Unsafe parsing of URLs

• Version: 0.10.36
• Platform: Mac OS X
• Subsystem: url.parse

Some cases in which I would expect url.parse to behave differently:

IPv4 address

url.parse('1.2.3.4') = {
  protocol: null,
  slashes: null,
  auth: null,
  host: null,
  port: null,
  hostname: null,  // <- should be 1.2.3.4
  hash: null,
  search: null,
  query: null,
  pathname: '1.2.3.4', // <- no pathname
  path: '1.2.3.4', // <- no path
  href: '1.2.3.4'
}

IPv4 address with port

url.parse('1.2.3.4:8080') = {
  protocol: '1.2.3.4:',
  slashes: null,
  auth: null,
  host: '8080', // host is 1.2.3.4 not 8080
  port: null, // no port
  hostname: '8080', // host is 1.2.3.4 not 8080
  hash: null,
  search: null,
  query: null,
  pathname: null,
  path: null,
  href: '1.2.3.4:8080'
}

IPv6 address

url.parse('::1') = {
  protocol: null,
  slashes: null,
  auth: null,
  host: null, // should be ::1
  port: null,
  hostname: null, // should be ::1
  hash: null,
  search: null,
  query: null,
  pathname: '::1', // no pathname
  path: '::1', // no path
  href: '::1'
}

IPv6 address with port

url.parse('::1:8080') = {
  protocol: null,
  slashes: null,
  auth: null,
  host: null, // should be ::1
  port: null, // should be 8080
  hostname: null, // should be ::1
  hash: null,
  search: null,
  query: null,
  pathname: '::1:8080', // no pathname
  path: '::1:8080', // no path
  href: '::1:8080'
}

Hostname

url.parse('asdf.com') = {
  protocol: null,
  slashes: null,
  auth: null,
  host: null, // should be asdf.com
  port: null,
  hostname: null, // should be asdf.com
  hash: null,
  search: null,
  query: null,
  pathname: 'asdf.com', // no pathname
  path: 'asdf.com', // no path
  href: 'asdf.com'
}

Hostname with port

url.parse('asdf.com:8080') = {
  protocol: 'asdf.com:',
  slashes: null,
  auth: null,
  host: '8080',
  port: null,
  hostname: '8080',
  hash: null,
  search: null,
  query: null,
  pathname: null,
  path: null,
  href: 'asdf.com:8080'
}

[jasnell]

Yes, there are a number of known issues with the algorithm in url.parse(). It's unlikely that those are going to get fully resolved, however. There is another effort to introduce a new, more robust URL parser that is based on the WHATWG URL Parsing spec that should hopefully be introduced as an experimental feature in the near future.

In short, if you omit auth (e.g: user:pass@) or the protocol (protocol://) it doesn't work correctly.

As a workaround I am going to use https://github.com/jsdom/whatwg-url

[bnoordhuis]

It's simpler than that. Without a protocol: prefix, url.parse cannot know whether the input is a URL or a file path and it will conservatively assume the latter.

[lpinca]

In the browser you'll get an error with those URLs if you don't provide a base URL:

> new URL('1.2.3.4');
Uncaught TypeError: Failed to construct 'URL': Invalid URL(…)

@bnoordhuis: no.

If you do:

url.parse('user:pass@hostname.com') = {
  protocol: 'user:',
  slashes: null,
  auth: 'pass',
  host: 'hostname.com',
  port: null,
  hostname: 'hostname.com',
  hash: null,
  search: null,
  query: null,
  pathname: null,
  path: null,
  href: 'user:pass@hostname.com'
}

It is parsed differently, and there's still an absence of protocol: prefix.
This is what I said.

[lpinca]

user: is the protocol.

user: is not the protocol, it is part of the authentication segment of the URI delimited by @.
In this case it is being recognized as the protocol, but that behavior is not correct.

url.parse should put user:pass as the value for auth.

[bnoordhuis]

You misunderstand @lpinca. user: is the protocol, it's right there in the output. :-) Try prefixing it with e.g. ftp:// - only then does it get parsed as an auth section.

[gibfahn]

@arboreal84 If you're willing to create a PR to update this info in the documentation so that other people don't run into the same issue then that'd be great!

[ChALkeR]

@arboreal84 The current url implementation has some inconsistencies and will be likely replaced (complemented) with a browser-compatible WHATWG URL implementation: nodejs/node-eps#28.

That said, note that most of your examples are in fact behaving exactly as they should and are consistent with WHATWG URL or are not valid URLs at all and should fail in WHATWG URL.

For example, if user:pass@hostname.com is treated as a URL, user: is the protocol.
I.e., in browsers:

> new URL('user:pass@hostname.com')
URL {
  hash: ""
  host: ""
  hostname: ""
  href: "user:pass@hostname.com"
  origin: "user://"
  password: ""
  pathname: "pass@hostname.com"
  port: ""
  protocol: "user:"
  search: ""
  searchParams: URLSearchParams
  username: ""
  __proto__: URL
}

You should consult URL specification probably.

[ChALkeR]

More specifically, per spec:

• 1.2.3.4 — not an URL.
• 1.2.3.4:8080 — not an URL.
• ::1 — not an URL.
• ::1:8080 — not an URL.
• asdf.com — not an URL.
• asdf.com:8080 — URL, protocol: asdf.com:.
• user:pass@hostname.com — URL, protocol: user:.

[silverwind]

Yep, the protocol is pretty much mandatory for parsing URLs with either the url or whatwg-url modules. If you want to parse protocoll-less strings, prepend and remove the protocol yourself or use something like url-parse-lax.