Fix #1804: remove <!doctype html> and accept invalid HTML #1851
Conversation
This file contains 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
This fixes #1804 in two ways: First, it removes a <!doctype html> from the start of the mail, if there is any. Then, it parses the html itself it quick-xml fails, just stripping everything between < and >. Both of these would have fixed this specific issue. Also, add tests for both fixes.
link2xt
approved these changes
Aug 19, 2020
|
Tests fail |
|
would be interesting if remote_tests_rust (merged to master) would now pass. |
Hocuri
force-pushed
the
fix-wrong-html-parsing
branch
from
a313c2b
to
477c46c
Compare
|
Yes, all the tests pass now. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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 the 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This fixes #1804 in two ways: First, it removes a <!doctype html> from
the start of the mail, if there is any.
Then, it parses the html itself it quick-xml fails, just stripping
everything between < and >.
Both of these would have fixed this specific issue, but they are probably both useful for similar issues.
Also, add tests for both fixes.