Closed yahesh closed 2 months ago
You can do it like this:
$ trurl example.com --set query:=name=moo
http://example.com/?name=moo
You can do it like this:
$ trurl example.com --set query:=name=moo http://example.com/?name=moo
But this will replace the whole query string instead of just setting the specific query parameter:
% trurl "https://localhost?name1=value1&name2=value2" --set query:=name1=newvalue
https://localhost/?name1=newvalue
From a consistency perspective I'd expect something like:
% trurl "https://localhost?name1=value1&name2=value2" --get "{query:name1}"
value1
% trurl "https://localhost?name1=value1&name2=value2" --set "query:name1=newvalue"
https://localhost/?name1=newvalue&name2=value2
Ah, thanks, now I understand what you meant!
This is what --replace
does, is it not?
$ trurl "https://localhost?name1=value1&name2=value2" --replace name1=moo
https://localhost/?name1=moo&name2=value2
This is what
--replace
does, is it not?
Yes, or --force-replace
. However, as a user, I'd expect --set "query:$NAME=$VALUE"
to work as well, which would syntactically be more in line with how the content of all other components is replaced (especially as there is no query-specific option to get named query parameters either, instead --get
is used for this like for all other components).
This issue is more about syntactical consistency than available functionality.
I'm not sure such strict consistency is worth fighting for.
--set "query:$NAME=$VALUE"
would then need to do either --replace
or --force-replace
so we would have to invent another little tweak for the alternative.
--replace
only replaces a query name that is already used in the URL, while --force-replace
will replace it or if not existing already - add it.
--set "query:$NAME=$VALUE"
would then need to do either--replace
or--force-replace
so we would have to invent another little tweak for the alternative.
I don't agree here. I'd personally expect --set
to always set a given value (equal to --force-replace
) even if it is not yet available. This would be equivalent to the handling of the port number for schemes that are unknown (which also happens to work like --force-replace
).
% trurl "unknown://localhost" --get "{query:name}"
% trurl "unknown://localhost" --set "query:name=value"
unknown://localhost/?name=value
would then behave identically to
% trurl "unknown://localhost" --get "{port}"
% trurl "unknown://localhost" --set "port=123"
unknown://localhost:123/
This would allow --force-replace
to be deprecated as it is currently only used for this one case and e.g. doesn't properly support multiple query parameters and instead produces unexpected results like this:
trurl "unknown://localhost?name1=value1&name2=value2" --force-replace "name1=newvalue1&name2=newvalue2"
unknown://localhost/?name1=newvalue1&name2=newvalue2&name2=value2
I think --force-replace
is a bit ugly, and probably needs better docs around how to use it. it should handle something like that last example in some way. I wonder if instead it should be handled by --replace
and do something like --replace thing!=newval
where the !
is like vi force operator -- though this is confusing because != looks a lot more like not equals than force equals, so maybe a different symbol should be use.
Having --set
replace the whole query makes sense though, because you are setting the query not a parameter. --set
can work as you've descrived for ports and schemes because there can only be one. If I had a bunch of urls with a bunch of arbitrary queries (for example something.com/foo=fum&query=string&anotherquery)
and i wanted it to only be foo=bar
how would you recommend this happens? With your proposal I only see it working by using --trim
to remove the other queries (and if they are arbitrary queries that becomes a pretty challenging problem).
I suppose we could have --set
take a special character for replacing queries but we are going to quickly run out of special characters if we try to have every operation covered in --set
Having
--set
replace the whole query makes sense though, because you are setting the query not a parameter.--set
can work as you've descrived for ports and schemes because there can only be one. If I had a bunch of urls with a bunch of arbitrary queries (for examplesomething.com/foo=fum&query=string&anotherquery)
and i wanted it to only befoo=bar
how would you recommend this happens? With your proposal I only see it working by using--trim
to remove the other queries (and if they are arbitrary queries that becomes a pretty challenging problem).
I don't talk about taking the possibility away to replace the whole query via --set "query:=foo=bar"
which is the counterpart to --get "{query}"
. I talk about --set "query:foo=bar"
(or --set "query:foo:=bar"
) being the counterpart to --get "{query:foo}"
(or --get "{:query:foo}"
).
Right, but if we have --set "query:foo=bar
be the counterpart to --get "{query:foo}"
where it only does operations on the specified query parameter how would we replace the whole query?
Right, but if we have
--set "query:foo=bar
be the counterpart to--get "{query:foo}"
where it only does operations on the specified query parameter how would we replace the whole query?
Via --set "query:=foo=bar"
(or --set "query=foo=bar"
) just like now?
These are different syntaxes.
[component] = [data] // sets the whole [component] and URL-encodes [data]
[component] := [data] // sets the whole [component] and does not URL-encode [data]
[component]:[key] = [data] // sets a specific [key] of [component] and URL-encodes [data]
[component]:[key] := [data] // sets a specific [key] of [component] and does not URL-encode [data]
The same already holds true for the get option:
{[component]} // gets the whole [component] and URL-decodes [data]
{:[component]} // gets the whole [component] and does not URL-decode [data]
{[component]:[key]} // gets a specific [key] of [component] and URL-decodes [data]
{:[component]:[key]} // gets a specific [key] of [component] and does not URL-decode [data]
Oh sorry, I misread --set "query:foo=bar"
and kept reading it as --set "query:=foo=bar"
. I understand what you are saying now.
I would not be against if someone adds support for setting a specific query pair with --set
as described here, but I am not going to push for it myself right now. Primarily because the functionality already exists even if the usability of it perhaps could be improved.
While
--get "{query:$NAME}"
is valid syntax,--set "query:$NAME=$VALUE"
is not. This is somewhat unintuitive. Instead, you have to use--force-replace "$NAME=$VALUE"
which does the same thing as--set
for all other URL components.