GeezerVison

@jasnell Are we compatible with https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#urlsearchparams?

@thefourtheye, pretty much. The only (minor) things that are yet to be done to accomplish full spec compliance are

• Enumerability of prototype properties (filed as url: make URLSearchParams properties spec-compliant #10799)
• Order of serialized URL params in case of duplicates (fixed in More URLSearchParams improvements #10399)
• Fully spec-compliant serialization (test case)
• Fully spec-compliant parsing for & (url: Improve WHATWG URLSearchParams spec compliance #9484 (comment))

For the last two bullet points, I have a local branch that fixes them, but have not submitted yet pending this PR and #10399.

@TimothyGu That's a great summary :-) Thanks :-)

Can we expose this once we are spec compliant? Also, this needs documentation changes as well.

@thefourtheye, the documentation is already written by @jasnell in #10620.

I also just noticed #10635, which means that to bring the current implementation to 100% compliance with the most current spec we'll also need to change a few more things in the constructor.

Let's put a hold on this for the time being then.

@thefourtheye There is a GitHub project tracking the WHATWG URL implementation: https://github.com/nodejs/node/projects/5 (the columns these issues/PRs are placed are shown in the sidebar of issue/PR page, below the labels)

btw, @TimothyGu, @joyeecheung and @targos ... I really must thank the three of you for the work that you've each put in on improvinng the URL implementation. I really do appreciate the help!

I am not really against this change. But once we expose this, people might come and say this doesn't work as it does in browsers. Thats why I just want to make sure we are spec complaint before exposing.

@thefourtheye I am +1 about getting URLSearchParams spec compliant first before exposing it. So if I understand correctly this PR is blocked by #10399?

Keep in mind that this code is all still considered Experimental. It's better if it were completely spec compliant but that shouldn't be a blocker. Also keep in mind that the spec evolves quickly. There's always going to be a possibility that bits are out of spec given how the spec itself evolves over time.

CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/5980/

Landed by mistake without metadata in 326e967. Sorry about that.