Conditionally allows relative path for `baseUrl` about dio

[AlexV525]

You should write https://example.com/api/ for baseUrl.

[mitryp]

You should write https://example.com/api/ for baseUrl.

The frontend does not necessarily know the full path.
It's not clear to me, why using a relative path isn't allowed.

[AlexV525]

How do the instance be able to make requests if the full path is unavailable?

[mitryp]

Web applications can request the same origin using relative paths.
Take a look at a W3Schools reference
They also suggest to use relative paths when possible

[AlexV525]

Dio won't know your origin unless you define so. It's not a Web application.

Closing as intended and won't fix.

[kuhnroyal]

Not so sure, this may actually be a valid request for Flutter Web platform.

[mitryp]

The problem is not that Dio doesn't know something, but it just stops users from using relative paths with an assert.

You cannot as that it is not a web app, because Dio can indeed be used as a client in a web application.

As for me, it's quite strange to forbid the usage of something that is a part of the specification for no reason, especially when the actual request functionality works and the problem is in an unnecessary assert statement.

Or is there a reason why it is forbidden?

[AlexV525]

Not so sure, this may actually be a valid request for Flutter Web platform.

It could be possible to resolve by Uri.base.resolve(path) specifically on Web.
https://api.flutter.dev/flutter/dart-core/Uri/base.html

However, it's also available when you're setting the baseUrl.

[mitryp]

Yes, if you look at the initial issue, it is possible to bypass the assert using the setter for baseUrl after the BaseOptions is created.

But if it's so, why the asset is there in the first place?

[AlexV525]

You cannot as that it is not a web app, because Dio can indeed be used as a client in a web application.

I have the opposite opinion here. Dio is not in any form, an application. As you declared, it can only be used in a Web application.

As for me, it's quite strange to forbid the usage of something that is a part of the specification for no reason, especially when the actual request functionality works and the problem is in an unnecessary assert statement.

Could you provide a reproducible example that it can run without the assertion?

But if it's so, why the asset is there in the first place?

You can use the blame view to determine when it's been introduced to find out the cause.

[mitryp]

Could you provide a reproducible example that it can run without the assertion?

I created a repo with the minimal reproducible example of both the exception and the supposed behaviour. Its README describes the steps to reproduce both situations.

You can use the blame view to determine when it's been introduced to find out the cause.

diox/#18 has an issue of #1373 connected, but it's still unclear why baseUrl must include the host in the first place.