Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (4898ba2) to head (d7b2a91).
⚠️ Report is 29 commits behind head on master.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##            master      #269    +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%            
==========================================
  Files            1         1            
  Lines          160       260   +100     
  Branches        69       118    +49     
==========================================
+ Hits           160       260   +100     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@blakeembrey what do you think about this tradeoff?

This looks pretty great! I think it's worth the trade-off.

One question, should we just allow all RFC valid values through without encoding? It may differ slightly from encodeURIComponent (haven't checked) but might allow more values to skip encoding altogether without any regression in behavior.

This looks pretty great! I think it's worth the trade-off.

One question, should we just allow all RFC valid values through without encoding? It may differ slightly from encodeURIComponent (haven't checked) but might allow more values to skip encoding altogether without any regression in behavior.

Great idea!

Some cases would have different behaviour

stringifyCookie({ foo: "a=b" })
// before: foo=a%3Db
// after:  foo=a=b

But overall looks like a great win from perf side!

I pushed code accordingly

Hi @blakeembrey

Friendly ping~
Anything I can do to move this PR forward?

There's an existing regex cookieValueRegExp, and the difference is " and , support. Should we use the same regex or do you think those need to be encoded? And if we think they must be encoded, should we change cookieValueRegExp instead to be stricter? Otherwise a custom encoding can still use those values.

Also I'm planning to land this in a new major version to eliminate concerns around breaking changes.

If you want this in the current version I can cherry pick your original commit, just let me know.

There's an existing regex cookieValueRegExp, and the difference is " and , support. Should we use the same regex or do you think those need to be encoded? And if we think they must be encoded, should we change cookieValueRegExp instead to be stricter? Otherwise a custom encoding can still use those values.

In vacuum I would make cookieValueRegExp stricter, but I think you had a spicy issue here haha
#191

so I would keep cookieValueRegExp the same as now to be more permissive for people who need it