[clients]: inconsitent behaviour w.r.t to default port number in URL

[niklasad1]

The clients act different when parsing the URL/URI whereas:

• HTTP Client - uses url::Url::parse which provides the default port number if missing
• WS Client - uses http::Uri which doesn't provide the default port number if missing but URI: how to distinguish from invalid port vs no port number  hyperium/http#509 blocks us from applying this ourselves because the URL might get rejected if a bad port number such as -99 was entered

The reason why we use http::Uri in the WsClient is because it supports relative URIs that is needed to handle redirections.

[dvdplm]

So this issue implies switching to http::Uri for http clients as well then?

[niklasad1]

Ideally jsonrpsee would provide the default port number if missing but that requires hyperium/http#509 to be fixed.

Thus, I don't know but we could use url and use https://docs.rs/url/2.2.2/url/struct.Url.html#method.port instead of https://docs.rs/url/2.2.2/url/struct.Url.html#method.port_or_known_default for consistent behavior

[dvdplm]

Imo consistency trumps the usefulness of providing a default port.

[niklasad1]

Closed by #545