Repository navigation
Punycode fails for Russian(Cyrillic) #8691
Description
Activity
Just to add the info from #4640:
Test:
parallel/test-punycode.js:Comment:
// (I) Russian (Cyrillic) /* XXX disabled, fails - possibly a bug in the RFC 'b1abfaaepdrnnbgefbaDotcwatmq2g4l': '\u043F\u043E\u0447\u0435\u043C\u0443\u0436\u0435\u043E\u043D\u0438' +The comment was actually added in 10d4bd8 (but the file was moved in 0e19476).
I think the original issue for this was: nodejs/node-v0.x-archive#2072
cc/ @bnoordhuis as the original comment author.
This comment suggests the error was a typo: nodejs/node-v0.x-archive#2072 (comment)
We have recently switched the punycode implementation to use the one provided by the ICU module by default. It is possible that whatever the original issue was here, it may be resolved. I'll see about testing it later on today.
It was a bug in the spec's test suite. The fix is trivial, the capital D in the input should be lower-cased.
diff --git a/test/parallel/test-punycode.js b/test/parallel/test-punycode.js index 4292754..abd495e 100644 --- a/test/parallel/test-punycode.js +++ b/test/parallel/test-punycode.js @@ -62,12 +62,10 @@ var tests = { '\uC744\uAE4C', // (I) Russian (Cyrillic) - /* XXX disabled, fails - possibly a bug in the RFC - 'b1abfaaepdrnnbgefbaDotcwatmq2g4l': + 'b1abfaaepdrnnbgefbadotcwatmq2g4l': '\u043F\u043E\u0447\u0435\u043C\u0443\u0436\u0435\u043E\u043D\u0438' + '\u043D\u0435\u0433\u043E\u0432\u043E\u0440\u044F\u0442\u043F\u043E' + '\u0440\u0443\u0441\u0441\u043A\u0438', - */ // (J) Spanish: Porqu<eacute>nopuedensimplementehablarenEspa<ntilde>ol 'PorqunopuedensimplementehablarenEspaol-fmd56a':
Reacted by James M Snell, Gibson Fahnestock and Alfred Jeremy Cepeda- added a commit that references this issue
on Sep 23, 2016 - added a commit that references this issue
on Oct 11, 2016 - added a commit that references this issue
on Nov 18, 2016
REF #4640
There's a portion of the test that's commented out because it fails, it was done in
0e1947610d4bd8. The comment suggests there's a bug in the RFC.Is this something that can be fixed? Or should that portion be deleted?