Skip to content

refactor: avoid deprecated api #1436

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

refactor: avoid deprecated api #1436

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
4970fb5
refactor: avoid deprecated api
danielpeintner Oct 7, 2025
31d782b
refactor: use same ipv6 localhost
danielpeintner Oct 13, 2025
6c4396a
refactor: use :: for localhost
danielpeintner Oct 13, 2025
fb53645
chore: similar to issue 1138 ?
danielpeintner Oct 13, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion eslint.config.mjs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ export default defineConfig([

"n/no-unsupported-features/node-builtins": "off", // https://github.com/eclipse-thingweb/node-wot/issues/1430
"n/no-extraneous-import": "off", // https://github.com/eclipse-thingweb/node-wot/issues/1430
"n/no-deprecated-api": "off", // https://github.com/eclipse-thingweb/node-wot/issues/1430
"n/no-deprecated-api": "error",
"n/no-unpublished-import": "off", // https://github.com/eclipse-thingweb/node-wot/issues/1430
"n/no-process-exit": "off", // https://github.com/eclipse-thingweb/node-wot/issues/1430
"n/hashbang": "warn",
Expand Down
7 changes: 5 additions & 2 deletions packages/binding-coap/src/coap-client.ts
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ export default class CoapClient implements ProtocolClient {
public setSecurity = (metadata: Array<SecurityScheme>): boolean => true;

private uriToOptions(uri: string): CoapRequestParams {
const requestUri = url.parse(uri);
const requestUri = new url.URL(uri);
const agentOptions = this.agentOptions;
agentOptions.type = net.isIPv6(requestUri.hostname ?? "") ? "udp6" : "udp4";
this.agent = new Agent(agentOptions);
Expand All @@ -219,7 +219,10 @@ export default class CoapClient implements ProtocolClient {
hostname: requestUri.hostname ?? "",
port: requestUri.port != null ? parseInt(requestUri.port, 10) : 5683,
pathname: requestUri.pathname ?? "",
query: requestUri.query ?? "",
query:
requestUri.search && requestUri.search.length > 0 && requestUri.search[0] === "?"
? requestUri.search.substring(1)
: "",
Comment on lines +222 to +225
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It is a bit clumsy since requestUri.search has a leading ? while the old requestUri.query did not have it

?v=6xJ
vs
v=6xJ

@JKRhb please have a look

Copy link
Member

@JKRhb JKRhb Oct 13, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think I ran into similar problems a lot time ago, also in node-coap :/ Unfortunately, the URL API is really awful IIRC, both when it comes to query parameters and handling IPv6 addresses. In some aspects, it is also not compliant with RFC 3986 if I am not mistaken, which is one reason I didn't transition to the URL API back in the day.

If I hopefully find the time, I will take a closer look at this PR later this week

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I just saw that the goals of the "URL standard" include the following:

Align RFC 3986 and RFC 3987 with contemporary implementations and obsolete the RFCs in the process.

That contributes to quite a frustrating experience when working with "proper" URIs using this API. Therefore, we might need to consider using a different implementation here instead (maybe fast-uri by fastify). Although I am not very happy about that, as I would usually prefer to use the standardized API (if it was actually usable ☹️).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I mean, if we fail to use the new libraries, we should stick with what we have...

observe: false,
multicast: false,
confirmable: true,
Expand Down
Loading