Prefer using Uri.parse instead of Uri.http/Uri.https #5834
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Using `Uri.http`/`Uri.https` are *much* more error-prone than using `Uri.parse`, and judging from various StackOverflow questions, quite a number of people either misunderstand how to use them or would have avoided their problem by using `Uri.parse`. Examples: * https://stackoverflow.com/q/66619895/ * https://stackoverflow.com/a/66608366/ * https://stackoverflow.com/q/67535694/ * https://stackoverflow.com/q/67628555/ * https://stackoverflow.com/q/67451865/ IMO, we should advocate using `Uri.parse` when possible, particularly in tutorials, where using `Uri.http`/`Uri.https` directly is a premature optimization.
google-cla
bot
added
the
cla: yes
|
And note that prior to #5202, some of these sites used |
sfshaza2
approved these changes
May 21, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Using
Uri.http/Uri.httpsare much more error-prone than usingUri.parse, and judging from various StackOverflow questions, quitea number of people either misunderstand how to use them or would have
avoided their problem by using
Uri.parse. Examples:IMO, we should advocate using
Uri.parsewhen possible, particularlyin tutorials, where using
Uri.http/Uri.httpsdirectly is apremature optimization.