.murray, jjlee, orsenthil, pitrou, benjamin.peterson, ndim, merwok, sergiomb2, tlocke, Keegan.Carruthers-Smith
2010-04-17 20:44:53r.david.murraysetmessageid: <1271537093.15.0.408520449645.issue2987@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2010-04-17 20:44:51r.david.murraylinkissue2987 messages
2010-04-17 20:44:50r.david.murraycreate