Panics when a link doesn't have a base
pwnwriter opened this issue · 10 comments
When i parse a url without defining the protocol http(s). it panics.
Hello, I would like to try to fix this bug. What behavior are you expecting?
When a url doesn't have a base (the protocol) , http(s). It panics. I'm looking for some sort of implementation which adds the protocol if the url doesn't have already.
For example:
A url https://foo.com is working as expected but without the base only foo.com panics.
I understand you, I will try to do something about it.
For sure <3
I currently have these two ways to handle this situation,
- Writing a new function or any other implementation that takes a url if that url doesn't have a base then add it and return the url.
#[tokio::main]
async fn main() -> anyhow::Result<(), Box<dyn std::error::Error>> {
let url = "hackerone.com".to_string();
let url_with_base = add_protocol(url.clone());
let code = reqwest::get(&url_with_base).await?.status();
println!("{:#?}", code);
Ok(())
}
fn add_protocol(mut url: String) -> String {
if !url.starts_with("http://") && !url.starts_with("https://") {
url = format!("https://{}", url);
}
url
}- When a url doesn't have a base then just print error and exit the app.
Not sure which would be helpful in this case. Do you have any comment on this? @ndfz
I think the most straightforward way to do this would be to return an error. But your idea of substitution also has its merit, so what have we concluded? Your wishes? (─‿‿─)
I'm considering the addition of a new option or flag, such as --checks. By default, it won't check the base, but if an end user parses an option like --checks, then the url should undergo verification before initiating a web request.?
A new flag for this, in my opinion, seems unnecessary. I think it will only make it more complex. Instead, it's better to just check it directly or add a flag to specify the base. But then again, we are mostly considering an exception. By exception, I mean that in most cases, the base is already specified. That's what I think.
Then the second option would be good to go. Just returning an errorcase with some nice suggestions :P
Good, agreed 😄