Allow access to unsanitized file name #800
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
|
Ehm, perhaps, sanitizing double extension away was a mistake in the first place. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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 th
2E3C
e 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hello there! I've come across a situation where I have to save a file with a "double" extension (
*.kepub.epub), and the current implementation of (r *Response) FileName() purposefully breaks that by always callingSanitizeFileName().I propose to provide direct access to an unsanitized file name with the method
RawFileName(). This shouldn't affect compatibility and allows for accessing information similar to URL package'sRawPath,RawQuery, etc.