-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.2k
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
Test new URLSearchParams constructor features #4523
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -18,15 +18,25 @@ | |
}, 'Basic URLSearchParams construction'); | ||
|
||
test(function() { | ||
assert_throws(new TypeError(), function () { URLSearchParams(); }, | ||
'Calling \'URLSearchParams\' without \'new\' should throw.'); | ||
assert_throws(new TypeError(), function () { new URLSearchParams(DOMException.prototype); }); | ||
var params = new URLSearchParams(''); | ||
var params = new URLSearchParams() | ||
assert_equals(params.toString(), "") | ||
}, "URLSearchParams constructor, no arguments") | ||
|
||
test(() => { | ||
params = new URLSearchParams(DOMException.prototype); | ||
assert_equals(params.toString(), "Error=") | ||
}, "URLSearchParams constructor, DOMException.prototype as argument") | ||
|
||
test(() => { | ||
params = new URLSearchParams(''); | ||
assert_true(params != null, 'constructor returned non-null value.'); | ||
assert_equals(params.__proto__, URLSearchParams.prototype, 'expected URLSearchParams.prototype as prototype.'); | ||
}, "URLSearchParams constructor, empty string as argument") | ||
|
||
test(() => { | ||
params = new URLSearchParams({}); | ||
assert_equals(params + '', '%5Bobject+Object%5D='); | ||
}, 'URLSearchParams constructor, empty.'); | ||
assert_equals(params + '', ""); | ||
}, 'URLSearchParams constructor, {} as argument'); | ||
|
||
test(function() { | ||
var params = new URLSearchParams('a=b'); | ||
|
@@ -124,6 +134,30 @@ | |
params = new URLSearchParams('a%f0%9f%92%a9b=c'); | ||
assert_equals(params.get('a\uD83D\uDCA9b'), 'c'); | ||
}, 'Parse %f0%9f%92%a9'); // Unicode Character 'PILE OF POO' (U+1F4A9) | ||
|
||
;[ | ||
{ "input": {"+": "%C2"}, "output": [[" ", "\uFFFD"]], "name": "object with +" }, | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @annevk, I'm in the process of implementing the URL spec change in Node.js. Where does it say in the URL Standard that keys and values of a record must be unescaped? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. That's a good question, it doesn't and I'm not sure it should. I filed whatwg/url#220. |
||
{ "input": {c: "x", a: "?"}, "output": [["c", "x"], ["a", "?"]], "name": "object with two keys" }, | ||
{ "input": [["c", "x"], ["a", "?"]], "output": [["c", "x"], ["a", "?"]], "name": "array with two keys" } | ||
].forEach((val) => { | ||
test(() => { | ||
let params = new URLSearchParams(val.input), | ||
i = 0 | ||
for (let param of params) { | ||
assert_array_equals(param, val.output[i]) | ||
i++ | ||
} | ||
}, "Construct with " + val.name) | ||
}) | ||
|
||
test(() => { | ||
params = new URLSearchParams() | ||
params[Symbol.iterator] = function *() { | ||
yield ["a", "b"] | ||
} | ||
let params2 = new URLSearchParams(params) | ||
assert_equals(params2.get("a"), "b") | ||
}, "Custom [Symbol.iterator]") | ||
</script> | ||
</head> | ||
</html> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you clarify why this is the expected result here. My interpretation of the Web IDL spec [1] is that we should go to step 11.1 and treat the input as a sequence (not a String).
[1] https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#es-union
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes but method is undefined so it then continues on with the rest of the steps.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How about 11.4 ? We do have a record in there.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah you're right. I think this is indeed incorrect.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
#4581 has the fix. I also commented on the WebKit bug.