Decode form query keys consistently with values - #607
Open
OskarEichler wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
Decode form-style '+' consistently in query keys and values, while leaving encoded %2B as a literal plus. Use normalized scheme comparison so HTTP/HTTPS casing does not change decoding. Other schemes retain literal plus behavior.
Reproduction
Verification
Compatibility and limitations
Behavior correction: unescaped '+' in HTTP(S)/relative query keys now means a space, consistent with values. Use %2B for a literal plus. Uppercase HTTP(S) now follows the same rule; mailto and FTP remain unchanged.
No dependency/version/data updates. No repository tests were added or changed: the commissioning repository explicitly prohibits new/modified tests, so reproduction checks run outside this repository. Other Ruby versions/platforms were not run locally; upstream CI may require maintainer approval. The existing normalization proposal #589 and IDNA2008 proposal #496 are separate and unchanged.