Closed olevett closed 7 years ago
Hi @olevett - I agree, we could certainly improve the URL expression to include most common formats (including file://, ftp:// etc).
What other examples do you have that you have run into while using this convention?
The specific example I have that got picked up was "blah://"
-> a deliberately invalid string as I was testing some validation logic against, so think in this case it's better for me to opt out of the convention
OK, thanks for the thoughts anyway @olevett, appreciated!
The
MustOnlyContainInformativeCommentsConventionSpecification
is a little bit aggressive, for exampleas well as arbitrary // in strings (that aren't http(s)://) causes the test to fail.
I'm not sure what the best way round this is (maybe something like "if it's within quotes discount it").
I can write up a minimal example of this issue/a test case if that's helpful?