Make isFQDN more strict
#1180
Make isFQDN more strict
#1180
Conversation
| { allow_numeric_tld: true, require_tld: false }, | ||
| ], | ||
| valid: [ | ||
| 'example.0', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why would example.0 be a valid FQDN? 🤔 And even .9999, is there anything I'm not understanding...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @profnandaa ! Thanks for the quick response.
Why would
example.0be a valid FQDN? And even .9999, is there anything I'm not understanding...
In this test case, allow_numeric_tld is true and require_tld is false, this mimics the current behavior of isFQDN when require_tld is false. In that way, isFQDN will allow numeric TLDs.
I think this solution make sense and doesn't complicate the implementation of isFQDN.
Other options?
The RFC 3696 mentions two ways to validate the TLD:
One is by polling the list published by IANA DomainList and validate against it. However, based on the comment in #704:
Ideally the validator would check TLDs against a list of known values, however the addition of gTLDs mean that the list would be long and ever-growing. I'm not interested in bloating the library or keeping the list up to date.
Since we don't want to keep that list up today, the second option is to validate that the TLD name is not all-numeric.
Does it make sense?
Note:
I think we could avoid the parameter allow_numeric_tld and always require that the TLD is not all-numeric. What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It makes sense to me @profnandaa.
After checking on comments and some research online, I agree with the changes.
|
@CristhianMotoche -- just fix the merge conflicts and we should get this in, thanks! |
profnandaa
added
the
mc-to-land
|
Sorry for the late reply. Sure thing @profnandaa I'll do it later today. |
|
Hey @profnandaa I'm really sorry but I think at some point I removed my fork from my repository. 😞 I'll open a new issue. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. |
Hello!
I reviewed the issue described in #704 and I applied the solution suggested there. I think making
isFQDNmore strict is good solution. Nevertheless, there are some discussions about it. I'd like to know your thoughts.Please, let me know if this PR solves #704 🙂