Fix to URL.with_port() input filtering #793
Merged
Conversation
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
…d corresponding test file as well.
psf-chronographer
bot
added
the
bot:chronographer:provided
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #793 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 99.46% 99.73% +0.26%
==========================================
Files 4 4
Lines 750 753 +3
Branches 167 210 +43
==========================================
+ Hits 746 751 +5
+ Misses 3 2 -1
+ Partials 1 0 -1
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
1 task
1 task
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
What do these changes do?
These changes fix the improper validation issues with URL.with_port(). Essentially, it restricts ports to be from 0 to 65535 (tcp limit), and fixes the weird handling of the 0 port
Are there changes in behavior for the user?
The URL.with_port() function will now throw errors when Booleans or invalid ports are arguments.
Related issue number
#746
Implementation Inquiry
Currently, this is set up to allow port 0 to function and not throw errors. From what I looked up it seems to be possible to use the 0 port (officially it does "not exist"), though since it's a special case and issue #746 says that the output should throw an error, I'm unsure if I'm handling it correctly.
Checklist
CHANGESfolder<issue_id>.<type>(e.g.588.bugfix)issue_idchange it to the pr id after creating the PR.feature: Signifying a new feature..bugfix: Signifying a bug fix..doc: Signifying a documentation improvement..removal: Signifying a deprecation or removal of public API..misc: A ticket has been closed, but it is not of interest to users.Fix issue with non-ascii contents in doctest text files.