Bug in InputFilter::parse_url()

[helpy (Guido Erlinger)]

there seems to be an error in InputFilter::parse_url()

InputFilter::parse_url() splits the url http://www.helpy.de/ into:
( [scheme] => http
[host] => www.helpy.de
.... )

InputFilter::parse_url() splits the url http://en.helpy.de/ into:
( [scheme] => http
[host] => en
...
[path] => .helpy.de
... )

Does somebody can confirm this?

This is probably the reason,
why multisite feature does not work for me!

cu,
guido

[Colin]

Hi Guido

Indeed there is/was a bug in InputFilter::parse_url() -
http://trac.habariproject.org/habari/ticket/537

I believe it's now resolved in the SVN code.

Try the latest SVN code and see if that helps.

Cheers,
Colin

(Note to self: I must update my multisites code to test these recent
changes as I did log the bug originally ;-) ).

--
Colin Seymour
Blog: http://www.colinseymour.co.uk
Tech Stuff: http://www.lildude.co.uk

[helpy (Guido Erlinger)]

Hi Colin,

Colin wrote:
>
> Indeed there is/was a bug in InputFilter::parse_url() -
> http://trac.habariproject.org/habari/ticket/537
>
> I believe it's now resolved in the SVN code.
>
> Try the latest SVN code and see if that helps.

I tested this on the last SVN version !!!

Greetings from Germany,
Guido

[Guido Erlinger]

Hi Colin,

Colin wrote:
>
> Indeed there is/was a bug in InputFilter::parse_url() -
> http://trac.habariproject.org/habari/ticket/537
>
> I believe it's now resolved in the SVN code.
>
> Try the latest SVN code and see if that helps.

OK! Like I said in my previous mail, it is not solved!
The result if InputFilter::parse_url() which I posted in my forst
mail, is the result of the current svn version.

My workaround, which works for me, is the use of the PHP function
parse_url() ... I just changed the the code of
InputFilter::parse_url() in the way, that the results of
preg_match_all() is replaced by the values of the php function
parse_url().

cu, guido

[Colin]

Good to hear you got a workaround - it's the one I resorted to when I
first encountered the problem. I guess that explains why the ticket is
still open. You may want to add a comment to it to let the relevant
parties know your usage scenario that still doesn't work.

[helpy (Guido Erlinger)]

Colin wrote:
>
> Good to hear you got a workaround - it's the one I resorted to when I
> first encountered the problem. I guess that explains why the ticket is
> still open. You may want to add a comment to it to let the relevant
> parties know your usage scenario that still doesn't work.

Thank you for all your help!

I added an comment to ticket 537:

https://trac.habariproject.org/habari/ticket/537#comment:19