From: John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondanger@...>
Date: 2007-08-30T01:54:45+09:00
Subject: Re: Bug in URI.parse?


On Aug 29, 2007, at 9:33 AM, Andrew Beers wrote:

> I have looked through the archives for the mailing list, but didn't  
> see
> this issue addressed.  So here goes.
>
>
>
> My local machine is named 3beers-wrk.  I achieved this by putting an
> entry in my local hosts file (since I'm on Windows, this would be in
> \windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts).  However, I have also seen the
> issue below reproduce with a machine whose name is similar, say
> 12345-server.
>
>
>
> Below is a capture of my session with the shell, then with irb:
>
>
>
> H:\>ping 3beers-wrk
>
>
>
> Pinging 3beers-wrk [127.0.0.1] with 32 bytes of data:
>
>
>
> Reply from 127.0.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
>
> Reply from 127.0.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
>
> ...
>
>
>
> H:\>irb
>
>
>
> irb(main):001:0> require 'uri'
>
> => true
>
>
>
> irb(main):002:0> URI.parse("http://3beers-wrk.tsi.lan")
>
> => #<URI::HTTP:0x1612dc0 URL:http://3beers-wrk.tsi.lan>
>
>
>
> irb(main):003:0> URI.parse("http://3beers-wrk")
>
> URI::InvalidURIError: the scheme http does not accept registry part:
> 3beers-wrk (or bad hostname?)
>
>         from
> c:/p4/workgroup-1.0/workgroup-support/ruby/lib/ruby/1.8/uri/ 
> generic.rb:1
> 94:in `initialize'
>
>         from
> c:/p4/workgroup-1.0/workgroup-support/ruby/lib/ruby/1.8/uri/http.rb: 
> 46:i
> n `initialize'
>
>         from
> c:/p4/workgroup-1.0/workgroup-support/ruby/lib/ruby/1.8/uri/ 
> common.rb:48
> 4:in `new'
>
>         from
> c:/p4/workgroup-1.0/workgroup-support/ruby/lib/ruby/1.8/uri/ 
> common.rb:48
> 4:in `parse'
>
>         from (irb):3
>
>         from
> c:/p4/workgroup-1.0/workgroup-support/ruby/lib/ruby/1.8/uri/http.rb:57
>
>
>
> URI.parse() is not properly parsing the non-qualified name 3beers-wrk
> (though it does properly parse a fully-qualified hostname), which  
> seems
> to be in line with the grammar set forth in RFC2396.  However, the RFC
> makes the following comment:  "In practice, however, the host  
> component
> may be a local domain literal" (section 3.2).  This suggests that the
> above URI is entirely valid.  Further, this URI is acceptable to Web
> browsers.
>
>
>
> Is this a bug?  How can I handle this seemingly valid URI?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Andrew
>


Good question!  I've yet to figure out a good way to handle the  
InvalidURI errors myself.
Makes URI.parse pretty useless unless you have a way to handle URI  
class's errors raised.