Add isBase64URL support

[mum-never-proud]

Resolves #1212

[profnandaa]

@mum-never-proud -- BTW, what's the difference between isBase64 and isBase64URL? #1212

[mum-never-proud]

generally, base64 encoded strings are not URL safe as they contain the following characters

+, / that may alter the meaning of the data when passed raw base64Url encoding just replaces those occurrences with -, _ respectively

it also contains = generally its safe

shouldn't it be renamed as isBase64URLSafe?

[mum-never-proud]

@profnandaa pong :P

[profnandaa]

How about if we extended isBase64 with a { urlsafe: true } option? Other than having this as a separate validator 🤔

[mum-never-proud]

yep that works as well, I was just thinking about autocomplete in editors still, I guess your idea is better

thoughts?

cc: @profnandaa

[profnandaa]

What do you mean by autocomplete?

[mum-never-proud]

Autocomplete in editor, editor suggestions while typing the code

[mum-never-proud]

@profnandaa pong

[profnandaa]

@mum-never-proud -- sorry for the late reply. I think auto-complete in this case shouldn't be a big driver for our design...

[mum-never-proud]

@profnandaa since we don't have any other options can we add it as a param like

isBase64(str, urlSafe)

[profnandaa]

how about isBase64(str, { urlSafe: true }), to just follow the convention of (str, configObject).

[mum-never-proud]

@profnandaa done

[profnandaa]

Can resolve the merge conflicts?

[profnandaa]

@mum-never-proud -- ping! Looks like your work with help with the JWT bug #964

[mum-never-proud]

@profnandaa ah sorry i missed the conversation, will resolve the conflict in sometime

[mum-never-proud]

@profnandaa can you review?

and also let me know is there a easy way to check if my changes are into min files

[profnandaa]

The min file is usually rebuilt before publishing, so no worries.