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

url: allow use of URL with http.request and https.request #10638

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

jasnell
Copy link
Member

@jasnell jasnell commented Jan 5, 2017

Allow the new URL object to be used with http.request() and https.request()

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • tests and/or benchmarks are included
  • commit message follows commit guidelines
Affected core subsystem(s)

http, https

@jasnell jasnell added the semver-minor PRs that contain new features and should be released in the next minor version. label Jan 5, 2017
@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added http Issues or PRs related to the http subsystem. https Issues or PRs related to the https subsystem. dont-land-on-v7.x labels Jan 5, 2017
@jasnell jasnell added dont-land-on-v4.x whatwg-url Issues and PRs related to the WHATWG URL implementation. and removed dont-land-on-v7.x labels Jan 5, 2017
pathname: options.pathname,
path: `${options.pathname}${options.search}`,
href: options.href
};
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I’m not sure how I feel about the code duplication here… could we make this a generic helper, possibly even hanging off the public url module (if that makes transitioning url.parse → url.URL easier)?

I would suggest adding it as the toJSON method for URL but I have looked at whatwg/url#137 and I’m not sure what to make of that other than that my idea would probably be silly/unrealistic/… :P

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Also – could this blocked be just executed independently of options instanceof url.URL? It would mean using path: options.path || …, but other than that, it should just work, no?

(If you feel unsure about these ideas, I can PR them myself later. If you feel they are horrible, say so and I won’t. ;))

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I can eliminate the duplication but having the instanceof and copying into a separate options is the most reliable and requires the fewest number of changes throughout the code.

Copy link
Member

@joyeecheung joyeecheung Jan 6, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Those properties are enumerable (required by the spec) so a for-in loop with some ifs would do I think?

EDIT: util._extend doesn't apply because it only copies properties that are both enumerable and is own property. A helper function can loose the "isOwnProperty" bit but maybe not worth an additional abstraction anyway?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'd rather avoid doing the for-in loop in favor of keeping things more explicit and obvious. Also, as you point out, the auth vs username+password would demonstrates that the properties do not match up one-to-one.

} else if (options instanceof url.URL) {
options = {
protocol: options.protocol,
host: options.host,
Copy link
Member

@joyeecheung joyeecheung Jan 6, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe a auth: `${options.username}:${options.password}` here(and in http.js too)?

EDIT: don't know why this comment appeared in another line, deleted that.

@@ -24,6 +24,18 @@ function ClientRequest(options, cb) {
if (!options.hostname) {
throw new Error('Unable to determine the domain name');
}
} else if (options instanceof url.URL) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

If I understand correctly this makes using the new URL api and using additional options(like agent) mutual exclusive?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

True, but that's already the case if you pass the URL as a string or the result of url.parse. We can think later about a way to pass a URL object along with additional options but I don't think it should block this PR.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah I should have make this one a comment, not a change request :/ Sorry.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No worries!

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, making those mutually exclusive is intentional. Attaching additional non-standard properties to the URL object is not something that we should promote. And as @targos points out, that is already the case when passing the URL as a string.

@jasnell
Copy link
Member Author

jasnell commented Jan 6, 2017

@addaleax @joyeecheung ... updated! PTAL

'use strict';

require('../common');

const URL = require('url').URL;
const assert = require('assert');
const urlToOptions = require('internal/url').urlToOptions;
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe this one deserves a separate test? The name of this test doesn't really match this API here.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not convinced that it matters too much either way, but there's no harm in separating it out.

@joyeecheung
Copy link
Member

LGTM. The tests could be split in another PR anyway.

@joyeecheung
Copy link
Member

@jasnell jasnell dismissed joyeecheung’s stale review January 9, 2017 17:27

review was updated to a LGTM

jasnell added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 9, 2017
PR-URL: #10638
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michal Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <[email protected]>
@jasnell
Copy link
Member Author

jasnell commented Jan 9, 2017

Landed in 0f62ee6

@jasnell jasnell closed this Jan 9, 2017
italoacasas pushed a commit to italoacasas/node that referenced this pull request Jan 18, 2017
PR-URL: nodejs#10638
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michal Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <[email protected]>
italoacasas pushed a commit to italoacasas/node that referenced this pull request Jan 23, 2017
PR-URL: nodejs#10638
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michal Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <[email protected]>
targos pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 28, 2017
PR-URL: #10638
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michal Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <[email protected]>
@italoacasas italoacasas mentioned this pull request Jan 29, 2017
italoacasas pushed a commit to italoacasas/node that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2017
PR-URL: nodejs#10638
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michal Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <[email protected]>
italoacasas pushed a commit to italoacasas/node that referenced this pull request Jan 30, 2017
PR-URL: nodejs#10638
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Evan Lucas <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Michal Zasso <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Joyee Cheung <[email protected]>
evanlucas added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 31, 2017
Notable changes:

* crypto:
  * ability to select cert store at runtime (Adam Majer) #8334
  * Use system CAs instead of using bundled ones (Adam Majer) #8334
* deps:
  * upgrade npm to 4.1.2 (Kat Marchán) #11020
  * upgrade openssl sources to 1.0.2k (Shigeki Ohtsu) #11021
* doc: add basic documentation for WHATWG URL API (James M Snell) #10620
* process: add NODE_NO_WARNINGS environment variable (cjihrig) #10842
* url: allow use of URL with http.request and https.request (James M Snell) #10638

PR-URL: #11062
evanlucas added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 1, 2017
Notable changes:

* crypto:
  * ability to select cert store at runtime (Adam Majer) #8334
  * Use system CAs instead of using bundled ones (Adam Majer) #8334
* deps:
  * upgrade npm to 4.1.2 (Kat Marchán) #11020
  * upgrade openssl sources to 1.0.2k (Shigeki Ohtsu) #11021
* doc: add basic documentation for WHATWG URL API (James M Snell) #10620
* process: add NODE_NO_WARNINGS environment variable (cjihrig) #10842
* url: allow use of URL with http.request and https.request (James M Snell) #10638

PR-URL: #11062
options.port = Number(url.port);
}
if (url.username || url.password) {
options.auth = `${url.username}:${url.password}`;

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This doesn't support new URL("http://0:0@hostname/")

tniessen added a commit to tniessen/node that referenced this pull request Jun 2, 2017
tniessen added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 4, 2017
jasnell pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 5, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
http Issues or PRs related to the http subsystem. https Issues or PRs related to the https subsystem. semver-minor PRs that contain new features and should be released in the next minor version. whatwg-url Issues and PRs related to the WHATWG URL implementation.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants