-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 113
simplify process methods in url pattern #999
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
293cc51
to
911abb3
Compare
d8610d8
to
2a4a265
Compare
} | ||
return std::string(value); | ||
} | ||
// Return the result of running canonicalize a protocol given strippedValue. |
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.
Maybe we could add as a comment that canonicalize_protocol
will already remove the trailing :
if any ? (optional)
// Return the result of running canonicalize a search given strippedValue. | ||
return url_pattern_helpers::canonicalize_search(value); | ||
} | ||
|
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.
If type != process_type::pattern
, then you are no longer removing an eventual ?
. But I don't see canonicalize_search
doing the check. So it looks like you might have made a change in the logic?
} | ||
return std::string(value); | ||
} | ||
// Return the result of running canonicalize a hash given strippedValue. |
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.
I have the same question here... you might now pass a leading #
to canonicalize_hash
whereas you use not to. Why is this ok?
It seems we don't need to remove the first character in happy path.