Update the email regex to allow dashes in domain names when subdomains are present #2224
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
…s are present The regex can parse tom@test.test.com now but not tom@test.te-st.com.
✅ Deploy Preview for guileless-rolypoly-866f8a ready!Built without sensitive environment variables
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings. |
|
Hey @colinhacks, would really appreciate it if this could be merged soon! 🙏 The current regex is failing for a lot of valid email addresses and this PR seems like an uncontroversial quick fix before any larger changes discussed in #2157. |
ewen-lbh
added a commit
to inp-net/loca7
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 24, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hi, as of current, tom@test.test.com passes the email validation regex but tom@test.te-st.com doesn't.
This PR fixes that.
I see you already have #2157 going so maybe this PR is not all that needed. I will comment on that PR, too. But I had to figure this regex out to make it work for my usecase (where I will switch to using
.regex) so I figured I'd share my finding anyway and if there's no interest in changing the regex at this point, no hard feelings.