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

Revert "RFC3986 compatible URL.join honoring empty segments (#1039)" #1067

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Aug 31, 2024

Conversation

bdraco
Copy link
Member

@bdraco bdraco commented Aug 31, 2024

This reverts commit e3dd736.

This change introduced a regression with parsing the query string in joined urls. #1066 attempted to fix the regression, but it became too involved. Since this doesn't look like there will be a quick fix, the change is being reverted so it can be tried again in the future.

@bdraco bdraco added the bot:chronographer:skip This PR does not need to include a change note label Aug 31, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 31, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 77.77778% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 62.37%. Comparing base (9407fcd) to head (4bbf364).
Report is 347 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
yarl/_url.py 77.77% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1067      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   62.60%   62.37%   -0.24%     
==========================================
  Files          38       38              
  Lines        6721     6626      -95     
  Branches      368      356      -12     
==========================================
- Hits         4208     4133      -75     
+ Misses       2486     2466      -20     
  Partials       27       27              
Flag Coverage Δ
CI-GHA 62.34% <77.77%> (-0.24%) ⬇️
MyPy 25.62% <11.11%> (-0.31%) ⬇️
OS-Linux 99.25% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
OS-Windows 99.58% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
OS-macOS 99.02% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
Py-3.10.11 98.90% <100.00%> (-0.05%) ⬇️
Py-3.10.14 99.10% <100.00%> (-0.05%) ⬇️
Py-3.11.9 99.10% <100.00%> (-0.05%) ⬇️
Py-3.12.5 99.10% <100.00%> (-0.05%) ⬇️
Py-3.13.0-rc.1 99.10% <100.00%> (-0.05%) ⬇️
Py-3.8.10 98.87% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
Py-3.8.18 99.07% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
Py-3.9.13 98.87% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
Py-3.9.19 99.07% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
Py-pypy7.3.11 99.39% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
Py-pypy7.3.16 99.42% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️
VM-macos-latest 99.02% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
VM-ubuntu-latest 99.25% <100.00%> (-0.02%) ⬇️
VM-windows-latest 99.58% <100.00%> (-0.01%) ⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@bdraco
Copy link
Member Author

bdraco commented Aug 31, 2024

We may need to sort out #301 first before we can re-try #1039 .. but the problem may be limited to + only....

@bdraco bdraco merged commit e175d74 into master Aug 31, 2024
45 of 48 checks passed
@bdraco bdraco deleted the revert_1039 branch August 31, 2024 04:26
bdraco added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 31, 2024
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
Reverted RFC3986 compatible URL.join honoring empty segments which was introduced in :issue:`1039`.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@bdraco FYI, Sphinx has a dedicated role :rfc: which should be used to link RFCs. The rendered style would also be more consistent.

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 did discover that, and I changed it before I published it in the release step. At least I hope I did as my burnout level was pretty high at that point

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bot:chronographer:skip This PR does not need to include a change note
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants