-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 35
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
Support array query params #234
Conversation
`URI.decode_www_form` doesn’t support arrays but `Rack::Utils.parse_query` does
Thanks! Taking a look tomorrow |
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.
Thanks a bunch @jbennett!
I think we should depend on the Rack::Utils.parse_nested_query
+ Rack::Utils.build_nested_query
combo. Left some comments to that extent. Let me know what you think!
lib/hotwire_combobox/helper.rb
Outdated
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ def hw_first_page? | |||
|
|||
def hw_uri_with_params(url_or_path, **params) | |||
URI.parse(url_or_path).tap do |url_or_path| | |||
query = URI.decode_www_form(url_or_path.query || "").to_h.merge(params.compact_blank.stringify_keys) | |||
query = Rack::Utils.parse_query(url_or_path.query || "").merge(params.compact_blank.stringify_keys) |
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 didn't know Rack exposed this util. Nice!
Glancing at Rack's source code, it seems we should use parse_nested_query
instead. Any reason to prefer parse_query
over that?
Also, I noticed Rack exposes build_nested_query
as well. What do you think about using that instead of URI.encode_www_form
on the next line? Probably a good idea to use the pair together as they'll likely evolve together as well inside Rack.
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.
Yup, makes a lot of sense to use that same setoff parse/build and switched to the nested version.
|
||
html = hw_paginated_combobox_options [], next_page: 2 | ||
|
||
assert_attrs html, tag_name: "turbo-frame", src: "/foo?ary=1&ary=2&page=2&format=turbo_stream" |
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.
As far as I know, Rails prefers the ary[]=1&ary[]=2...
convention for array/nested params. I believe we get that for free with Rack's build_nested_query
. Are you depending on the ary=1&ary=2
convention instead?
I think to get a passing test using that notation we'd need to unescape the url encoding in the result. Something like:
assert_attrs CGI.unescape(html), tag_name: "turbo-frame", src: "/foo?ary[]=1&ary[]=2&page=2&format=turbo_stream"
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.
switched the test to include []
Excellent! Thanks @jbennett. Going out in the next release. |
URI.decode_www_form
doesn’t support arrays butRack::Utils.parse_query
does. I'm passing a list of IDs to exclude which currently is reduced to only the final value:This also addresses issue #211